Penalty order passed by an authority lacking jurisdiction at the time of issuance is void ab initio and requires fresh adjudication.

The petitioner, a stone works proprietorship, challenged Memo No. 1329/M dated 30.12.2023 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj, which imposed a penalty under Rule 54 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (JMMC) Rules, 2004.

On 28.07.2025, the High Court directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the demand amount as a condition for hearing the matter.

The petitioner subsequently filed an interlocutory application (I.A. No. 14290 of 2025) for recall of that order, contending that the Deputy Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to pass the penalty order and that a subsequent State notification dated 06.05.2025 clarified which authorities held such powers.

Whether the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj, had the jurisdiction to impose penalties under Rule 54 of the JMMC Rules, 2004, prior to the notification dated 06.05.2025.

Whether the interim order requiring a 50% deposit should be recalled and the impugned penalty order quashed on grounds of lack of jurisdiction.

The court primarily applied Rule 54(6) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, regarding the imposition of penalties for illegal mining.

It relied on Section 26(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) (MMDR) Act, 1957, read with Sections 21(3), 21(4), and 21(5), under which the State issued Notification Memo No. 01/2025-1072 dated 06.05.2025 to delegate penal powers.

Furthermore, the court applied the principle from *Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai* (1998) 8 SCC 1, which permits the exercise of writ jurisdiction despite alternative remedies if the impugned order is passed without jurisdiction.

The court observed that at the time the impugned order was passed (30.12.2023), the Deputy Commissioner did not possess the statutory authority to impose penalties under Rule 54(6) of the JMMC Rules.

The State Government only formally conferred such powers upon specific authorities—namely the Director of Mines, Additional Director, and District/Assistant Mining Officers—via the notification dated 06.05.2025.

Referring to its own precedent in *Md. Moktar Momin v. State of Jharkhand* (W.P.(C) No. 1011 of 2025), the court reasoned that an order passed by an authority lacking inherent jurisdiction is void.

Consequently, the petitioner could not be compelled to comply with the 50% deposit condition of the earlier interim order, as the underlying penalty order was fundamentally flawed.

It quashed the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction in the Deputy Commissioner.

The matter was remitted to the competent authority (as designated by the 06.05.2025 notification) to initiate fresh proceedings by issuing a show-cause notice within four weeks and deciding the issue on its merits thereafter.

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.