ORDER : 1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking therein for the following reliefs:- “For issuance of writ(s), order(s) or direction(s), particularly in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing of the order dated 22.09.2019 (Annexure-11), passed by Respondent no. 4, where under the Court of Mines Commissioner was pleased to disallow the Revision case no. 04/2015 of the Petitioner stating that there cannot be further extension of time as the extension was only for one time vide order dated 07.11.2017 passed in Revision case no. 32/2016. For issuance of further writ(s), order(s) or direction(s), particularly in the nature of Mandamus, for directing the Respondent State to proceed/pass an order on the application for renewal of mining lease of the Petitioner. For issuance of writ(s), order(s) or direction(s), particularly in the nature of Mandamus, for directing the Respondent State to grant extension of the mining lease, till 31.03.2020, in the light of Rule 9(1) ¼p½ of the Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2017 and further extension of the period of lease till 31.03.2022 in the light of notification dated 28.09.2020 published in the Jharkhand Gazette”. 2 . The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, which read as under: - (i) It is a case of the petitioner that he was granted a stone mining lease over an area measuring 6.55 acres of land situated in Mouza–Rampur, Plot No. 2268 (P) and Khata No. 66, under Namkum Block, District Ranchi, for a period of 10 years vide registered deed dated 11.06.2004. (ii) Before the expiry of the said lease, the Petitioner applied for renewal under Rule 23 of the Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004 on 19.02.2014 in Form-F for a further period of 10 years, i.e., from 11.06.2014 to 10.06.2024. (iii) However, the Learned Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi failed to dispose of the said renewal application within the stipulated period, and no order of approval or rejection was passed. Consequently, the application was deemed refused under Rule 23(2) ¼p½ of the JMMC Rules, 2004. (iv) Aggrieved, the Petitioner approached the Revisional Authority (Respondent No. 4 – Mines Commissioner) by filing Revision Case No. 04/2015, wherein the delay was condoned, and 90 days’ additional time was granted to the Deputy Commissioner to pass a reasoned order. Consequently, the application was deemed refused under Rule 23(2) ¼p½ of the JMMC Rules, 2004. (iv) Aggrieved, the Petitioner approached the Revisional Authority (Respondent No. 4 – Mines Commissioner) by filing Revision Case No. 04/2015, wherein the delay was condoned, and 90 days’ additional time was granted to the Deputy Commissioner to pass a reasoned order. (v) Despite the direction issued by the Revisional Authority on 03.07.2015, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi did not take any action on the renewal application. (vi) Meanwhile, the Petitioner procured all requisite clearances, including Gram Sabha consent dated 11.09.2015, Mine Plan approval dated 16.12.2015, No Objection Certificate from the Circle Officer, and a land survey report dated 04.12.2015. (vii) The Petitioner also submitted scrutiny fees and complied with environmental requirements, including Environmental Clearance, which was finally granted on 10.05.2018. (viii) Subsequently, through the Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2017, the State Government introduced provisions for deemed extension of lease up to 31.03.2020, subject to obtaining all clearances and absence of any rejection order. (ix) A clarification issued on 11.07.2017 further extended this benefit to leases below 5 hectares. In line with this, all similar cases were remanded back to the Deputy Commissioners for reconsideration, including the Petitioner’s case. (x) Despite this, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi again failed to act, and the Petitioner’s application remained undecided. (xi) The Revisional Authority, in its order dated 22.02.2019, dismissed the Petitioner’s request for further extension, ignoring the Deputy Commissioner’s inaction and the Petitioner’s compliance with all legal requirements. (xii) The Learned Court of Mines Commissioner failed to appreciate the Petitioner’s efforts in securing statutory approvals and ignored the binding directions issued earlier. (xiii) The Petitioner submits that the denial of lease renewal without any reason, despite full compliance, amounts to arbitrariness and a breach of legitimate expectation. (xiv) In light of Rule 9(1) ¼p½ of the 2017 Amendment and the notification dated 28.09.2020, the Petitioner is entitled to a deemed extension of the lease till 31.03.2022, and the rejection of such right is unjust and legally untenable. Hence, the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the authority concerned while passing the order impugned has not appreciated the fact in right perspective. 4. Hence, the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the authority concerned while passing the order impugned has not appreciated the fact in right perspective. 4. Learned AC to AG appearing for the respondent-State has submitted that the similar issue has already been decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.3560 of 2025 on 08.08.2025. 5. The aforesaid fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Submission therefore has been made by the respondent-State that the present writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the said judgment passed by this Court. 7. We have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.3560 of 2025 on 08.08.2025. 8. We, after going through the prayer and pleadings made in the writ petition, as also, the judgment dated 08.08.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.3560 of 2025, have found that the issue, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition, has already been decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgment, for ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are being referred as under:- 15. The issue which requires consideration, i.e. (i) Whether the lease can be renewed after 31.03.2022 by way of extension. (i) Whether seeking extension of the lease period will not amount to renewal of the lease period. (ii) Whether exceeding to the prayer made on behalf of the writ petitioner, will it not amount to violation of the provision of Rule 9(?), wherein, the embargo has been put under the statute for no renewal of the lease license on or after 31.03.2022 and even, if the license has been renewed beyond the period of 31.03.2022, the same will list its force on 31.03.2022. (iii) Whether the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 06.02.2025 in W.P.(C) No.6812 of 2024 in the case of Gopal Kumar and Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. , is to be considered on the principle of judicial discipline if there is no consideration of the earlier two judgments passed by the Coordinate Benches of this Court in the aforesaid case. (iv) Whether the order passed by the Coordinate Bench in the case of Gopal Kumar and Ors. Vrs. Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. , is to be considered on the principle of judicial discipline if there is no consideration of the earlier two judgments passed by the Coordinate Benches of this Court in the aforesaid case. (iv) Whether the order passed by the Coordinate Bench in the case of Gopal Kumar and Ors. Vrs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. , is held to be per incuriam. 22. It is evident from Rule 9 particularly Rule 9 ¼³½ and ¼p½ , wherein, the issue of renewal of lease/license has been dealt with initially for the period of 90 days thereafter, it was extended upto the period of 180 which is to be renewed on the basis of making proper application by the applicant. The provision of Rule 9 ¼p½ provides that in any case, ever after renewal of the lease, initially, the same is not to be extended beyond the period of 31.03.2020 by virtue of amendment incorporated w.e.f. 2018, the period has been extended upto the period of 31.03.2022. 23. The specific stipulation has been made that even if the license has been renewed beyond the period of 31.03.2020, the force of the lease will be upto 31.03.2022. 24. It is evident from the provision as contained under Rule 9 ¼N½ as referred above that the license if renewed or extended the validity of which is after 31.03.2022, then, the validity of license will remain there upto the period of lease but there cannot be any extension, thereafter, since as per the mandate of the provision of Rule 9, the lease is to be granted by way of auction. 25. It is further evident from the provision of Rule 9 ¼t½ (12) as quoted and referred hereinabove that the mandate of Rule 9 ¼p½ will be applicable even if the area of land is less than 5 hectares. 26. The provision of Rule 23 speaks about the procedure for filing an application for the purpose of renewal of lease. The occasion to insert the provision as under Rule 23 is to comply with the procedure by the applicant, which is required at the time of filing an application for renewal of license, if any applicant is making an application in view of the provision of Rule 9 ¼³½ . 27. The occasion to insert the provision as under Rule 23 is to comply with the procedure by the applicant, which is required at the time of filing an application for renewal of license, if any applicant is making an application in view of the provision of Rule 9 ¼³½ . 27. But the specific provision has been given under Rule 9 ¼p½ putting complete restriction of renewal on or after 31.03.2022, rather, the allotment is to be made only through auction. 42. So far as the issue nos.(i) to (iii) are concerned, the admitted case of the writ petitioner is that during the subsistence period of lease, the renewal application has been filed. The further admitted fact is that the lease was to expire sometime in the year, 2024. The application for extension of the lease has been made initially before the District Mining Officer and subsequently, when the said relief has been rejected, the order passed herein has been challenged before the Mines Commissioner, which has also been rejected on the ground of applicability of provision of Rule 9(?) of the JHARKHAND MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES . 43. The factual aspect therefore is not in dispute that the application for renewal has been made for extension of license on or after 31.03.2022. Such application has been filed on the pretext of statutory restriction of expiry of the lease after 31.03.2022 even if, the renewal has been granted, the aforesaid statutory restriction has been taken into consideration by the quasi-judicial authority in rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner. 44. The argument has been advanced by taking aid of Rule 23 of the JMMC Rules but as has been referred that the Rule 23 of the JMMC Rules lays down the procedure for making application for the purpose of renewal in a case where the application is to be filed under Rule 9 ¼³½ of the JMMC Rules and once the application is being filed, then, the lease is to be renewed either by way of renewal or extension but in no case, it is beyond the period of 31.03.2022 in view of the provision of Rule 9 ¼p½ . 46. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued by putting reliance upon Rule 23 of JMMC Rules, but, the said submission is not acceptable due to the application of the principle of harmonious construction of the statutory provision.” 9. 46. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued by putting reliance upon Rule 23 of JMMC Rules, but, the said submission is not acceptable due to the application of the principle of harmonious construction of the statutory provision.” 9. This Court, after examining the factual aspect of the present case, has found that the issues involved herein are identical to that of the case, which has been decided in W.P.(C) No.3560 of 2025 on 08.08.2025. 10. Further, it requires to refer herein that this Court has also decided the issue of application of Rule 9 ¼p½ , in W.P.(C) No.4950 of 2024 on 10.09.2024, for ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under: 34. It is evident that the provision of deemed renewal has been done away from the statutory provision which was initially till 31.03.2020 and subsequently by virtue of the amendment, the said period was extended up to 31.03.2022. 35. The provision as inserted by way of amendment in the Rule 2004 amended in 2017, has statutorily commanded the authority that on or after 31.03.2022 the mining operation will only be allowed to be carried out by virtue of auction and not renewal. 11. Further it needs to refer herein that the order passed in W.P.(C) No.4950 of 2024 on 10.09.2024has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated on 17.04.2025in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).16737 of 2025. 12. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed, in terms of the judgment dated 08.08.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.3560 of 2025 as also the judgment passed in W.P.(C) No.4950 of 2024 on 10.09.2024, which has been affirmed on 17.04.2025 by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).16737 of 2025. 13. In consequence thereof, pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of.