Jharkhand High Court
Anand Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief ... on 16 April, 2026
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (PIL) No. 3950 of 2024
Anand Kumar, retired Range Forest Officer, aged 61 years, Son of late
Jadunandan Roy, Resident of Flat No.- 302, Krishna Shree Apartment,
Anantpur, P.O.- Doranda, P. S. Chutiya, District at Ranchi- 834002
which unique identification number belongs to 299754518777
...... Petitioner (In-Person)
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary of the State of
Jharkhand, Office at Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District-
Ranchi, Pin-code number-834004.
2. Government of India through Secretary, Ministry of Environment,
Forest and Climate Change, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Jor Bagh
Road, Head Post Office- Lodhi Road, Jor Bagh, Police Stations- Jor
Bagh, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi-110003.
3. Chairman, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, T.A. Division
Building (Ground Floor), H.E.C., Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. - Dhurwa,
Ranchi-834004.
4. Shri Sanjay Kumar Suman, Ex. Member Secretary, Jharkhand State
Pollution Control Board, T.A. Division Building (Ground Floor),
H.E.C., Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S.- Dhurwa, Ranchi-834004.
5. Chairman, The State Level Environment Impact Assessment
Authority (SEIAA), Jharkhand State, Aarya Enclave, Govindnagar,
Tilta, Ratu, P.O. and P.S.-Ratu Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand - 835222.
6. Additional Chief Secretary, Forest, Environment and Climate
Change Department, Government of State of Jharkhand, Nepal
House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi-834004.
7. Special Secretary, Forest, Environment and Climate Change
Department, Government of State of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O.
& P.S.- Doranda, District- Ranchi-834002.
8. Deputy Secretary, Forest, Environment and Climate Change
Department, Government of State of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O.
& P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi- 834002.
9. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Government of Jharkhand,
Office at Van-Bhavan, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District- Ranchi-
834002.
Page 1 of 25
10.Secretary, Department of Mines & Geology, Office at Nepal House,
3rd Floor, Yojna-Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District- Ranchi-
834002.
11.Director General-cum-Chief of Anti-Corruption Bureau, Office at
Audrey House, P.O. & P.S.- Kanke Road, District-Ranchi, Pin-code
number-834001.
12.The Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Pravartan Bhawan, APJ
Abdul Kalam Road, P.O & P.S. & District- New Delhi-110011.
13.The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, 6th Floor, Plot No.-5-
B, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium Marg, CGO Complex, P.O.-Block M,
Lodhi Road & P.S.-Pragati Vihar, CGO Complex, District- New
Delhi-110013.
.......... Respondents
To,
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
---------
For the Petitioner: Party-In-Person
For the State: Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General
Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G.
Mr. Gaurav Raj, A.C. to A.A.G.-II
For the CBI: Mr. Prashant Pallav, A.S.G.I.
For the ED: Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
Mr. Shivam Utkarsh Sahay, Advocate
For the JSPCB: Mrs. Richa Sanchita, Advocate
Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, Advocate
For the SEIAA: Mr. Bhanu Kumar, Advocate
For the Acct. General: Mr. Sudarshan Shrivastava, Advocate
---------
Reserved on: 08.04.2026 Pronounced on: 16/04/2026
Per M. S. Sonak, C.J.
I.A. No. 2542 of 2026 & I.A. No.2684 of 2026
1. Heard the petitioner who appears In-person.
2. Learned Advocate General for the State and Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board (JSPCB), were heard.
Page 2 of 25
3. By order dated 16th January 2026, this Court, relying primarily on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 3rd June 2022 in the case of In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India and Others, (2022) 10 SCC 544, directed that no consents be granted by the JSPCB for stone mines and/or for establishing stone crushers within one kilometre measured from the demarcated boundaries of protected forests in the State of Jharkhand.
4. This Court also directed that if consents have already been granted in the above areas, then the JSPCB should conduct an immediate survey and file a list of such consents already granted, so that the Court could consider what orders could be made in their regard. Further, this Court, in its order dated 16th January 2026, directed the JSPCB to maintain constant vigil for unauthorised mining activities or operation of stone crushers within a one-kilometre buffer zone from the boundaries of the protected forests.
5. The above directions were interim in nature, intended to operate until pleadings were complete and, perhaps, the matter could be considered for final disposal.
6. The State and the JSPCB have now filed I.A. Nos. 2542 of 2026 and 2684 of 2026 seeking vacation/variation of our order dated 16th January 2026, arguing that the one-kilometre buffer zone directed to be created by the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 3rd June 2022 applies only to national parks and wildlife sanctuaries, but not the protected forests or reserved forests.
Page 3 of 25
7. The learned Advocate General, who appeared for the State, took us through the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 3rd June 2022 and submitted that this order applies only to national parks and wildlife sanctuaries. He further submitted that the direction is to have an Eco- Sensitive Zone (ESZ) of at least one kilometre measured from the demarcated boundaries of such national parks and wildlife sanctuaries, and that the activities proscribed and prescribed in the guidelines of 9th February 2011 shall be strictly adhered to.
8. The learned Advocate General, however, submitted that there is nothing in the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order to suggest that the ESZ of one kilometre was to be maintained from the demarcated boundaries of either reserved or other protected forests. Accordingly, he submitted that our direction, amounting to creating an ESZ of one kilometre from the demarcated boundary of all types of protected forests, was not consistent with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 03.06.2022.
9. The learned Advocate General, after referring us to the supplementary counter-affidavit filed by the Member Secretary of the JSPCB, submitted that the impugned notifications dated 07.12.2015 and 18.10.2017, which reduced the minimum distance for setting up stone mines and stone crushers around forests or forest lands from the previously notified 400/500 metres to 250 metres, were based on the decision of an Expert Committee at its meeting dated 02.12.2015 (Annexure B, Page 32 to the JSPCB affidavit). He pointed out that the Page 4 of 25 Expert Committee had also considered the position of other States, such as Orissa, West Bengal, Rajasthan, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, and Bihar, where the minimum distance for setting up stone mines or stone crushers from the boundaries of forest land was less than 250 metres. Accordingly, he submitted that even the impugned notification reducing the minimum distance to 250 metres was based on expert advice, which was consistent with the position in other States.
10. Learned Advocate General also referred to the Control of Air Pollution (Grant, Refusal or Cancellation of Consent) Guidelines, 2025, issued by the Central Government, to submit that stone mining or establishing stone crushers were classified in the 'Orange' category. He submitted that in terms of Clause 9 of the Guidelines, which deal with the procedures for selection of locations for setting up industries classified as 'Red', 'Orange' or 'Green', any industry or industrial plant in the 'Orange' category can be set up only beyond 200 meters from sensitive areas, such as, national parks, reserved forests, etc. He submitted that in this case, the JSPCB, by the impugned notifications, has provided for a buffer of 250 meters, which is almost 50 meters in excess of the minimum prescribed by the Central Government.
11. Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the JSPCB, adopted the arguments and submissions made by the learned Advocate General for the State of Jharkhand. He pointed out that several applications for renewal of consents had been received but could not be processed on account of this Court's interim order dated Page 5 of 25 16.01.2026. He therefore joined the learned Advocate General in submitting that the interim order be vacated or at least varied by restricting the minimum distance or buffer zone to 250 meters from the demarcated boundaries of any protected forests.
12. The learned Advocate General filed a synopsis of his arguments on the 10th of April 2026.
13. Mr Anand Kumar, the petitioner, who appeared in person, relied on the affidavit he filed opposing the grant of any relief in the interim applications seeking vacations/variations. He submitted that much harm will be caused to reserved and protected forests if stone mines or the establishment of stone crushers were permitted within the buffer zone of one kilometre from the demarcated boundaries.
14. Mr. Anand Kumar submitted that even the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 3rd June 2022 makes specific reference to "protected forest". Therefore, he submitted that the order requiring the creation of an ESZ or a buffer zone of one kilometre from the demarcated boundaries applies to all protected forests, not just national parks and wildlife sanctuaries.
15. Mr Anand Kumar submitted that his challenge was to the impugned notifications dated 07.12.2015 and 18.10.2017, which arbitrarily reduced the buffer zone or minimum distance requirement from 400/500 to 250 metres from the boundaries of all forests, including reserved or protected forests. He submitted that, at the time these notifications were issued, the Central Government's Guidelines of Page 6 of 25 2025 did not exist. Therefore, a reduction in the buffer zone could not be based on those Guidelines. He further submitted that no retrospective effect can be given to the 2025 Guidelines.
16. Mr. Anand Kumar submitted that the 2025 Guidelines, apart from lacking binding effect, run contrary to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (supra), as interpreted by the respondents, because they purport to include even national parks and wildlife sanctuaries, which, even according to the State and the JSPCB, are covered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order providing for a buffer zone of one kilometre. He therefore submitted that the 2025 Guidelines cannot be relied upon to seek the vacation of this Court's order dated 16.01.2026.
17. Mr Anand Kumar submitted that despite this Court granting an opportunity, neither the State nor the JSPCB have placed any credible material for reducing the buffer zone from 400/500 to 250 meters from the demarcated boundaries of protected forests. He submitted that the document relied upon, along with the JSPCB affidavit, simply relies upon the alleged position in some other States. He submitted that the position in different States is bound to differ, and therefore any blind reliance on the position in other States to reduce the buffer zone would amount to a complete non-application of mind and a failure to advert to relevant considerations.
18. For all the above reasons, Mr Anand Kumar submitted that these interim applications may be dismissed.
Page 7 of 25
19. Mr. Anand Kumar has also filed a synopsis of his argument on 13.04.2026.
20. The rival contentions now fall for our determination.
21. In this Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner has challenged the notification dated 07.12.2015 reducing the minimum distance for stone mines and/or establishing stone crushers around forests and forest land from the previously notified 400/500 meters to 250 meters.
22. By an interim order dated 16.01.2026, this Court, relying primarily on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 3rd June 2022, in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (supra), directed the JSPCB not to grant any consents for stone mining or establishing stone crushers within one kilometer measured from the demarcated boundaries of protected forests in the State of Jharkhand.
23. Now these interim applications filed by the State and the JSPCB seek a vacation or variation of this interim order by arguing that the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 3rd of June 2022, in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (supra), providing for a one-kilometre Eco-Sensitive Zone, applies only to national parks and wildlife sanctuaries, but not to other protected or reserved forests.
24. The JSPCB filed a counter-affidavit in this matter seeking to justify the reduction of the minimum distance for stone mining and/or for establishing stone crushers around forests or forest lands from the previously notified 400/500 meters to 250 meters in the impugned Page 8 of 25 notifications dated 07.12.2015 and 18.10.2017. This justification was, no doubt, contested by the petitioner, who appeared in person.
25. Therefore, from the pleadings and rival contentions, the following two points arise for determination in these IAs:-
(a) Whether this Court's order dated 16th January 2026, to the extent it restrains the respondents, including the JSPCB, from issuing any consents for stone mines and/or from establishing stone crushers within one kilometre of the demarcated boundaries of protected forests in Jharkhand, needs to be vacated in its entirety?
(b) Should the restrictions on granting consents for stone mines and/or for establishing stone crushers be set at a minimum of 500 metres measured from the demarcated boundaries of protected forests in Jharkhand?
26. Insofar as the first point for determination is concerned, this Court, in the absence of proper pleadings and in the face of unclear submissions across the Bar and following the direction in paragraph 56.1 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 03.06.2022 in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (supra), issued the interim order dated 16th January 2026.
27. The above-referred paragraph 56.1 reads as follows:-
"56.1. Each protected forest, that is, national park or wildlife sanctuary must have an ESZ of minimum one kilometre measured from the demarcated boundary of such protected forest in which the activities proscribed and prescribed in the Page 9 of 25 Guidelines of 9-2-2011 shall be strictly adhered to. For Jamua Ramgarh Wildlife Sanctuary, it shall be 500 m so far as subsisting activities are concerned."
28. This Court, at that stage when it made the order of 16th January 2026 was not apprised of further orders made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, clarifying the position that ESZ of minimum one kilometer was to be measured from the demarcated boundaries of national parks and wildlife sanctuaries and not from all kinds of protected forests, as defined under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.
29. Paragraph 56.1, quoted above, no doubt, begins with the expression "each protected forest"; however, this expression is immediately followed by "that is, national park or wildlife sanctuary ............". Thus, in paragraph 56.1 itself, the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained what it meant by its expression "each protected forest".
30. The expression "protected forest", whether used generically or as defined under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, is the larger set, of which a national park or wildlife sanctuary is its smaller subset. Thus, while all national parks or wildlife sanctuaries would be protected forests, not all the areas of a protected forest would necessarily be the national parks or wildlife sanctuaries unless so specifically declared.
31. From the context in paragraph 56.1 and the following paragraphs up to paragraph 56.8, it appears that the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 3rd June 2022 directed that the ESZ of at least one kilometre be measured from the demarcated boundaries of national parks and Page 10 of 25 wildlife sanctuaries, not from all protected forests as defined generically or under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.
32. Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 3rd June 2022, of which paragraph 56.1 was relied upon by us, was modified on 26th April 2023. This order, after discussing the genesis of providing a buffer zone around national parks and wildlife sanctuaries, also supports the view that an ESZ of at least 1 kilometre had to be measured from the demarcated boundaries of national parks and wildlife sanctuaries.
33. Paragraphs 21, 22, 25, 26, 65 and 66 of this order are relevant and, therefore, quoted below for the convenience of reference: -
"21. The next order of this Court is dated 21st April 2014 in the case of Goa Foundation v. Union of India and Others. It will be relevant to refer to the following observations of this Court in the said order:
"49. ......The result is that the order passed by this Court saying that there will be no mining activity within one kilometre safety zone around national park or wildlife sanctuary has to be enforced and there can be no mining activities within this area of one kilometre from the boundaries of national parks and wildlife sanctuaries in the State of Goa."
22. The Court has clarified that there shall be no mining activity within one kilometre of the safety zone around National Park or Wildlife Sanctuary and that this has to be enforced. It is also reiterated that there can be no mining Page 11 of 25 activities within this area of one kilometre from the boundaries of National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries in the State of Goa.
23. ... ... ...
24. ... ... ...
25. It will be relevant to refer to paragraphs 87.3 and 88.1 of the said order, which read thus:
"87.3. Until the order dated 4-8-2006 [T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (2010) 13 SCC 740] of this Court is modified by this Court in IA No. 1000 in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, there can be no mining activities within one kilometre from the boundaries of national parks and sanctuaries in Goa.
88.1. MoEF will issue the notification of eco-sensitive zones around the national park and wildlife sanctuaries of Goa after following the procedure discussed in this judgment within a period of six months from today.
26. It can thus be seen that this Court has held that until the order dated 4th August 2006 (supra) is modified by this Court in IA No. 1000 of 2003 in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, there can be no mining activities within one kilometre from the boundaries of National Parks and Sanctuaries in Goa. The Court further directed MoEF to issue the notification of ESZs around the Page 12 of 25 National Park and Wildlife Sanctuaries of Goa after following the procedure discussed in the said judgment.
27 - 59. ... ... ...
60. Insofar as the restriction on mining is concerned, we are of the considered view that it has been the consistent view of this Court that the mining activities within an area of one kilometre of the boundary of the Protected Areas will be hazardous for the wildlife. Though in the case of Goa Foundation (supra), the said directions were issued in respect of State of Goa, we find that such directions need to be issued on Pan-India basis. 61 - 64. ... ... ...
65. We also modify the direction contained in paragraph 56.4 of the order dated 3rd June 2022 (supra) and direct that mining within the National Park and Wildlife Sanctuary and within an area of one kilometre from the boundary of such National Park and Wildlife Sanctuary shall not be permissible.
66. We also modify the directions contained in paragraph 56.5 of the order dated 3rd June 2022 (supra) and replace the same as under:
(i) The MoEF & CC and all the State/Union Territory Governments shall strictly follow the provisions in the said Guidelines dated 9th February 2011 and so also the provisions contained in the ESZs notifications pertaining to the respective Protected Areas with regard Page 13 of 25 to prohibited activities, regulated activities and permissible activities;
(ii) We further direct that while granting Environmental and Forest Clearances for project activities in ESZ and other areas outside the Protected Areas, the Union of India as well as various State/Union Territory Governments shall strictly follow the provisions contained in the Office Memorandum dated 17th May 2022 issued by MoEF & CC."
34. From the above, it appears that the ban on mining activities within a one-kilometre safety zone was intended to apply around national parks or wildlife sanctuaries, not only in the State of Goa but on a Pan-India basis.
35. Court decisions are not to be read as statutes. The context is important. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 03.06.2022 had to be read and construed in its entirety, together with the clarifications and modifications issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 26th April 2023. Thus, read and construed, the direction to prohibit mining within the buffer zone of one kilometre measured from the demarcated boundaries of all kinds of protected forests may not align with the Hon'ble Supreme Court's above-referred orders.
36. To the above extent, therefore, our order dated 16th January 2026 warrants modification. The restriction will apply only to the buffer zone of a minimum of one kilometre from the demarcated boundaries of national parks and wildlife sanctuaries in Jharkhand, and not to other Page 14 of 25 protected forests, unless, of course, there exist any other statutory restrictions that govern this aspect. At least none were pointed out to us. The entire focus of the petitioner was on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 3rd June 2022 and the use of the expression "protected forest" in paragraph 56.1 thereof.
37. The second point for determination is whether the restriction on the issue of consents for stone mining and/or the establishment of stone crushers should apply only within a 250-metre zone demarcated along the boundaries of all kinds of protected forests in the State of Jharkhand, or whether the petitioner has made out a strong prima facie case against the impugned notifications dated 07.12.2015 and 18.10.2017 issued by the JSPCB, which reduce the minimum distance for stone mining and/or the establishment of stone crushers around forests or forest lands from the previously notified 400/500 metres to 250 metres?
38. The learned Advocate General argued that JSPCB has the legal authority to prescribe siting norms under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. He referred to Sections 17, 19, 21 and 31-A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, to explain the statutory scheme and source.
39. At this stage, we do not wish to address the question of the source of power. Assuming that the JSPCB has the power to prescribe siting norms, the issue concerns the exercise of that power in issuing the impugned notifications, which reduce the minimum distance for Page 15 of 25 stone mining and/or the establishment of stone crushers from the previously notified 400/500 metres to 250 metres from the demarcated boundaries of forests and forest lands.
40. The State and the JSPCB have relied on the NOC dated 2nd December 2015, based on which the impugned notifications were issued, and submitted that the reduction was based on the recommendation of a committee comprising experts, specialists, eminent persons, scientists, and other members with domain expertise in environmental regulations and pollution control. They argued that this court ought to defer to the expert opinion in such scientific matters.
41. The second reason cited by the learned Advocate General and the learned senior counsel for the JSPCB was the regulatory practices prevalent in multiple States, such as Orissa, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, West Bengal, and Bihar. It was submitted that the JSPCB had considered the status of such restrictions in the neighbouring States for deciding the extent of restrictions that could be imposed in Jharkhand.
42. The learned Advocate General and the learned senior counsel for the JSPCB also relied on CPCB siting guidelines of 2025 to submit that the minimum distance now provided by the CPCB for stone mines or stone crushers was only 200 metres from forests or forest lands, whereas the JSPCB had provided 250 metres. It was submitted that since the JSPCB norms were stricter than those prescribed by CPCB, no case for interference with the impugned notifications was made out. Page 16 of 25
43. Based mainly on the above arguments, it was urged that the restrictions should be reduced to 250 metres from the boundaries of demarcated forests or forest lands as provided in the impugned notifications by modifying the order dated 16th January 2026.
44. To appreciate and evaluate the rival contentions on the above issue, we must mainly focus on what is set out in the impugned notifications dated 07.12.2015 and 18.10.2017, to be read with the NOC issued by the Expert Committee in its meeting held on 02.12.2015. Further, we must also consider the impact of the CPCB's 2025 siting guidelines, which the Respondent State and the JSPCB relied upon.
45. The notifications themselves say little, except that the distance is being reduced from 500/400 meters to 250 meters. However, the NOC of the so called Expert Committee issued in its meeting held on 02.12.2015 does say the following: -
(a) Paragraph 1 of the NOC states only that the experts deliberated on the issue of reducing distances from forest boundaries and forest land for setting up stone crushers.
(b) Paragraph 2 then states that the experts also considered the siting guidelines across different States, including Orissa, West Bengal, Rajasthan, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, and Bihar.
(c) Paragraph 3, which is the final paragraph, then concludes that the minimum distance of 500 meters should now be reduced to 250 meters from the boundaries of forests and forest lands. Page 17 of 25
46. The committee, which issued the NOC in its meeting held on 02.12.2015, comprised the following:-
(i) Sudhir Kumar, Environment Engineer,
(ii) Phillip Mathew, JSIA,
(iii) B.B. Singh, Additional Director, Mines and Geology,
(iv) B.M. Lal Das, Deputy Director, Industries Department,
(v) Sanjay Kumar Suman, Member Secretary.
47. From the foregoing, we find that, apart from Sudhir Kumar, the Environment Engineer, and perhaps Phillip Mathew, JSIA, the other members can hardly be described as specialists or experts in the field of the environment or environmental issues. The meeting of the so-called expert committee held on 02.12.2015 was to consider the siting guidelines for the boundaries of forests and forest lands. Yet it is surprising that no experts in forestry, or at least experienced forest officials, were part of the so-called expert committee. A majority of the members were bureaucrats, and apart from styling them as domain experts in the JSPCB affidavit, nothing else was produced to even prima facie demonstrate their expertise in this interdisciplinary field involving mining, forestry and the environment.
48. That apart, the NOC and the affidavits filed simply refer to the position in some other States like Orissa, West Bengal, Rajasthan, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh and Bihar, without even an attempt to determine whether the condition of forests, topography, etc of the forests in Jharkhand is comparable with similar parameters in other Page 18 of 25 States. The so-called expert committee, with respect, without any application of mind, has simply stated that it has considered the siting guidelines for other States and based upon the same, drastically reduced the minimum distance of 500 meters from boundaries of forests and forest land for the purpose of stone mining and/or establishing stone crushers to 250 meters.
49. In the synopsis of written arguments furnished by the learned Advocate General, it is pointed out that the Orissa and Himachal Pradesh norms do not impose any restrictions in relation to the reserved or protected forest lands. While Punjab imposes a restriction of 300 meters from wildlife sanctuaries and protected forests, no minimum distance is prescribed from reserved or protected forests. Rajasthan prescribes 100 meters restriction from some specified sanctuaries. West Bengal and Bihar adopt a graded, site-specific approach to distance norms from forest lands for stone crushers calibrated to the type of forest area and local ecological conditions.
50. The synopsis filed by the Learned Advocate General summarises the position of restrictions in the States in the following terms: -
"D.6 SUMMARY i. The distance norms vary by category of forest, type of activity and ecological sensitivity of the specific area; and ii. Several States prescribe no minimum distance from forest land at all for stone crusher operations.
Page 19 of 25 The Notification B-15 dated 18/10/2017 is thus not only legally valid but is aligned with the prevailing national regulatory practice.
It is based upon the recommendation of the Committee dated 02/12/2015 which decided to bring down the distance from 500 m to 250 m based on the prevailing conditions of the neighbouring States such as Rajasthan, Bihar, Orissa and other neighbouring states."
51. Upon the due consideration of the affidavit filed by the JSPCB, the impugned notifications and the NOC dated 02.12.2015, we are satisfied that the petitioner has made out a strong prima facie case in his challenge to the impugned notification dated 07.12.2015.
52. Firstly, neither the State nor the JSPCB has produced any material to justify the abrupt reduction from 500 to 250 metres. The NOC dated 02.12.2015 is vitiated by non-application of mind. The NOC cannot be said to have been issued by an expert committee, given its composition. The so-called expert committee, in any event, has simply referred to restrictions in other States without independently analysing the position in the context of the requirements of the State of Jharkhand.
53. As noted above, even the synopsis of the argument submitted by the learned Advocate General accepts that the distance norms in other States "vary by category of forest, type of activity, and the ecological sensitivity of the specific area". Such an exercise does not appear to have been carried out by the so-called expert committee or the JSPCB, Page 20 of 25 which has simply and abruptly reduced the distance of 500 to 250 meters "based on prevailing conditions of neighbouring States, such as Rajasthan, Bihar, Orissa and other neighbouring States."
54. The impugned notification is, thus, a product of non-application of mind, exclusion of relevant considerations and focus upon irrelevant considerations. The reduction, though significant and capable of causing substantial harm to ecologically sensitive forests in the State of Jharkhand, was taken in a casual manner without any serious application of mind. While this Court, exercising the limited power of judicial review, would be loath to second-guess the opinion of experts, this Court cannot be precluded from satisfying itself whether the opinion was indeed rendered by any domain experts and, further, whether relevant considerations were completely ignored and the decision or opinion was based upon irrelevant considerations.
55. By exercising such limited judicial review in this matter, we are satisfied that the abrupt reduction in the distance from 500 meters to 250 meters is vulnerable, and the petitioner has made out a very strong prima facie case in this regard. The balance of convenience also favours retaining a restriction on development within 500 meters of forests and forest lands, because the harm to the ecology is often irreversible. The precautionary principle that must be applied in such matters also tilts the balance of convenience considerably towards imposing restrictions on the grant of consents within 500 meters of forests and forest lands, Page 21 of 25 which was the position before the impugned notification was issued, reducing this distance from 500 meters to 250 meters.
56. Sustenance can be drawn from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India and Others, (1996) 5 SCC 281, where one of the challenges was the abrupt reduction of the 'No Development Zone' (NDZ) for rivers, creeks and backwaters, from 100 metres from High Tide Land (HTL) to 50 metres. The challenge was that such a reduction was arbitrary and made on no basis.
57. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after rejecting arguments very similar to those now raised on behalf of the State of Jharkhand and the JSPCB, held that such a reduction was not made for any valid reason and was arbitrary. The Hon'ble Court held that in the absence of any justification for this reduction, the only conclusion which can be arrived at is that the reduction to 50 meters was done "for some extraneous reason". In the absence of any categorical statement being made in an affidavit that such a reduction will not be harmful or result in a serious ecological imbalance, the Hon'ble Court held that it was unable to conclude that the reduction has been made in the larger public interest and was valid. Finally, the Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that this reduction was contrary to the object of the Environment Act and had not been made for any valid reason and was, therefore, held to be arbitrary, illegal and struck down.
Page 22 of 25
58. The learned Advocate General also relied on the CPCB Guidelines, 2025, to submit that stone mining or stone crushers are categorised as 'Orange'. He further submitted that, under the 2025 Guidelines, any 'Orange' category industries can be set up beyond 200 metres from sensitive areas, such as national parks, reserved forests, etc. He contended that since the JSPCB, by the impugned notifications, has provided for a buffer of 250 metres, which is almost 50 metres more than the minimum prescribed by the Central Government, there is no case for interference.
59. Firstly, there is no question of relying on the 2025 Guidelines to explain the abrupt reduction from 500 metres to 250 metres in the impugned notification for the State of Jharkhand. Secondly, the 2025 Guidelines prescribe only a minimum. The actual distances are to be determined by considering a host of factors, such as the nature of the activity and the ecological sensitivity of the specified area, as set out in the synopsis of the written argument filed by the learned Advocate General.
60. Secondly, at least prima facie, the provision of a minimum of 250 metres in respect of 'Orange' industries from sensitive areas such as national parks or wildlife sanctuaries would be contrary to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as construed and interpreted by the learned Advocate General of Jharkhand and the JSPCB.
61. Therefore, at least prima facie, based on the 2025 Guidelines, we do not think that any dent has been made to the strong prima facie case Page 23 of 25 made out by the petitioner for restraining the State and the JSPCB from granting any consents to operate within the zone of 500 metres from the boundaries of forests and forest lands, which was, in fact, the position before the issuance of the impugned notification.
62. For all the above reasons, we dispose of these interim applications by making the following orders: -
(a) The interim order dated 16th January 2026, to the extent it had restrained the JSPCB from issuing consents for stone mining or establishing stone crushers within a one-
kilometre zone measured from the demarcated boundaries of protected forests in the State of Jharkhand, is hereby varied and modified, as indicated hereinafter.
(b) The restriction on the grant of consents as above will now apply to the zone of 500 metres from the boundaries of forests/forest land insofar as stone mining is concerned, and to the zone of 400 metres insofar as stone crushers are concerned, instead of 250 metres as provided in the notification dated 07.12.2015 or 18.10.2017; In short, the position prevailing before the issue of the impugned notifications is restored until the final disposal of this Petition. This is, of course, subject to any other statutory restrictions, if any, affecting such activities in such zones.
(c) The direction in the order dated 16.01.2026 to the JSPCB to conduct a survey and file a list of consents already Page 24 of 25 granted for stone mining or for establishing stone crushers within a one-kilometre buffer zone is, however not modified, and such survey will have to be carried out in terms of the order dated 16.01.2026. A report of such a survey must be filed by 1st June 2026 in this Court.
(d) The Hon'ble Supreme Court's orders dated 3rd June 2022 and 26th April 2023 in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (supra), in the context of national parks and wildlife sanctuaries, must be obeyed and enforced by the State of Jharkhand and the JSPCB. Therefore, the buffer zone from the demarcated boundaries of national parks and wildlife sanctuaries in the State of Jharkhand shall continue to be one kilometre, unless a larger buffer zone has already been prescribed, in which case the larger buffer zone would apply.
63. The parties are granted the liberty to file additional pleadings by 12th June 2026. The matter is now posted for final disposal on the 18th of June 2026 at 2:15 p.m., subject to any overnight part-heard matters.
64. The above interim arrangement will remain in effect until the final disposal of this petition.
(M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) April 16, 2026 N.A.F.R. Manoj/Cp.2 Uploaded on 16-Apr-26 Page 25 of 25