Patna High Court
M/S Jai Bhagwati Mines vs The State Of Bihar on 12 March, 2026
Author: Sandeep Kumar
Bench: Sandeep Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17509 of 2024
======================================================
M/s Jai Bhagwati Mines a partnership firm having its office at 3F Siddarth
Market, Lal Kothi Compound, Near Civil Lines, Gaya, through its authorised
signatory, Sanjeeva Shyam Singh, aged about 59 years (male), son of
Ghanshyam Prasad Singh, Resident of HIG 57, Chanakya Puri Colony, P.S.
Rampur, District Gaya.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology
Department, Government of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary cum Mines Commissioner, Mines and Geology
Department, Government of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
3. The Director, Mines and Geology Department, Government of Bihar, Vikas
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate, Gaya.
5. The Mineral Development Officer, Gaya.
6. Bihar State Mining Corporation Limited, Through its Managing Director,
Room No. 164, Vikas Bhawan, (New Secretariate), Bailey Road, Patna
800015.
7. The Managing Director, Bihar State Mining Corporation Limited, Room No.
164, Vikas Bhawan, (New Secretariate), Bailey Road, Patna 800015.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Majid Mahboob Khan, A.C. to AAG-12
For the B.S.M.C.L. : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Mines Department: Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Spl. P.P.
Ms. Shruti Singh, Advocate
Mr. Utkarsh Pathak, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 12-03-2026
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has
prayed for the following reliefs:-
"i. To issue an appropriate writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari for
quashing the notice contained in memo
no.2772 dated 20.09.2024 intimating
Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026
2/30
the petitioner regarding Revision Case
No. 01/2024 started before Respondent
Mines Commissioner against the order
contained in memo no.1784 dated
21.05.2024
passed by the Mineral
Development Officer, Gaya consequent
to order dated 21.09.2023 passed by
this Hon’ble Court in CWJC No.
8436/2023.
ii. This Hon’ble Court may adjudicate and
hold that Revision Case No.01/2024 is
fraught with arbitrariness, started in
violation of the provisions of the Bihar
Minerals (Concession, Prevention of
Illegal Mining, Transportation &
Storage) Rules, 2019 and is therefore
bad in the eyes of law.
iii. This Hon’ble Court may adjudicate and
hold that no revision could lie against
the order of the Respondent Mineral
Development Officer, Gaya which was
passed in pursuance of the order dated
21.09.2023 passed by this Hon’ble
Court in CWJC No.8436/2023 that too
after conducting a fresh enquiry.
iv. This Hon'ble Court may further
adjudicate and hold that the
respondents cannot approbate and
reprobate at the same time.
v. This Hon'ble Court may further
adjudicate and hold that having
accepted the payment of Rs.6,81,494/-as
penalty levied by the Mineral
Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026
3/30
Development Officer, Gaya that too
without any protest, it did not lie with
the Respondents to prefer revision
against the order contained in memo no.
1784 dated 21.05.2024 passed by the
Respondent Mineral Development
Officer, Gaya.
vi. To award any other relief or reliefs for
which the petitioner is found entitled in
the facts and the circumstances of the
case.”
2. The respondent-Bihar State Mining
Corporation Limited (for short “BSMCL”) published a notice
inviting e-auction for selection of sub-contractors for operation
of sand ghats in the district of Gaya. The petitioner participated
in the said tender process and being the highest bidder he was
allotted Khijarsarai sand ghat after quoting Rs.77,71,363/- in
the bidding process. Thereafter, a Letter of Intent was issued to
the petitioner indicating the term of contract till 31.03.2022.
The term of contract was extended from time to time and lastly,
it was extended from 27.12.2022 till 31.03.2023. The
respondent-Managing Director, BSMCL, vide letter dated
06.03.2023 directed the petitioner to deposit a penalty of
Rs.19,35,47,820/- for excavating the sand, outside the mining
area and selling the same using the user-id of the sand ghat and
thereafter the respondents also suspended the generation of e-
Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026
4/30
transit challans.
3. The aforesaid letter dated 06.03.2023 is
reproduced herein below:-
4. After receiving the aforesaid letter, the
petitioner submitted a representation dated 13.03.2023 to the
respondent-Managing Director, BSMCL, requesting to
Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026
5/30
reconsider the matter in view of the fact that no notice of any
inspection was given to him and the inspection was conducted
in his absence, but the Managing Director vide letter dated
28.03.2023 once again directed the petitioner to deposit the
penalty amount. The petitioner was not granted further
extension for Khijarsarai sand ghat on account of the fact that
he has not deposited the penalty amount and subsequent thereto,
the respondents conducted a fresh auction and settled the said
sand ghat in favour of another person vide letter dated
10.05.2023.
5. Being aggrieved with the action of the
respondents, the petitioner preferred a writ petition being
C.W.J.C. No.8436 of 2023 titled as ‘M/s Jai Bhagwati Mines
vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.‘ before this Court and a
coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated
21.09.2023 had quashed the order of penalty. The relevant
portion of the aforesaid order reads as under::-
“4. Learned counsel for the petitioner by
elaborating his submissions further submits
that neither any plant, machinery and tool
installed by the petitioner have been seized
from the mining area where the petitioner
had allegedly carried out mining activity
beyond the area under environmental
clearance nor any vehicle of the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026
6/30has been intercepted by the district
administration on the ground of non-
availability of transportation challan or
stock of mineral illegally extracted from any
mining site being transported by such
vehicle. While concluding his submissions,
he drew the attention of this Court on a
judgment passed in the case of M/s Uma
Associates vs. The State of Bihar and
Others (CWJC No. 3400 of 2023) vide
order dated 09.05.2023, wherein while
adjudicating the similar issue, the Court has
held as follows:-
“8. On perusal of the said order, the
Court does not find that either the
inspection by the so called
departmental team was carried out
in presence of the petitioner, whether
the copy of the inspection report was
provided to the petitioner or that
proper opportunity to show-cause
was issued to the petitioner prior to
passing the order of penalty. In view
of these facts, in the opinion of the
Court the order of penalty dated
24.2.2023 issued under the signature
of the Mineral Development Officer,
Rohtas, Sasaram, is not sustainable
and is hereby quashed, with liberty
to the respondents that if so advised,
they will be at liberty to proceed
afresh in accordance with law.”
xxxxx
Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026
7/30
6. Having considered the aforesaid facts and
circumstances and the settled position of
law, this Court also feels it appropriate to
dispose of the writ petition in terms of the
order passed by the learned coordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of Uma
Associates (supra) and accordingly in
consequence thereof, the impugned order of
penalty as contained in letter no.400 dated
06.03.2023 by respondent no.7, the
Managing Director, Bihar State Mining
Corporation Limited, Patna, is hereby
quashed and cancelled with a liberty to the
respondents that if so advised, they will be
at liberty to proceed afresh in accordance
with law.”
6. In pursuance of the order of this Court, a
fresh proceeding was initiated by the respondent-Mineral
Development Officer, Gaya, who had directed the Mines
Inspector to conduct a fresh inspection of the sand ghat. After
inspection, the Mines Inspector submitted his report and based
upon the said report, the penalty was revised to the tune of
Rs.6,81,494/-. Thereafter, the petitioner deposited the said
revised penalty amount and the Mineral Development Officer,
Gaya also informed this fact to the Managing Director, BSMCL
vide his letter dated 25.05.2024. Subsequently, the petitioner
received the impugned notice dated 20.09.2024 intimating him
that a Revision Case No.01 of 2024 has been instituted and he
Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026
8/30
was directed to appear on 04.10.2024.
7. On 04.10.2024 the petitioner appeared
before the Mines Commissioner and requested for providing a
copy of the memo of revision, which was provided to him
including the letter dated 13.09.2024, by which the Mineral
Development Officer, Gaya had requested the Mines
Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the revision.
During the course of hearing, the Mines Commissioner vide
order dated 12.11.2024 directed for conducting a fresh
inspection by a team consisting of Assistant Director, Bhojpur,
Mineral Development Officer, Patna and Mineral Development
Officer, Gaya. After inspection, the inspecting team submitted
its report vide letter dated 13.12.2024. Finally, vide order dated
24.02.2025 the Mines Commissioner imposed a penalty of
Rs.19,35,22,820/- upon the petitioner.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that after receipt of the said notice dated 20.09.2024
the petitioner made enquiry from the District Mining Officer
and he came to know that the Mines Commissioner had suo
motu instituted the Revision under Rule 68 of the Bihar
Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining,
Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2019. He has further
Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026
9/30
submitted that since the Mineral Development Officer, Gaya
had passed the order in pursuance to the order dated 21.09.2023
passed in C.W.J.C. No.8436 of 2024, by which respondents
were granted liberty to proceed afresh, and in pursuance
thereof, he had passed the order dated 21.09.2023, no revision
should have been filed either by the Mineral Development
Officer or suo motu by the respondent-Mines Commissioner.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
further submitted that the action of the respondent Mines
Commissioner in filing the revision suo motu against the order
of the Mineral Development Officer amounts to approbation
and re-probation at the same time. It is the submission of
learned counsel for the petitioner that after having accepted the
penalty of Rs.6,81,404/- imposed by the Mineral Development
Officer, that too, without any protest, it did not lie with the
respondents to start a revision proceeding against the order of
penalty.
10. It is the categorical submission of learned
counsel for the petitioner that the incumbent Mineral
Development Officer could not have been aggrieved by an
order passed by his predecessor. It is submitted on behalf of the
petitioner that mere change of officer will not permit the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026
10/30
subsequent officer to question the order of his predecessor. It is
submitted that successor on a post cannot be aggrieved by any
order passed by his predecessor. Further, it has been submitted
that a perusal of memo no.2685 dated 13.09.2024 and memo
no.2694 dated 13.09.2024, it is evident that application for
revision was filed by Mineral Development Officer under Rule
68 of the 2019 Rules along with petition for condonation of
delay. In order to overcome the issue of limitation and alternate
remedy of appeal, the Mines Commissioner purportedly
commenced suo motu proceeding under Rule 7(c) of the 2019
Rules.
11. It has been submitted on behalf of the
petitioner that the Mines Commissioner could not have suo
motu instituted a revision against the order of the Mineral
Development Officer, since he can start a proceeding of
revision on its own motion only against an order of a Collector
and not against any order passed by any other sub-ordinate
authority. Adverting to Rule 68 of 2019 Rules, it has been
submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
aforesaid Rule contemplates revision only against an order of a
Collector. It does not contemplate revision against an order of
any other mining officer. The intent of the Rule is evident from
Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026
11/30
the words “and where any person aggrieved by any order
passed by the collector under these rules files an application”
appearing in the Rule. Further, the Mines Commissioner could
also not have initiated the revision against the order of the
Mineral Development Officer, Gaya since the same has been
filed without exhausting the remedy of appeal under Rule 67
(1). Even a perusal of the order passed by the Mines
Commissioner dated 25.02.2025, it would reveal that it has
been admitted that a revision proceeding under Rule 68 can be
initiated only against an order of the Collector. However, the
Mines Commissioner has opined that under Rule-7(c), he can
initiate revision proceeding against any order passed by any
authority, if the same is against the interest of revenue and
environmental conditions. It has also been recorded that the
instant proceeding was initiated upon coming to know about the
order dated 21.05.2024 passed by Mineral Development
Officer, Gaya and therefore, it is submitted that it does not lie
with the respondents to suggest and argue that the instant
proceeding has been initiated under Rule-7(c). The entire
argument of the respondents revolving around Rule-7(c) is
nothing but a convoluted attempt to surpass the impediment
created by Rule 68 which stipulates that revision shall lie only
Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026
12/30against an order passed by the Collector. Moreover, insofar as
Rule-7(c) of the 2019 Rules to commence the suo motu
proceeding is concerned, it is submitted that the same only
prescribes the powers of the Mines Commissioner to suo motu
call for and examine the records of any proceeding conducted
by any authority, officer or persons subordinate to him under
the act and the rules. However, the manner and the procedure of
exercising such power has been detailed under Rule 68 of the
2019 Rules. The intent of the legislature is not to confer two
separate powers of revision i.e. one under Rule 7(c) and the
other under Rule 68. Therefore, the suo motu powers provided
under Rule 7(c) have to be exercised as per Rule 68 and both
are not independent of each other so as to lead to two different
proceedings.
12. It has next been submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioner that the respondents in counter
affidavit have admitted that the Mineral Development Officer,
Gaya filed a petition before the Mines Commissioner. As
illustrated above, the said petition was filed under Rule 68
along with a petition for condonation of delay. However, the
Mines Commissioner for reasons, best known to him,
proceeded under Rule-7(c) of 2019 Rules. In fact, the delay
Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026
13/30
seems to have been condoned without issuing any notice to the
petitioner. Moreover, since it has been admitted in the order
dated 25.02.2025 that a revision petition under Rule 68 is
maintainable only against an order of the Collector, the only
recourse available to the Mines Commissioner upon receipt of
the said letter no.2685 dated 13.09.2024 was to dismiss the
same and direct the concerned authority to avail the remedy of
appeal under Rule 67. However, the Mines Commissioner went
on to constitute a Committee to conduct fresh inspection and
pass the order dated 25.02.2025 based upon the inspection
report.
13. It is further submitted that without any
specific finding of irregularity in the memo no.1784 dated
21.05.2024 issued by the then respondent Mineral Development
Officer, Gaya, the respondent Mines Commissioner could not
have saddled the petitioner with a penalty of Rs. 19,35,22,820/-
only upon the consideration that the revised penalty, earlier
levied upon the petitioner, was much less than the penalty
proposed initially.
14. It is the submission of learned counsel for
the petitioner that the order of the respondent Mineral
Development Officer was passed on 21.05.2024 and to the best
Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026
14/30
knowledge of the petitioner, the instant revision has been
initiated after lapse of more than three months. In this context,
it is submitted that though no time limit has been prescribed
under Rule 68 to start the revision proceeding on its own
motion, however, when the statute does not prescribe the time
limit for exercise of revisional power, it must be exercised
within a reasonable time frame. The aforesaid proposition of
law has been laid down in the case of B.S. Sheshagiri Setty vs
State of Karnataka reported in (2016) 2 SCC 123. In the
present case, the revision has been instituted after lapse of more
than three months without any justification. Further, as per Rule
68 (2), the respondents were duty bound to supply the reasons
for starting the revision proceeding but, no such reasons have
been supplied to the petitioner.
15. It is the next submission of learned counsel
for the petitioner that, it is settled proposition of law that
revisional power is a discretionary power of a higher authority
to examine the correctness, legality, or propriety of an order or
decision of the subordinate authority, primarily focusing on
jurisdictional errors or ensuring justice and fairness in the legal
process. It is submitted that the records of the entire case do not
allege any jurisdictional error or impropriety on the part of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026
15/30
Mineral Development Officer. The only ground raised is that
revised penalty is much less than the original penalty and has
caused loss of revenue to the State, which cannot be a ground
for initiating the revisional jurisdiction. Moreover, the fallacy of
the above argument lies in the underlying presumption of the
respondent department that levy of penalty for illegal mining is
a source of revenue. It is further submitted that neither penalty
can be equated with State revenue nor penalty can be
considered as a stream for generating revenue. Penalty under
the 2019 Rule is imposed by the State as measure of
compensation for causing environmental damage and also as a
deterrent from causing further damage in the future. Lastly, it
has been submitted that the entire proceeding before the Mines
Commissioner is in gross violation of the 2019 Rules and
therefore the same is fit to be quashed.
16. The respondents, at the outset, has submitted
that the present writ petition is not maintainable since this writ
petition involves disputed questions of fact such as, competing
inspection reports, discrepancies in penalty calculations,
technical questions involving PMU reports, Google earth data
and the factual assessment of mining activity carried out by the
petitioner over the period of time. Therefore, these disputed
Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026
16/30
questions of fact can only be adjudicated in statutory revisional
jurisdiction and writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked for the
same.
17. Learned counsel for the respondents has
submitted that in this case the petitioner has challenged the
notice dated 20.09.2024, by which it has been informed to the
petitioner that Revision Case No.01 of 2024 has been initiated
before the Mines Commissioner under Rule-7(c) of the Rules,
2019 and the petitioner was directed to appear. The impugned
notice neither determines rights nor imposes any liability rather,
it merely affords the petitioner an opportunity of hearing before
the revisional authority. Further, it is a settled law that the writ
petition does not lie against the show-cause notice unless the
notice is without jurisdiction or patently illegal.
18. In support of this submission, the learned
counsel for the respondents has relied upon the decisions
rendered in the case of Union of India vs. Kunisetty
Satyanarayana reported as (2006) 12 SCC 28 and in the case of
Special Director vs. Mohammed Ghulam Ghouse reported as
(2004) 3 SCC 440 and has submitted that in the aforesaid
decisions it has been held that the Courts should not interfere at
the stage of show-cause notice unless the notice is wholly
Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026
17/30
without jurisdiction.
19. Adverting to Rule 7(c) of the Rules, 2019, it
has been submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that
the aforesaid provision clearly empowers the Mines
Commissioner to assume suo motu jurisdiction and call for
examining the records of any proceeding by any authority
subordinate to him and pass such orders as he may deem fit or
when the order of his subordinate is erroneous or prejudicial to
revenue, mining rules or environmental clearance. It is,
therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the respondents
that the power of Mines Commissioner is supervisory,
corrective and independent of powers under Rules 67 and 68.
20. It is the categorical submission of learned
counsel for the respondents that Rule-7(c) and Rule 68 of the
Rules, 2019 are not tied together and the argument of the
petitioner that they must always be read together is wholly
incorrect. It is argued that Rule 68 is a special statutory revision
against an order of the Collector and by contrast Rule-7(c) is
much wider in scope since it is not restricted to the revisionary
power exercisable only against the orders passed by the
Collector but against any order passed by any subordinate
officer including the Mines Development Officer. It has also
Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026
18/30
been submitted that the contention of the petitioner that the
scheme of the 2019 Rules, links Rule 7(c) with Rule 68 is also
an incorrect proposition.
21. It is next submitted by learned counsel for
the respondents that suo motu jurisdiction of the Mines
Commissioner can be triggered by an internal departmental
communication and the request made by the Mineral
Development Officer, Gaya vide letter dated 13.09.2024 is
merely that trigger for exercise of this suo motu independent
power of the Mines Commissioner. A mere reference from a
subordinate authority does not convert the proceeding into an
appeal under Rule 67 nor into a revision under Rule 68 of the
2019 Rules.
22. It is also submitted by learned counsel for
the respondents that by the order dated 21.09.2023 passed in
C.W.J.C. No.8436 of 2023 titled as ‘M/s Jai Bhagwati Mines
vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.‘ the coordinate Bench had
merely quashed the earlier demand notice dated 06.03.2023 for
violation of principles of natural justice and granted explicit
liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh. In compliance
thereto, fresh order dated 21.05.2024 was passed. It is therefore,
the submission, that the aforesaid order dated 21.05.2024 was
Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026
19/30
passed in exercise of statutory powers, upon remand, from this
Court and therefore, it does not attain finality merely because
the petitioner had deposited the penalty amount. Further, the
aforesaid order dated 21.05.2024 is also not immune from
revisional jurisdiction of the Mines Commissioner.
23. Learned counsel for the respondents has
categorically submitted that after the first inspection conducted
in the month of February, 2023 a penalty of Rs.19,35,22,820/-
was imposed upon the petitioner, however, upon remand from
this Court, again a fresh inspection was carried out in the month
of May, 2024 whereafter, a penalty of only Rs.6,81,494/- came
to be imposed, which clearly shows that there is huge difference
between the two penalty amounts, which raises serious doubt
about the authenticity of both the penalties. Therefore, it is the
submission of learned counsel for the respondents that it is the
solemn duty of the Mines Commissioner to protect the public
interest in exercise of his supervisory powers, which has been
correctly exercised by the Mines Commissioner in the facts of
the present case.
24. Lastly, it has been submitted by learned
counsel for the respondents that the petitioner was given due
notice and informed about the suo motu case before the Mines
Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026
20/30
Commissioner and was invited to participate in order to defend
his case, however, the petitioner chose to preempt the statutory
proceeding by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
25. I have considered the submissions of learned
counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record.
26. Considering the facts of this case, it would
be apposite to refer to the Rule-7 and Rule 68 of the Bihar
Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining,
Transportation and Storage) Rule, 2019.
“CHAPTER-II
Establishment and Control
xxxx
7. Powers and functions of the Mines
Commissioner- The Mines Commissioner:-
(a) Shall exercise over all control and
superintendence over all Mining Officers in the
State;
(b) may require any Mineral Concession holder by
notice to produce or caused to be produced before
him such documents, accounts or other evidence
which may be deemed fit;
(c) may suo motto call for and examine the record
of any proceeding conducted by any authority,
officer or person subordinate to him under the Act
and these rules and if he considers that any order
passed therein is erroneous or is prejudicial to the
interest of revenue, mining rules and
environmental conditions, pass such order as he
deems fit after giving the Mineral Concession
Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026
21/30holder or the person concerned an opportunity of
being heard;
xxx”
CHAPTER-XVI
Appeals And Revision
xxxxx
68. Revision-(1) The Mines Commissioner, at any
time for reason to be recorded in writing, may on
his own motion, and where any person aggrieved
by any order passed by the Collector under these
rules files an application within 60 days from the
date of communication of the order, and within 75
days from the date on which an application is
deemed to have been refused by the Collector, if no
communication is made of such refusal, shall start
a proceeding for revision of the order:
Provided that an application for revision
may be entertained even after the time specified as
above if the applicant satisfies the Mines
Commissioner that he had sufficient cause for not
making the application within time.
(2) On receipt of the application and copies thereof
under sub-rule (1), the Commissioner shall send a
copy of the application, and where proceeding is
started by him on his own motion, under sub-rule
(1) he shall send notices of starting the proceeding
and reasons thereof to each of the parties
impleaded specifying a date on or before which he
may make representation, if any, against the
revision application.
(3) After considering the records referred to in
sub-rule (2) the Mines Commissioner may confirm,
modify or set aside the order or pass such other
Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026
22/30order in relation thereto as the Mines
Commissioner may deem just and proper and his
order shall be final.
(4) Pending the final disposal of an application for
revision, the Mines Commissioner may, for
sufficient cause, stay the execution of the order
against which any revision application has been
made.”
27. From a bare perusal of these two Rules, that
is, the powers of the Mines Commissioner exercisable under
Rule-7(c) and the revisional jurisdiction under Rule 68 of the
Bihar Mineral Rules, 2019 clearly show that the powers are
independent, separate and distinct.
28. The Rule 7(c) is seated under Rule-7 which
is clearly titled ‘Powers and functions of the Mines
Commissioner’ which in turn is under Chapter-II titled
‘Establishment & Control’. The Mines Commissioner exercises
overall control and superintendence over all Mining Officers of
the State and is responsible for administration of these Rules of
2019 at the State level. In contrast, the Rule-68 falls under
Chapter- XVI titled ‘Appeals and Revision’ and the aforesaid
Rule-68 itself is clearly titled ‘Revision’.
29. Pertinently, from the reading of Rule 7(c), it
is clear that the Mines Commissioner is duly empowered to call
for and examine the records of any proceedings conducted by
Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026
23/30
any authority, officer or person subordinate to him, if he
considers that any order passed is erroneous or is prejudicial to
the interest of revenue, Mining Rules and Environmental
conditions and thereafter, pass such appropriate orders as he
may deem fit after giving an opportunity of hearing.
30. On the one hand, under Rule-7(c), is the
institutional supervisory correctional jurisdiction, whereunder
the Mines Commissioner can suo motu call for records in order
to scrutinise or examine records of proceedings by any
subordinate authority and, if an order is “erroneous” or
“prejudicial” to specified public interest grounds viz. prejudicial
to the interest of revenue, mining rules or environmental
conditions, then he may pass an appropriate order, as he deems
fit and proper, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the
concerned concession holder or the person concerned. This is
the source of superintending or supervisory powers of the
Mines Commissioner to correct errors and protect public
interest.
31. While on the other hand, Rule-68, by
contrast, is expressly labelled as “revision” and prescribes a
somewhat more complete procedural code, i.e., it contemplates
revision either on the own motion of the Mines Commissioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026
24/30
with reasons to be recorded, or on an application by the
aggrieved person within specified limitation periods. It also
contemplates notices, representations, and final revisional
outcomes such as confirm, modify or set aside, with even
interim protection pending final disposal. Therefore, Rule-68
provides for the revisional adjudicatory jurisdiction of the
Mines Commissioner which is distinct from the powers under
Rule-7(c).
32. The Rule-68 clearly mandates that, it is
imperative that there must exist an order of the Collector,
where-from the matter may travel to the Mines Commissioner
either on his own motion or on an application by the aggrieved
person. However, Rule 7(c) is much wider in its ambit for the
Mines Commissioner to initiate suo motu proceeding against
any order. The Mines Commissioner is empowered to call for
any record from any proceedings under the Act or the Rules
made thereunder and this power is exercisable exclusively suo
motu by the Mines Commissioner. The restriction, as provided
statutorily for exercise of the powers under rule 7(c) are two
folds, first, that the order passed by a subordinate officer be
erroneous or second, that the order passed be prejudicial to the
interest of revenue, mining rules or environmental conditions.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026
25/30
33. It is settled law that when two provisions
appear to be conflicting, Courts must harmonize the
interpretation so as to prevent any provision from being
rendered redundant, nugatory or otiose. In the present case, it is
abundantly clear that the powers of the Mines Commissioner
under Rule-7(c) and Rule-68 are distinct and separate.
34. While the powers under Rule-7(c) are
supervisory or superintending in nature, execrable exclusively
suo motu and can emanate from any proceeding from any
subordinate officer. On the other hand, the powers under Rule-
68 are revisional and adjudicatory simpliciter, wherein the
orders passed by the Collector may be subjected to revisional
scrutiny before the Mines Commissioner.
35. Merely because Rule 68 also uses the words
‘may on his own motion’ it does not subsume the separate and
distinct powers of the Mines Commissioner under Rule-7(c).
36. From the reading of both these afore-quoted
Rules, this Court is of the view that the contention of the
petitioner that the powers of the Mines Commissioner under
Rule 7(c) must always and mandatorily be read conjointly with
the Revisional powers of the Mines Commissioner under Rule
68 is not appealing to this Court. It is, therefore, inescapable
Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026
26/30
that the provisions provides for two different streams of powers
to the Mines Commissioner and such powers are distinct and
separate, which can be triggered by way of an internal
communication.
37. In the present case, this Court has perused
the order dated 24.02.2025 passed by the Mines Commissioner
in Revision Case No.01 of 2024 which has been brought on
record by the petitioner by way of a rejoinder to the counter
affidavit. The relevant portion of the order of penalty dated
24.02.2025 passed by the Mines Commissioner is reproduced
herein-below:-
“miLFkkfir vfHkys[kksa dks ns[kkA ekuuh; iVuk mPp
U;k;ky; }kjk 8436 @ 2023 esa fnukad 21-09-2023 dks ikfjr
vkns”k ls iwoZ ds ekax i= dks laosnd dks viuk i{k j[kus dk ekSdk
fn;s fcuk fuxZr djus ds vk/kkj ij [kkfjt fd;k x;k Fkk ,oa
fu;ekuqlkj dkjZOkkbZ dh Lora=rk nh x;h FkhA orZeku ekeys esa
[kfut fodkl inkf/kdkjh] x;k us fnukad 21-05-2024 ds vkns”k ls
lfefr }kjk iwoZ esa izfrosfnr voS/k [kuu ds fo:) vf/kjksfir n.M
dh jkf”k vR;ar de dj fn;kA Ik;kZoj.k laj{k.k ,oa jktLofgr esa
voS/k [kuu ds fo:) dBksj dkjZokbZ lqfuf”pr djus ds fy, fnukad
21-05-2024 ds vkns”k dh leh{kk vko”;d gSA fu;e&68 ds rgr
lekgRRkkZ }kjk ikfjr vkns”k ds ekeys esa iqujh{k.k izkjaHk dh tk
ldrh gSA ;g rF; lgh gS fdURkq fu;e&7 (x) ds rgr [kku
vk;qDr fdlh Hkh izkf/kdkj }kjk ikfjr xyr vkns”k vFkok jkTkLo]
[kku fu;ekoyh ds fgrksa rFkk Ik;kZoj.kh; “krksZa ds izfrdwy vkns”kksa ds
fy, Loizsj.; ls dk;Zokgh dk ijh{k.k dj lacaf/kr O;fDr dks lquokbZ
dk volj nsdj mi;qDr vkns”k ikfjr dj ldrs gSA orZeku [kfut
fodkl inkf/kdkjh }kjk lefiZr vkosnu ds lkFk fnukad 21-05-2024
Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026
27/30dks ikfjr vkns”k ds laKku esa vkrs gh ;g dk;Zokgh izkjaHk dh x;h
gS] ftlesa laosnd dks uksfVl fuxZr djus] tkWap esa mifLFkfr
lqfuf”pr djus ,oa tkWap izfrosnu ij viuk i{k j[kus dk iw.kZ ekSdk
nsus ds i”pkr ;g vkns”k ikfjr fd;k tk jgk gSA blfy, laosnd
dh iqujh{k.k dk;Zokgh ds oS/krk ds laca/k esa pqukSrh Lohdkj ;ksX; ugha
gSA fu;e&7 (x) ds rgr dk;Zokgh izkjaHk djus ds fy, dksbZ le;
lhek ugha gSA oSls Hkh orZeku dk;Zokgh lafLFkr djus gsrq Ik;kZIRk
vk/kkj gS] ftldk mYYks[k vkns”k ds izkjaHk esa gh fd;k x;k gSA bl
U;k;ky; }kjk xfBr lfefr us laosnd dh mifLFkfr esa vk/kqfud
rduhd ds vk/kkj ij tkWap dj izfrosnu lefiZr fd;k gS ,oa blij
viuk i{k j[kus gsrq laosnd dks ekSdk fn;k x;k gSA fcgkj [kfut
(lekuqnku] voS/k [kuu] ifjogu ,oa HkaMkj.k fuokj.k) fu;ekoyh]
2019 ds fu;e 46 (6) ds rgr ys[kk@ fjVuZ ;k vU; lk{; ds
vfrfjDr vk/kqfud izkS|ksfxdh ;k v|Rku jhfr dk iz;ksx dj [kuu
dh ek=k dks fofuf”pr fd;k tk ldrk gSA blfy, laosnd dk ;g
dFku fd Google Earth Software ij vk/kkfjr n.M yxkus dk
dksbZ izko/kku ugha gS] vk/kkjghu gSA blds vfrfjDr lfefr }kjk
fu/kkZfjr {ks= ls ckgj izfrosfnr voS/k [kuu ds laca/k esa laosnd }kjk
dksbZ rF; ugha j[kk x;k gS] ftlls Li’V gksrk gS fd lfefr }kjk
izfrosfnr voS/k [kuu dks og Lohdkj dj jgs gSaA fcgkj [kfut
(lekuqnku] voS/k [kuu] ifjogu ,oa HkaMkj.k fuokj.k) fu;ekoyh]
2019 dk fu;e&11(1)fuEu izdkj gS%&
”11 (1) &dksbZ O;fDr fdlh {ks= esa] [kuu lafØ;k, bl
fu;ekoyh ds v/khu vuqnRRk] ;Fkk fLFkfr] vuqKfIr ;k
[kuu iV~Vsa ds v/khu rFkk mlds fuca/kuksa vkSj “krksZa ds
vuqlkj djsxk] vFkok ugha”fcgkj [kfut (lekuqnku] voS/k [kuu] ifjogu ,oa HkaMkj.k fuokj.k)
(la”kks/ku) fu;ekoyh] 2021 dk fu;e&56 (1) fuEu izdkj gS%&”56(1)&dksbZ O;fDr fdlh {ks= esa] mR[kuu ;k fudklh ;k
[kuu lafØ;k,a bl fu;ekoyh ds v/khu lekuqnku] ;k
vuqKfIRk ;k vU; fdlh vuqefr ds fcuk ;k ifjogu ;k
Hk.Mkj.k ;k ifjogu dk dkj.k ;k fdlh [kfut dk
Hk.Mkj.k fcuk oS/k pkyku ;k vuqKfIr ds ugha djsxkA”
Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026
28/30esllZ t; Hkxorh ekbUl dks fcgkj jkT; [kuu fuxe }kjk fuf”pr
{ks= ds fy, [kuu dh vuqefr nh x;h FkhA fu/kkZfjr {ks= ls ckgj
[kuu mijksDr fu;eksa dk mYya?ku gSA rRdkyhu [kfut fodkl
inkf/kdkjh] x;k }kjk fnukad 16-11-2023 dks ikfjr vkns”k fcuk
rduhdh leh{kk ds ikfjr fd;k x;k gS] tks [kkfjt djus ;ksX; gSA
fnukad 05-11-2024 dks funs”kd] [kku dh v/;{krk esa xfBr
lfefr }kjk fu;e&46 (6) ds rgr vuqekU; vk/kqfud@ v|ru
rduhd dk mi;ksx djrs gq, fnukad 13-12-2024 dks lefiZr
izfrosnu dh dafMdk &1 esa f[ktjljk; ckyw?kkV esa laosnd dks [kuu
ds fy, vuqekU; vof/k esa dksbZ [kuu dk lk{; ugha ik;k x;k]
tcfd laosnd }kjk mDr vof/k esa 72]855-65 MT dk pkyku fuxZr
fd;k x;k gSA blls Li’V gS fd laosnd }kjk Ik;kZoj.kh Lohd`r {ks=
ls fdlh brj fdlh vU; LFkku ls] tks muds i{k esa Lohd`r ugha Fkk]
ls 72]855-65 MT ckyw dk voS/k [kuu fd;k x;k gSAvr% laosnd }kjk fnukad &29-10-2024 ,oa 18-02-2025 dks
lefiZr fyf[kr vfHkdFku rF; ls ijs gksus ds dkj.k [kkfjt fd;k
tkrk gS ,oa lfefr }kjk fnuakd 13-12-2024 dks lefiZr tkWaPk
izfrosnu ls lger gksrs gq, fcgkj [kfut (lekuqnku] voS/k [kuu]
ifjogu ,oa HkaMkj.k fuokj.k) fu;ekoyh] 2019 ds fu;e&7 (x) esa
iznRRk “kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, laosnd esllZ t; Hkxorh ekbUl
ds fo:) Ik;kZoj.kh; Lohd`fr esa fu/kkZfjr {ks= ls ckgj voS/k [kuu
ds fy, : 19]35]22]820@& (mUUkhl djksM iSarhl yk[k ckbZLk gtkj
vkB lkS chl) dk n.M vf/kjksfir fd;k tkrk gSA fu/kkZfjr vof/k esa
jkf”k tek ugha djus dh fLFkfr esa jkf”k dh olwyh gsrq fu;ekuqlkj
vxzsrj dkjZokbZ dk vkns”k lekgRrkZ] x;k dks fn;k tkrk gSAys[kkfir ,oa la”kksf/kr
g0@& g0@&
(ueZns”oj yky) (ueZns”oj yky)
[kku vk;qDr] fcgkj [kku vk;qDr] fcgkj”
38. The Mines Commissioner in the aforesaid
order has drawn strength from Rule-7(c) of the Rules, 2019 and
the inspection report dated 13.12.2024 and thereafter imposed a
Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026
29/30
penalty of Rs.19,35,22,820/- upon the petitioner. Therefore, in
the opinion of this Court, the exercise of powers under Rule
7(c) by the Mines Commissioner cannot be said to be suffering
from any illegality or infirmity on the score of jurisdiction
exercised by the Mines Commissioner.
39. However, this Court has noted that the
inspection report submitted by the Joint Committee constituted
by the Mines Commissioner was the very basis on which the
aforesaid penalty was imposed upon the petitioner. The
inspection was carried out behind the back of the petitioner.
Since the inspection, conducted by the Committee constituted
by the Mines Commissioner, was conducted behind the back of
the petitioner, the same stands vitiated for violation of
principles of natural justice, and therefore, cannot form the
basis for imposition of penalty upon the petitioner. Once the
core itself is vitiated, the consequent order of penalty dated
24.02.2025 can not be sustained to the extent that it is based on
the inspection report dated 13.12.2024.
40. In view of the above, the imposition of
penalty upon the petitioner vide order dated 24.02.2025 is set
aside. The matter is remitted to the Mines Commissioner to
conduct a fresh inspection, in presence of the petitioner, and
Patna High Court CWJC No.17509 of 2024 dt.12-03-2026
30/30
after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to him, the
Mines Commissioner may pass an appropriate order in
accordance with law.
41. With the aforesaid observations and
directions, this writ petition is allowed to the above extent.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
pawan/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R. CAV DATE 22.12.2025 Uploading Date 12.03.2026 Transmission Date