JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 1. Both the writ petitions are having the common issues as has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and, as such, being taken up together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. W.P(C)No. 925 of 2025 2. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs: “For issuance of an appropriate Writ(s)/Order (s) /Direction(s), particularly a writ of Certiorari for quashing/setting aside the letter No. 130 dated 25.01.2025 (Annexure-15) issued by the District Mining Officer, Chatra whereby and where under the petitioner has been directed to stop the mining activities over the leasehold area in terms of Rule 34(A)(2) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2004 and has further issued show cause upon the petitioner to submit its reply within 30 days under Rule 22(5) and 27(2) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2004 for termination of the mining lease deed of petitioner situated at situated in Mouza- Mishraul, Khata No.26, 12, 33 and 01, Plot No.214 (P), 245, 243, 250(P).;” 3. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petition needs to refer herein which reads as under: (i) Mining Lease dated 14.11.2015 was executed in favour of M/s Maa Suruchi Stone Works for the lease hold land pertaining to Mauza Mishraul, Thana Sadar, Khata No. 12, Khesra No. 237, total area 1.69 acres for the period of 10 years. (ii) M/s Maa Suruchi Stone Works applied before Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board for grant of Consent to Establish (CTE) which was granted to the lessee vide CTE Reference No.CTE/HZR/670020 dated 22.04.2016, consequently, consent to Operate (CTO) was also granted M/s Maa Suruchi Stone Works by the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board vide letter reference no. ???-7683676/2020/44 dated 25.03.2020 for an Area of 1.09 Hectares in Khata No. 11, 12 and 16 pertaining to plot no. 241, 237 and 242 for the period up to 31.03.2024. (iii) The petitioner applied for the Environmental Clearance before the concerned authority for the proposed project "Mishraul Stone Mine" and the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Jharkhand vide letter No. 540 dated09.10.2019 granted Environmental Clearance to the petitioner. 241, 237 and 242 for the period up to 31.03.2024. (iii) The petitioner applied for the Environmental Clearance before the concerned authority for the proposed project "Mishraul Stone Mine" and the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Jharkhand vide letter No. 540 dated09.10.2019 granted Environmental Clearance to the petitioner. (iv) Thereafter, M/s Maa Suruchi Stone Works had entered into a Mining Lease dated 19.10.2019 with the State of Jharkhand for an adjoining plot of land pertaining to Muza Mishraul, Thana No. 271, Thana Sadar, Khata No. 26, 12, 33, 01, Khesra No. 214(P), 245, 243, 250(P) for a total area of 3.58 acres for the period of 10 years. (v) Further, M/s Maa Suruchi Stone Works applied before Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board for grant of Consent to Establish (CTE) which was granted to the lessee vide CTE Reference No. JSPCB/HO/RNC/CTE-6780873/2019/696 dated 25.12.2019 for an area of 3.58 Acres pertaining to Khata No. 01, 12, 26, 33, Plot No. 250(P), 245, 214(P), 243. (vi) M/s Suruchi Stone Works vide letter dated 03.11.2020 requested the District Mining Officer, Chatra to pass an order regarding the surrender of mining lease dated 14.11.2015 issued in favour of petitioner pertaining to Khata No. 12, Plot No. 237 admeasuring 1.69 Acres. (vii) The District Mining Officer, Chatra vide letter no. 301 dated10.03.2022 directed M/s Maa Suruchi Stone Works to deposit the amount of Rs. 11,61,615/- as additional royalty in terms of Rule 44 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2004 for excess mineral to the tune of 29,56,251 cft. Stone excavated from the Khata No. 12, Plot No. 237, within the period of 15 days and thereupon, the request for surrender of lease deed would be considered. (viii) Thereafter, the District Mining Officer, Chatra vide letter no.485 dated 10.05.2023 directed M/s Maa Suruchi Stone Works to deposit the amount of Rs. 2,03,59,439/- as additional royalty in terms of Rule 44 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2004 for the excess mining of 54,43,700 cft stone from the leasehold area pertaining to Khata No. 01, 12, 26, 33, Plot No. 250(P), 245, 214(P), 243. 2,03,59,439/- as additional royalty in terms of Rule 44 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2004 for the excess mining of 54,43,700 cft stone from the leasehold area pertaining to Khata No. 01, 12, 26, 33, Plot No. 250(P), 245, 214(P), 243. (ix) The said demand was raised by the District Mining Officer without issuing any notice in terms of provision contained in Rule 44 of JMMCR, 2004, however, amidst the threat of termination of mining lease granted to M/s Maa Suruchi Stone Works and under compelling circumstances, M/s Maa Suruchi Stone Works had to make the aforesaid payment as mentioned in the demand notice dated 10.05.2023. M/s Maa Suruchi Stone Works will file separate writ petition for refund of the amount to the tune of Rs. 2,03,59,439/- paid by the petitioner under eminent threat and duress to the respondents. (x) Thereafter, M/s Maa Suruchi Stone Works deposited the additional royalty amount and the fine imposed before the authority concerned. (xi) Further, M/s Maa Suruchi Stone Works vide letter dated19.04.2023 submitted the Mine Closure plan for Mishraul Stone Mine situated in Khata No. 12, Plot No. 237 admeasuring 1.69 Acres. (xii) The District Mining Officer, Chatra vide letter no. 283 dated16.03.2024 informed M/s Maa Suruchi Stone Works that in terms of Rule 26 of the JHARKHAND MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES , 2004, the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra vide order dated 01.02.2024 has granted approval for surrender of mining lease dated 14.11.2015 pertaining to Khata No. 12, Plot No. 237 admeasuring 1.69 Acres. (xiii) Petitioner had applied for a transfer of the mining lease dated19.10.2019 issued in favour of M/s Maa Suruchi Stone Works pertaining to Khata No. 26, 12, 33 and 01, Plot No. 214(P), 245, 243 and 250 (P) admeasuring 3.58 Acres. The District Mining Officer, Chatra vide Letter No. 890 dated 16.08.2024 informed the petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra vide order dated 12.07.2024 has granted approval for transfer of aforesaid mining lease in favour of the petitioner. (xiv) The mining lease dated 25.09.2024 was executed between the petitioner and State of Jharkhand for the land pertaining to Khata No. 26, 12, 33 and 01, Plot No. 214(P), 245, 243 and 250 (P)admeasuring 3.58 Acres. (xv) Petitioner applied for transfer of the Environmental Clearance granted to M/s Maa Suruchi Stone Works. Accordingly, the State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority, Jharkhand vide letter no. (xv) Petitioner applied for transfer of the Environmental Clearance granted to M/s Maa Suruchi Stone Works. Accordingly, the State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority, Jharkhand vide letter no. 433 dated 09.12.2024 transferred the Environmental Clearance in favor of the petitioner. (xvi) Petitioner has duly paid the royalty amount for the excavated minerals from the leasehold area. The petitioner has also submitted monthly reports in the prescribed Form 'K' for the quantity of minerals produced and dispatched from the leasehold area. (xvii) District Mining Officer, Chatra vide letter no. 1341 dated18.12.2024 informed the petitioner that the physical inspection of the leasehold area has been scheduled on 23.12.2024 and further directed the petitioner to produce the relevant documents i.e. EC, ???, ???/ Lease Deed at the time of inspection. (xviii) District Mining Officer and Mines Inspector visited the mining leasehold area of the petitioner on 23.12.2024. The authorized representative of the petitioner produced the relevant documents before the aforesaid authorities and after being satisfied with the documents, the inspection team left the leasehold area without reporting any discrepancies/objection to the petitioner. (xix) Further, the District Mining Officer, Chatra vide letter No. 125 dated 25.01.2025 directed the petitioner to make the payment of Rs.13,15,165/-in terms of Rule-44 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2004 for excess production/dispatch of 2,62,288 cft. Stone from the leasehold area of the petitioner situated in Mouza- Mishraul, Khata No. 26, 12, 33 and 01, Plot No. 214 (P), 245, 243, 250(P) admeasuring area 3.58 Acres, within the period of 30 days failing which appropriate proceeding would be initiated for recovery of the amount. The petitioner intends to challenge the aforesaid letter no. 125 dated25.01.2025 by filing separate writ petition before this Court. (xx) The District Mining Officer, Chatra further vide letter no. 126 dated 25.01.2025 has imposed penalty upon the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 09,41,92,446/- under Rule 54 (6) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2004 for illegal mining of stones over 49,814 square feet which is outside the leasehold area of the petitioner and further directed the petitioner to deposit the said amount within the period of 30 days, failing which appropriate proceeding would be initiated for recovery of the amount. The petitioner intends to challenge the said letter no.126 dated 25.01.2025 by filing separate writ petition before this Court. The petitioner intends to challenge the said letter no.126 dated 25.01.2025 by filing separate writ petition before this Court. (xxi) The aforesaid demand letter no.125 dated 25.01.2025 issued by the respondent no.4 is based on the inspection report submitted the Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of Additional Collector, Chatra. It would be evident from the letter no. 125 dated 25.01.2025 that the leasehold area of petitioner was inspected/ measured on 24.12.2024, 26.12.2024 and 14.01.2025 by the District Mining Officer, Chatra and Mines Inspector, Chatra. However, the petitioner neither received any prior notice about the said inspection nor the inspections were conducted in presence of the authorized representative of the petitioner. The so-called Inspection report prepared by the Committee which has been relied upon the respondent no.4 while issuing the impugned demand letter no. 125 dated 25.01.2025 has never been served upon the petitioner by the respondent authorities prior to the issuance of the impugned letter. (xxii) The District Mining Officer, Chatra vide letter no. 130 dated25.01.2025 has directed the petitioner to stop the mining activities over the leasehold area in terms of Rule 34(A)(2) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2004 and has further issued show cause upon the petitioner to submit its reply within 30 days under Rule 22(5) and 27(2) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2004 for premature termination of the mining lease deed of petitioner. (xxiii)The Circle Officer, Chatra vide letter no. 11 dated 06.01.2025 informed the Additional Collector, Chatra that mining activities are being carried out over the adjoining plots of land admeasuring 3.58 Acres which is outside the leasehold area of the petitioner. (xxiv) The inspection and measurement of plots of land was conducted by the Circle Amin, Chatra on 06.01.2025 without giving any notice upon the petitioner and in absence of the authorized signatory of the petitioner. 4. The respondents did not serve the copy of the inspection/ measurement report to the petitioner prior to issuance of the demand letter no. 126 dated 25.01.2025. 5. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition for quashing and setting aside the impugned show cause notice dated 25.01.2025 contained in letter no.130 (Annexure-15). W.P(C)No. 1059 of 2025 6. 126 dated 25.01.2025. 5. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition for quashing and setting aside the impugned show cause notice dated 25.01.2025 contained in letter no.130 (Annexure-15). W.P(C)No. 1059 of 2025 6. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs: “For issuance of an appropriate Writ(s)/Order (s) /Direction(s), particularly a writ of Certiorari for quashing/setting aside the letter No. 128 dated 25.01.2025 (Annexure-8) issued by the District Mining Officer, Chatra whereby and where under the petitioner has been directed to stop the mining activities over the leasehold area in terms of Rule 34(A) (2) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2004 and has further issued show cause upon the petitioner to submit its reply within 30 days under Rule 22(5) and 27(2) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2004 for termination of the mining lease deed of petitioner over an area of 1.72 Acres land situated at Mouza-Chataniyan, Khata No. 11, Plot No. 39.” 7. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petition needs to refer herein which reads as under: (i) The petitioner is a private Limited Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and its Directors/Shareholders are the citizens of India. (ii) Petitioner being the prospective applicant for grant of mining lease, applied for the Environmental Clearance before the concerned authority for the proposed project "Chatania Stone Mine" and the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Jharkhand vide letter No. 48 dated 15.07.2021 granted Environmental Clearance to the petitioner. (iii) The Mining Lease dated 04.09.2021 was executed in favour of the petitioner for mining of stone boulder for the period of 10 years i.e. till 02.09.2031 over an area of 1.72 Acres land situated at Mouza- Chataniyan, Khata No. 11, Plot No. 39. (iv) The petitioner applied before Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board for grant of Consent to Establish (CTE) which was granted to the petitioner vide CTE Reference No.298 dated 05.11.2021 and consequently Consent to Operate (CTO) was also granted to the petitioner. Further, the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board vide letter dated 16.12.2023 granted Consent to Operate to the lessee for an Area of 1.72 acres with the production limit of 9302 cum per year for the period up to 30.11.2025. Further, the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board vide letter dated 16.12.2023 granted Consent to Operate to the lessee for an Area of 1.72 acres with the production limit of 9302 cum per year for the period up to 30.11.2025. (v) The petitioner has been carrying out the mining activities in terms of the lease without any violation of statutory Regulation /Rules. (vi) The District Mining Officer, Chatra vide letter no. 492 dated10.05.2023 directed the petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs. 1,10,56,378/- as additional royalty in terms of Rule 44 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2004 for transportation of 29,56,251 cft. Stone without e-transportation challan, within the period of 30 days failing which the mining lease in favour of the petitioner would be terminated. The said demand was raised by the District Mining Officer without issuing any notice in terms of provision contained in Rule 44 of JMMCR, 2004, however, amidst the threat of termination of mining lease granted to the petitioner and under compelling circumstances, the petitioner had to make the payment of Rs. 1,10,56,378/- as mentioned in the demand notice dated 10.05.2023. The petitioner reserves its right to file a separate writ petition for refund of the amount to the tune of Rs. 1,10,56,378/- paid by the petitioner under eminent threat and duress to the respondents. (vii) The petitioner has duly paid the royalty amount for the excavated minerals from the leasehold area and the petitioner has never indulged in illegal mining. The petitioner has also submitted monthly reports in the prescribed Form 'K' for the quantity of minerals produced and dispatched from the leasehold area. (viii) The District Mining Officer, Chatra vide letter no. 1342 dated 18.12.2024 informed the petitioner that the physical inspection of the leasehold area has been scheduled on 21.12.2024 and further directed the petitioner to produce the relevant documents i.e. EC, CTE, CTO/ Lease Deed at the time of inspection. (ix) The District Mining Officer and Mines Inspector visited the mining leasehold area of the petitioner on 21.12.2024. The authorized representative of the petitioner produced the relevant documents before the aforesaid authorities. It is pertinent to mention herein that after being satisfied with the documents, the Inspection team left the leasehold area without reporting any discrepancies/objection to the petitioner. (ix) The District Mining Officer and Mines Inspector visited the mining leasehold area of the petitioner on 21.12.2024. The authorized representative of the petitioner produced the relevant documents before the aforesaid authorities. It is pertinent to mention herein that after being satisfied with the documents, the Inspection team left the leasehold area without reporting any discrepancies/objection to the petitioner. The petitioner was under an impression that the respondent authorities are satisfied with the documents/ records of the petitioner pertaining to the mining lease. (x) The District Mining Officer, Chatra vide letter No.122 dated25.01.2025 directed the petitioner to make the payment of Rs.25,64,653/-in terms of Rule-44 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2004 for excess production/dispatch of5,11,478 cft. Stone from the leasehold area of the petitioner situated in Mouza- Chataniyan, Khata No. 11, Plot No. 39 admeasuring area 1.72 Acres, within the period of 30 days failing which appropriate proceeding would be initiated for recovery of the amount. (xi) The aforesaid demand letter no. 122 dated 25.01.2025 issued by the respondent no.4 is based on the inspection report submitted the Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of Additional Collector, Chatra. It would be evident from the letter no. 122 dated 25.01.2025 that the leasehold area of petitioner was inspected/ measured on 21.12.2024 and 10.01.2025 by the District Mining Officer, Chatra and Mines Inspector, Chatra. However, the petitioner had received prior notice only about inspection held on 21.12.2024 which was conducted in presence of petitioner wherein no discrepancies o? objection was raised by the authorities. So far as inspection conducted on 10.01.2025 is concerned, it is stated that neither any prior notice was given to the petitioner by the respondent authorities nor the Inspection was carried out in presence of the authorized representative of the petitioner on 10.01.2025. (xii) The so-called inspection report prepared by the Committee which has been relied upon the respondent no.4 while issuing the letter no. 122 dated 25.01.2025 has never been served upon the petitioner by the respondent authorities. The petitioner intends to challenge the said letter no.122 dated 25.01.2025 by filing separate writ petition before this Hon'ble Court. (xiii) The District Mining Officer, Chatra vide letter no. 123 dated25.01.2025 has imposed penalty upon the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 122 dated 25.01.2025 has never been served upon the petitioner by the respondent authorities. The petitioner intends to challenge the said letter no.122 dated 25.01.2025 by filing separate writ petition before this Hon'ble Court. (xiii) The District Mining Officer, Chatra vide letter no. 123 dated25.01.2025 has imposed penalty upon the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 16,97,93,024/- under Rule 54 (6) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2004 for illegal mining of stones over 69,366 square feet which is outside the leasehold area of the petitioner and further directed the petitioner to deposit the said amount within the period of 30 days, failing which appropriate proceeding would be initiated for recovery of the amount. The petitioner intends to challenge the said letter no.123 dated 25.01.2025 by filing separate writ petition before this Hon'ble Court. (xiv) The District Mining Officer, Chatra vide letter no. 128 dated25.01.2025 has directed the petitioner to stop the mining activities over the leasehold area in terms of Rule 34(A)(2) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2004 and has further issued show cause upon the petitioner to submit its reply within 30 days under Rule 22(5) and 27(2) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2004 for termination of the mining lease deed of petitioner. (xv) The aforesaid imposition of penalty under rule 54(6) of JHARKHAND MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES 2004 is based on the recommendation made by the Committee comprising of Additional Collector, Chatra; Circle Officer, Chatra; District Mining Officer, Chatra and Sub-Divisional Officer, Chatra vide Joint Enquiry Report dated 20.01.2025. The penalty imposed under Rule 54(6) of JHARKHAND MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES , 2004 is based on the inspection purportedly conducted by Circle Amin, Chatra on 06.01.2025, however the inspection/ measurement report was never served upon the petitioner and the said inspection was conducted by Circle Amin who is not the competent person to measure the quantity of mineral mined/excavated by the lessee. (xvi) The Circle Officer, Chatra vide letter no. 10 dated 06.01.2025 informed the Additional Collector, Chatra that mining activities are being carried out over the adjoining plots of land admeasuring 2.70 Acres which is outside the leasehold area of the petitioner. (xvii) The inspection and measurement of plots of land was conducted by the Circle Amin, Chatra on 06.01.2025 without giving any notice upon the petitioner and in absence of the authorized signatory of the petitioner. (xvii) The inspection and measurement of plots of land was conducted by the Circle Amin, Chatra on 06.01.2025 without giving any notice upon the petitioner and in absence of the authorized signatory of the petitioner. (xviii)The respondents did not serve the copy of the inspection/measurement report to the petitioner prior to issuance of the demand letter no. 123 dated 25.01.2025. (xix) The petitioner has never been involved in illegal mining of stone boulders outside the leasehold area and the impugned letter no. 128 dated 25.01.2025 has been issued by the respondent no.4 in sheer violation of the provisions of the JHARKHAND MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES , 2004. (xx) The respondents cannot impose penalty upon the petitioner under Rule 54(6) of JMMCR, 2004 on the basis of mere surmises and conjectures without any iota of evidence that the petitioner is engaged in illegal mining of 684096 cft. stones from the adjoining plots of land admeasuring 2.70 acres. (xxi) The respondents have not produced or deciphered any evidence to show that the petitioner was involved in illegal mining of 684096 cft. stones from the adjoining plots of land admeasuring2.70 acres as alleged by the respondents. (xxii) The Deputy Commissioner can terminate the mining lease of the lessee under Rule 22 (5) of JMMCR, 2004 if the lessee does not pay the royalty/ dead rent within the stipulated time mentioned in the notice issued by the concerned authority. However, in the instant case the impugned show cause letter dated 25.01.2025 under Rule 22(5) of JMMCR, 2004 is premature and without any jurisdiction as the time stipulated by the respondent no.4 for making the payment of additional royalty and penalty amount has not lapsed and the show cause for termination has not been issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra (respondent no.2). 8. Being aggrieved the, present writ petition has been filed to challenge the said impugned order dated 25.01.2025 contained in letter no.128 (Annexure-8) issued by the District Mining Officer, Chatra. Submission on behalf of the writ petitioners: 9. 8. Being aggrieved the, present writ petition has been filed to challenge the said impugned order dated 25.01.2025 contained in letter no.128 (Annexure-8) issued by the District Mining Officer, Chatra. Submission on behalf of the writ petitioners: 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has taken the following grounds in assailing the impugned orders: (i) The writ petitioner has challenged the impugned show cause notice dated 25.01.2025 issued under the signature of the District Mining Officer, Chatra, on the ground lack of jurisdiction and, secondly, on the ground that the details of the alleged irregularities have not been pointed out by the District Mining Officer, Chatra, in the impugned show cause notice. (ii) It has been contended that there is no difficulty in approaching the authority but in absence of any specific irregularity having been referred in the impugned show cause notice, the petitioners are in difficult situation to give proper response thereto. (iii) The issuance of impugned show cause notice both dated25.01.2025 the entire process of imposition of penalty is void and non-est in the eyes of law as the impugned letter has been authorized without any jurisdiction. (iv) The mining lease area of the lessee can be inspected and measured only by a competent authority as notified by the State Government or Central Government in this regard who is having the requisite expertise and knowledge regarding the Mines and Minerals. (v) The JHARKHAND MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES , 2004 do not empower the District Mining Officer to impose any penalty even if there is a violation of the Rules, 2004. (vi) The impugned letter dated 25.01.2025 has been issued by the respondent no.4 with pre-conceived notion that the petitioner is involved in illegal mining activities and the grant of 30 days’ time to the petitioner vide impugned show cause letter is mere empty formality. (vii) The respondent no.4 being the instrumentality of State cannot pre-judge the guilt/ violation of the petitioner without receiving any reply of the petitioner is support of its defence. (viii) It is well settled that where power is required to be exercised by a certain authority in a certain way, it should be exercised in that manner or not at all and all other modes of performance unnecessarily forbidden. (viii) It is well settled that where power is required to be exercised by a certain authority in a certain way, it should be exercised in that manner or not at all and all other modes of performance unnecessarily forbidden. It is all the more necessary to observe this rule where power is a drastic nature and its exercise in a mode other than the one provided will be violative of the fundamental principles of natural justice. (ix) The impugned letter has been issued by the Respondent No.4 without any jurisdiction as the Deputy Commissioner is the Competent Authority in terms of Rule 27 (2) of the JHARKHAND MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES , 2004. (x) The respondent no.4 has stopped the Mining activities of the petitioner over the leasehold area in an arbitrary manner on frivolous and vexatious grounds. (xi) The impugned letter has been issued by Respondent No.4 in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner de-hors the provisions of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2004. (xii) The issuance of the impugned letter in violation of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concessions Rules and is in violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India as the heavy financial burden has been imposed upon the petitioner without due process of law which might result in closure of mining activities of the petitioner company. 10.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the impugned order, therefore, needs interference by this Court. Submission on behalf of the respondents: 11. Per contra, Mr. Shray Mishra, the learned counsel appearing for the State of Jharkhand to defend the impugned order has raised the following grounds: (i) It has been contended that the impugned show cause notices are under challenge issued by the District Mining Officer, Chatra on two-fold grounds, first, the lack of jurisdiction and second, the non-availability of the any irregularity in the impugned show cause notice. But so far as the issue of jurisdiction is concerned the same has been conferred to the District Mining Officer as per the provision provided under Rule 34 (A)(2) of the JMMC Rules, 2004 amended in 2017. But so far as the issue of jurisdiction is concerned the same has been conferred to the District Mining Officer as per the provision provided under Rule 34 (A)(2) of the JMMC Rules, 2004 amended in 2017. (ii) It has been submitted that if the provision of Rule 34 (A)(2) of the JMMC Rules, 2004 amended in 2017 will be taken into consideration the power has been conferred upon the Deputy Commissioner/Competent Authority (District/Assistant Mining Officer) / Deputy Director, (Mine)/ Additional Director (Mine)/ Director (Mine) who has been conferred with the power to suspend the mining operation and has also got power not to allow the leaseholder to recommence the mining operation till the irregularity as has been found, for suspending the lease is not being rectified. (iii) The jurisdiction, therefore, lies also with the District Mining Officer, who has issued the impugned show-cause notices, in these writ petitions. (iv) So far as the second ground as has been raised on behalf of the petitioners are concerned, it is incorrect on the part of the petitioners to take a ground that there is no reference of irregularity said to be committed in the impugned show cause notices, rather each and every aspect of the matter, based upon the Joint Inquiry Report which has been conducted in presence of representatives of the writ petitioners have been referred in the show-cause notice accompanied with the Joint Inquiry Report. But instead of responding to the show-cause, the present writ petitions have been filed. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the impugned order, thus, needs no interference and the present writ petitions are fit to be dismissed. Response on behalf of the writ petitioners: 13. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, in response, has submitted by agreeing that the jurisdiction lies with the District Mining Officer and, as such, he has skipped that ground and confined the ground only with respect to the non-availability of irregularity in the impugned show cause notices and, hence, the petitioners are finding it difficult to make proper reply to the show cause notice. Analysis: 14. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the pleadings made in the writ petitions and the counter- affidavits filed on behalf of the State of Jharkhand in both the writ petitions. 15. Analysis: 14. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the pleadings made in the writ petitions and the counter- affidavits filed on behalf of the State of Jharkhand in both the writ petitions. 15. Although the writ petitioners have taken two grounds initially, first, pertaining to lack of jurisdiction of District Mining Officer to suspend the mining operation, but subsequently, on being seriously objected to that submission/grounds by making reference of Rule 34 (A)(2) of the JMMC Rules, 2004 amended in 2017, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that he is not pressing this ground. 16. Therefore, this Court is of the view that although the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the District Mining Officer to suspend the mining operation has been taken but this ground being left out in view of the conferment of the power to the District Mining Officer as per provision of Rule 34 (A)(2) of the JMMC Rules, 2004 amended in 2017, in which, the power to suspend the mining operation as also not to allow the leaseholder to recommence the mining operation subject to rectification of the irregularity based upon the mining plan/ mining scheme. 17. Therefore, the only one issue remain herein as to whether the factual aspect as regard to irregularity is available in the impugned show cause notice both dated 25.01.2025 or not. 18. It needs to refer herein that ordinarily no writ lies against a show cause notice. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against mere show cause notice is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere show cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. 19.In the case of standard chartered bank versus directorate of enforcement [2006 (2) TMI 272 - supreme court] , it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that ordinarily, the Court should be reluctant to interfere with the show cause notice unless the notice is shown to have been issued apparently without any authority of law. 19.In the case of standard chartered bank versus directorate of enforcement [2006 (2) TMI 272 - supreme court] , it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that ordinarily, the Court should be reluctant to interfere with the show cause notice unless the notice is shown to have been issued apparently without any authority of law. 20.The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Union of India versus Vicco Laboratories , reported in 2007 (11) TMI 21 - SUPREME COURT also deprecates interference at the stage of issuance of show cause notice by the authorities unless it is without jurisdiction or in abuse of process of law. 21.The Hon’ble Apex Court in the very recent Judgment rendered in the case of M/S Techno prints vs. Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation & Anr . reported in 2025 INSC 236 has categorically held that the Writ Court should not entertain any petition, seeking to challenge a show cause notice unless the Court is convinced that the same has been issued by an authority having no jurisdiction, relevant paragraph is being quoted which reads asunder: “16. It is true that ordinarily, a Writ Court should not entertain any petition, seeking to challenge a show cause notice unless the Court is convinced that the same has been issued by an authority having no jurisdiction, or the same is tainted with mala fides.” 22.The ratio which could be culled out from the aforesaid judgments is that the power of judicial review, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can be exercised where the challenge to a show-cause notice is made provided it is patently demonstrated that the same is issued without jurisdiction . 23.So far as the non-availability of the ground upon which the mining operation has been suspended, it is admitted fact that a joint inspection of the mining leasehold area of the petitioner was carried out on24.12.2024, 26.12.2024 and 14.01.2025 [in W.P(C) No.925 of 2025] and on 21.12.2024 and on 10.01.2025[in W.P(C) No.1059 of 2025] in presence of the representatives of the writ petitioners as would be evident from the Joint Inquiry Report appended to the writ petitions as also in the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the State of Jharkhand. 24. 24. The District Mining Officer, Chatra, after going through the said joint inspection report, to which he was also a party, has passed the impugned orders to stop the mining activities over the lease hold area in terms of Rule 34 (A)(2) of the JMMC Rules, 2004 amended in 2017 read with the provision of Rule 22(5) and 27(2) thereof. 25. This Court before appreciating the fact as to whether the irregularity as has been found out in the joint inspection report which find mentioned in the impugned show cause, needs to refer herein the provisions of Rule 22(5), 27(2) and Rule 34 (A)(2) of the JMMC Rules, 2004 amended in 2017 which is being extracted as under for ready reference: 26. It is evident from the provision of Rule 22(5) of JMMC Rules, 2004 that if the lease holder is not making payment of the rent in pursuance to the provision of Rule 29 or violating the condition of Form -E i.e. lease deed , then a notice will be issued to the leaseholder for the payment of the aforesaid amount within a period of 30 days so that the terms and conditions of the lease deed may not be violated, and the rent/royalty if not being paid, then the Collector or the sanctioning authority, without causing any future stigma, can cancel the lease deed and the entire security amount either in whole or part is to be forfeited. 27. The provision of Rule 27(2) of JMMC Rules, 2004 provides that the Collector can terminate the lease deed, after giving adequate opportunity of hearing, if the terms and conditions of the lease deed has been violated. 28. Rule 34 (A)(2) of the JMMC Rules, 2004 amended in 2017, confers power to the Deputy Commissioner/Competent Authority (District/Assistant Mining Officer) / Deputy Director, (Mine)/ Additional Director (Mine)/ Director (Mine), in a case where leaseholder is carrying out the mining operation contrary to the mining plan/mining scheme, then in such circumstances, the mining operation is to be suspended by issuance of an order and the mining operation is not permitted to be carried out till the mining plan/mining scheme is not being restored. 29. If all the three provisions will be taken together, the underlying scope of the aforesaid statutory provisions is that the terms and conditions of the lease deed mandatorily to be followed without deviating therefrom. 29. If all the three provisions will be taken together, the underlying scope of the aforesaid statutory provisions is that the terms and conditions of the lease deed mandatorily to be followed without deviating therefrom. Further, the rent/royalty is also to be strictly paid otherwise the penal action by suspending the mining operation and mining operation is not permitted to be carried out till the mining plan/mining scheme is not being restored. 30. This Court in the context of the aforesaid statutory provisions and coming back to the impugned show-cause notice has found that the District Mining Officer, Chatra has issued the impugned show-cause notice in a situation wherein the reference of the irregularity has been mentioned based upon the Joint Inquiry Report. 31. The lease hold area of the petitioners was inspected in presence of the representatives of the writ petitioners having no objection therein. 32. The question of no reference of the irregularity having been raised on behalf of the writ petitioners is concerned, we have found from the Joint Inquiry Report, based upon the measurement report, as available in Annexure-14 [ W.P(C)No.925 of 2025] running from page no.207 to 215 wherefrom it is evident that the petitioner was found to carrying out the mining operation beyond the leasehold area, the same is being reflected, separately of both the writ petitioners, for ready reference the same are being quoted hereunder as: [In W.P(C)No.925 of 2025] 33. Likewise, we have found from the Joint Inquiry Report, based upon the measurement report, as available in Annexure-7 [ W.P(C)No.1059 of 2025] running from page no.110 to 119 wherefrom it is evident that the petitioner was found to carrying out the mining operation beyond the leasehold area, the same is being quoted hereunder for ready reference: [In W.P(C)No.1059 of 2025] ? PART-I (A) Actual Volume of excavated Mineral (Stone) in Lease Area = 45087292 Cft (Aprx.) (B) ) Production as per Return upto Nov. 2024 = 10,41,000 Cft (C) Difference Qty. in Last Measurement = (+) 2956251 Cft Difference Qty. in Production till Nov. 2024 = (A) - (B + C) = 4508729 - (1041000 + 2956251) = 511478 Cft Additional Payble Royalty @ Rs. 3.74 /Cft. – 19,12,928.00 only. PART-II Total Volume of excavation outside lease area = 6840976 Penalty imposed @ Rs. 12.41/cft=6840976 x 12.41 x 2 = Rs. in Last Measurement = (+) 2956251 Cft Difference Qty. in Production till Nov. 2024 = (A) - (B + C) = 4508729 - (1041000 + 2956251) = 511478 Cft Additional Payble Royalty @ Rs. 3.74 /Cft. – 19,12,928.00 only. PART-II Total Volume of excavation outside lease area = 6840976 Penalty imposed @ Rs. 12.41/cft=6840976 x 12.41 x 2 = Rs. 16,97,93,024/- Note: Rate of Stone Mineral as per Notification Memo No. 1163 dt. 26.05.23 Penalty imposed as per Rule54(6) of JMMC Rule 2004 as amended. Total Amount = Additional Royalty within lease area + Penalty outside lease area = Rs. 1912928.00 + Rs. 169793024 = Rs. 171705952.00 34. It is evident from the said Joint Inquiry Report that the District Mining Officer, Chatra directed the writ petitioners to make payment of Rs.09,41,92,446/- [in W.P((C) No. 925 of 2025] and Rs. 16,97,93,024/- [in W.P((C) No. 1059 of 2025] otherwise the actions as per the provision of JMMC Rules, 2004 will be taken. 35. It is further evident from the report of the Circle Officer, Chatra, vide letter no. 11 dated 06.01.2025(Annexure-16) [in W.P((C) No. 925 of 2025] and vide letter no.10 dated 06.01.2025(Annexure-9) [in W.P(C) No. 1059 of 2025], the details have been furnished showing the carrying out the mining operation beyond the leasehold area. 36. In Joint Inquiry Report as available on page no.211 so far as the writ petitioner in W.P(C) No. 925 of 2025 is concerned comprising of the conclusion also, the following conclusion has been arrived at: In W.P(C) No.925 of 2025: 37.Further, in Joint Inquiry Report as available on page no.113-114 so far as the writ petitioner in W.P(C) No. 1059 of 2025 is concerned comprising of the conclusion also, the following conclusion has been arrived at: In W.P(C) No.1059 of 2025 :- 38. The show cause notices, impugned in these writ petitions, both are dated 25.01.2025, finds reference of the tabular chart as has been referred in the report of the Circle Officer, Chatra as also in the Joint Inquiry Report. 39. It is further evident that in the impugned show cause notice, the reference of area of the carrying out mining operation beyond the leasehold area has also been find mentioned along with the amount of penalty. 40. 39. It is further evident that in the impugned show cause notice, the reference of area of the carrying out mining operation beyond the leasehold area has also been find mentioned along with the amount of penalty. 40. Further, it is evident that in the impugned show cause notice specific reference has been made that violations have been found out based upon the carrying out mining operation beyond the leasehold area and thereby the violation of Approved Ming Plan with Approved Mining Closure Plan, Environmental Clearance, Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate have been flouted. 41. Hence, the petitioners, in view of the aforesaid irregularity, not found to be in consonance with the terms and conditions of the lease deed as also the approved Mining Plan with Approved Mining Closure Plan, Environmental Clearance, Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate, therefore, while exercising the power conferred under Rule 34 (A)(2) of the JMMC Rules, 2004 amended in 2017, the effect of the lease has been put under suspension as also the petitioners have been called upon to submit their reply in view of the provision of Rule 22(5)of the JMMC Rules, 2004. 42. This Court, therefore, is of the view that all the details find mentioned in the impugned show cause notice. Hence, the argument which has been advanced that the details pertaining to irregularity of the leasehold area is not available in the show cause is having no substance. 43. Moreover, the petitioners are having with the Joint Inquiry Report as also the reference of irregularity said to be committed by the writ petitioners find mentioned in the show cause notices, hence, the writ petitioners have to satisfy the authority. 44. The moment question of jurisdiction of the issuing authority of show cause notice has been not taken as a ground as referred hereinabove, as such, the petitioners are required to satisfy the authority. 45. This Court, in view of the aforesaid discussions, is of the view that no positive direction is to be passed in favour of both the writ petitioners, rather the petitioners are to satisfy the District Mining Officer, Chatra by filing proper reply. 46. Since the said impugned notices, both are dated 25.01.2025 and, as such, the petitioners were to file their reply within 30 days of receiving the notice, the said date has already expired. 46. Since the said impugned notices, both are dated 25.01.2025 and, as such, the petitioners were to file their reply within 30 days of receiving the notice, the said date has already expired. Hence, this Court is of the view that the petitioners are to file response to the impugned show cause notice dated 25.01.2025 within 30 days from the date of pronouncement of judgment. 47. The District Mining Officer, Chatra, is to consider the said reply and take final decision within a further period of six weeks. 48. The carrying out the further mining operation will depend upon the final outcome which is to be taken by the District Mining Officer, Chatra. 49. With the aforesaid observation and direction, these writ petitions are disposed of. 50. Interim order dated 27.02.2025 passed in W.P(C) No.925 of 2025 and dated 26.03.2025 passed in W.P(C) No.1059 of 2025 stand vacated. 51. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of. Arun Kumar Rai, J.-I Agree.