Ranchi, September 10: The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed petitions seeking a refund of nearly Rs 2.42 crore deposited as compensation in connection with mining activities, holding that the petitioners had approached the court after an unexplained delay of nearly nine years.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar dismissed petitions filed by Vijay Kumar Ojha and Anil Khirwal, who had sought refund of Rs 33,60,863 and Rs 2,08,39,666, respectively.
The amounts had been demanded by the District Mining Officer, Chaibasa, in 2017 as compensation for allegedly carrying out mining beyond the limits prescribed under the environmental clearance.
The petitioners contended that the District Mining Officer did not have the authority under Section 21(5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, to raise such demands. They also argued that the State Government had not delegated the relevant power to the District Mining Officer under Section 26(2) of the Act.
The petitioners relied on a High Court judgment dated March 4, 2025, in which similar demand notices had been quashed. They also pointed out that an SLP filed by the State Government against that judgment had subsequently been dismissed by the Supreme Court on December 15, 2025.
However, the High Court found the delay in approaching the court to be significant.
The bench observed that the petitioners had not challenged the demand notices issued in 2017. After depositing the amounts, they remained inactive for several years and approached the court seeking similar relief only after other mining leaseholders succeeded in their litigation.
Court calls petitioners ‘fence-sitters’
The court described the petitioners as “fence-sitters”, observing that such litigants do not approach the court at the appropriate time but wait for the outcome of litigation initiated by others.
When the outcome subsequently favours them, they seek to claim the same benefit, the court noted.
The bench held that such conduct could not be encouraged and that delay in seeking judicial relief can constitute a significant obstacle to granting equitable relief.
The court accordingly dismissed both petitions, declining to grant the petitioners a refund of the amounts deposited in 2017.
