Jharkhand High Court
Rajeshwar Singh vs The Union Of India Represented Through ... on 12 November, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:33967-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.3071 of 2025
-----
1. Rajeshwar Singh, aged about 54 years, son of Late
Muneshwar Singh resident of village, P.O. & P.S. Patan,
District Palamau, Jharkhand.
2. Pradeep Shankar Singh, aged about 57 years, son of
Vijay Bahadur Singh resident of Hamidganj, Ward No. 2,
P.O.-Daltonganj, P.S- Daltonganj, District Palamau,
Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The Union of India represented through Secretary,
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change,
Government of India, P.O. & P.S. - New Delhi, District
New Delhi.
2. The State of Jharkhand represented through Secretary,
Department of Forest, Environment and Climate
Change, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at
Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District -
Ranchi.
3. The State Level Environment Impact Assessment
Authority (SEIAA), Jharkhand represented through its
Member Secretary, Nursery Complex, Near Dhurwa Bus
Stand, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District - Ranchi.
4. The Member Secretary, State Level Environment Impact
Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Jharkhand, Nursery
Complex, Near Dhurwa Bus Stand, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa,
District - Ranchi.
5. The Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board through
its Member Secretary, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa,
District -Ranchi.
6. Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, having its office at
Collectorate Complex, P.O. & P.S. Medininagar, District -
Palamau.
7. Divisional Forest Officer, Palamau, P.O. & P.S.
Medininagar, District - Palamau.
8. District Mining Officer, Palamau, P.O. & P.S.
Medininagar, District - Palamau.
... ... Respondents
-------
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
-------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
For the Resp.-UOI : Mr. Akay Kr. Pathak, CGC
For the Resp.-SEIAA : Mr. Bhanu Kumar, Advocate
For the Resp.-JSPCB : Mrs. Richa Sanchita, Advocate
: Ms. Risheeta Singh, Advocate
1
2025:JHHC:33967-DB
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Shray Mishra, A.C. to A.G.
------
Order No. 08/Dated 12 November, 2025
th
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking therein following directions :-
"(i) For issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the letter as contained in Memo No. 1335 dated 23.5.2025 (Annexure-14) issued under the signature of the respondent Deputy Commissioner, whereby and whereunder the lease granted to the petitioner for mining of minor mineral (stone) at Village Madaria, P.S. Patan, for a period of 10 years w.e.f.
18.10.2017 has been pre-maturely terminated and the petitioner has been directed to remove the equipments and fixtures.
(ii) The petitioner further prays for issuance of an appropriate writ, order, direction commanding upon the respondents to produce notification/direction from the Forest Department in relation to maintenance of minimum distance of 250 metres from notified and demarcated forest land and in absence whereof, to declare the notification contained in Memo No. B-5207 dated 7.12.2015 issued by the respondent Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board with respect to guidelines for setting up of stone mines and crushers and which has been clarified vide letter no. B-20 dated 2.1.2020 by the Pollution Control Board as not applicable with respect to stone mines.
(iii) The petitioner upon quashing of the impugned letter of pre-mature termination, further prays for allowing him to continue the mining activities in terms of the leasehold for the remaining period of time."
2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition are enumerated as under :- 2
2025:JHHC:33967-DB The petitioners had applied for grant of mining lease at Mauza Madaria, Thana Patan, Thana No. 259, Khata No. 25, Plot No. 01(P), admeasuring Area 9.30 Acres and whereafter, an enquiry was directed and the Circle Officer vide its letter no. 170 dated 13.5.2016 had submitted its report stating that the area is at a distance of 300 metres from the forest land.
3. The Divisional Forest Officer had also made an enquiry with respect to the minimum distance of area from forest and after being satisfied, has issued NOC vide letter No. 2381 dated 11.7.2016 for grant of mining lease on certain terms and conditions.
4. At the time of grant of NOC there had been an enquiry by the Range Forest Officer, who had stated that the minimum distance of the lease from the forest is more than 300 metres. The finding of the Range Forest Officer duly supports and corroborates the finding of the revenue authorities.
5. Based upon the enquiry report and the No Objection Certificate issued by the statutory authority, the District Level Environment Assessment Authority, Palamau had also granted environmental clearance to the petitioner on certain terms and conditions and accordingly, mining lease was jointly executed by (i) Rajeshwar Singh (ii) Pradeep Shankar Singh for stone minor mineral situated at Mauza 3 2025:JHHC:33967-DB Madaria, Thana Patan, Thana No. 259, Khata No. 25, Plot No. 01(P), admeasuring Area 9.30 Acres for a period of 10 years with effect from 18.10.2017 under the provisions of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004.
6. Since the lessee petitioner has been granted environment clearance for the aforesaid mining lease firstly by the District Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Palamau on 17.08.2017 which has been re- appraised by the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Jharkhand vide order No. EC/SEIAA/2024-25/3404/2024/536 dated 13.01.2025.
7. The District Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority as well as the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority while granting environmental clearance has made thorough enquiry in relation to grant of NOC by various authorities as well as the observance of the norms and standards by the petitioners.
8. The petitioners had been carrying out their mining activities in accordance with law and had been observing/following all the statutory requirements. But, all of a sudden, the petitioners received a notice No. 154/M dated 28.01.2025 from District Mining Officer, Palamau which has been issued on the strength of an enquiry and letter issued by the Forest Department stating therein that the distance of forest pillar from mining lease is 168 meters 4 2025:JHHC:33967-DB and distance of forest pillar from dump area is 30 meters instead of minimum standard distance of 250 meters, which is a violation of the terms and conditions of the leasehold and why not the leasehold be terminated.
9. The show cause notice further mentioned that during pendency of the detailed enquiry and removal of the irregularity, the petitioners shall be liable for the mining activities which has resulted in damage to environment.
10. The show cause notice although mentioned about and referred to the letter of the Divisional Forest Officer dated 18.1.2025, but the same was not annexed or given to the petitioner to enable him to take an effective stand.
11. The petitioner replied to the District Mining Officer, Palamau vide its reply dated 07.02.2025 followed by additional reply dated 04.03.2025 that the State of Jharkhand has not yet notified any distance criteria for stone mining leases from demarcated forest.
12. The petitioner in his reply has relied upon the order dated 28.2.2024 passed by the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal in Appeal No. 24/2023/EZ Mohammad Ilyas Versus State of Jharkhand.
13. It is the case of the petitioners that whatever enquiry had been made by the Forest Department had been at the back of the petitioners and could not form any basis to proceed against the petitioners.
5
2025:JHHC:33967-DB
14. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau on being satisfied with the reply of the petitioner, vide letter No. 238/M dated 11.02.2025 wrote to the Member Secretary, SEIAA to apprise about the distance criteria for stone mining leases from demarcated forest duly notified by the Department of Forest, Environment and Climate Change, Government of Jharkhand.
15. In the meanwhile and in response, the Circle Officer, Patan had also submitted a report No. 179 dated 22.02.2025 to the District Mining Officer, Palamau stating therein that the mining operations of lessee petitioners is confined within the granted leasehold area of 9.30 Acres, meaning thereby that there had been no mining by the petitioners beyond the leasehold.
16. It is the further case of the petitioners that in view of the report of the Circle Officer that there had been no excessive mining by the petitioner beyond the leasehold, the issue of default in relation to maintenance of minimum of 250 metres distance does not arise in as much as the forest and revenue officials at the time of issuance of NOC had themselves reported that the leasehold area is beyond 300 metres.
17. The Member Secretary, SEIAA, Jharkhand, Ranchi vide communication No. 85 dated 25.04.2025 wrote to the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau to cancel the mining lease 6 2025:JHHC:33967-DB of the petitioner as because it is at a distance of less than 250 meters from forest. The pertinent query of the Deputy Commissioner in relation to the notification issued by Forest Department for maintaining such standard had not been answered.
18. It has been stated that the Member Secretary, SEIAA, Jharkhand is an authority created under section 3(3) of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and has no jurisdiction in the matters of grant and/or cancellation of mining leases and hence the opinion dated 25.04.2025 is without jurisdiction.
19. Pursuant to aforesaid advice of SEIAA, Jharkhand, the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau issued a seven days' notice as contained in Memo No. 1107/M dated 14.05.2025 to the lessee as to why the mining leases situated at a distance of less than 250 meters from forest land be not cancelled.
20. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice dated 20.05.2025 stating about the violation of Rule 22(5)/27(2) of the JMMC Rules as well as had thrown challenge to the authority of SEIAA while making such recommendations.
21. Acting upon the advice of the SEIAA and ignoring the reply submitted by the petitioner or even providing him an opportunity to explain and rebut the circumstances 7 2025:JHHC:33967-DB which has not at all changed from the date of grant of NOC and lease in as much as there has been no mining beyond the leasehold area, the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau vide order No. 1335/M dated 23.05.2025 had cancelled the mining lease of the petitioner.
22. It is evident from the factual aspect that the petitioners had applied for grant of mining lease at Mauza Madaria, Thana Patan, Thana No. 259, Khata No. 25, Plot No. 01(P), admeasuring Area 9.30 Acres.
23. The Divisional Forest Officer issued NOC vide letter No. 2381 dated 11.7.2016 for grant of mining lease on certain terms and conditions.
24. At the time of grant of NOC there had been an enquiry by the Range Forest Officer, who had stated that the minimum distance of the lease from the forest is more than 300 metres.
25. Based upon the enquiry report and the No Objection Certificate issued by the statutory authority, the District Level Environment Assessment Authority, Palamau had also granted environmental clearance to the petitioner on certain terms and conditions and accordingly, mining lease was jointly executed by (i) Rajeshwar Singh (ii) Pradeep Shankar Singh for stone minor mineral for a period of 10 years with effect from 18.10.2017 under the provisions of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004. 8
2025:JHHC:33967-DB
26. The petitioners had been carrying out their mining activities and had been observing/following all the statutory requirements. But, all of a sudden, the petitioners received a notice No. 154/M dated 28.01.2025 from District Mining Officer, Palamau which has been issued on the strength of an enquiry and letter issued by the Forest Department stating therein that the distance of forest pillar from mining lease is 168 meters and distance of forest pillar from dump area is 30 meters instead of minimum standard distance of 250 meters, which is a violation of the terms and conditions of the leasehold and why not the leasehold be terminated.
27. The petitioner replied to the show cause vide its reply dated 07.02.2025 followed by additional reply dated 04.03.2025 that the State of Jharkhand has not yet notified any distance criteria for stone mining leases from demarcated forest.
28. On being satisfied with the reply of the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, vide letter No. 238/M dated 11.02.2025 wrote to the Member Secretary, SEIAA to apprise about the distance criteria for stone mining leases from demarcated forest duly notified by the Department of Forest, Environment and Climate Change, Government of Jharkhand.
9
2025:JHHC:33967-DB
29. The Member Secretary, SEIAA, Jharkhand, Ranchi vide communication No. 85 dated 25.04.2025 wrote to the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau to cancel the mining lease of the petitioner as because it is at a distance of less than 250 meters from forest.
30. Pursuant to aforesaid advice of SEIAA, Jharkhand, the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau issued a seven days' notice as contained in Memo No. 1107/M dated 14.05.2025 to the lessee as to why the mining leases situated at a distance of less than 250 meters from forest land be not cancelled.
31. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice dated 20.05.2025 stating about the violation of Rule 22(5)/27(2) of the JMMC Rules as well as had thrown challenge to the authority of SEIAA while making such recommendations.
32. Acting upon the advice of the SEIAA and ignoring the reply submitted by the petitioner or even providing him an opportunity to explain and rebut the circumstances which has not at all changed from the date of grant of NOC and lease in as much as there has been no mining beyond the leasehold area, the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau vide order No. 1335/M dated 23.05.2025 had cancelled the mining lease of the petitioner.
10
2025:JHHC:33967-DB
33. The grievance of the writ petitioner which led to come to this Court by filing the present writ petition is the impugned order dated 23.05.2025 whereby and whereunder the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau has passed order of cancellation of lease deed.
34. The ground has been taken for cancellation is that the mining area is situated within the periphery of 250 meters from the forest. In addition thereto, the other grounds have been taken for non-compliance of the condition which is the mandatory requirement as provided under the SEIAA guidelines as also the condition No.12(10) of Part IX of the lease deed which contains a condition of compliance of all the terms and conditions of Forest and Environment Department which has been flouted by the writ petitioner.
35. The question, therefore, has been taken into consideration by the Deputy Commissioner that whether the distance of the mining area from the forest land is within 250 meters and other byelaws pertaining to the environmental byelaws have been followed or not?
36. The ground has been taken on behalf of the petitioner that the environment clearance certificate although was issued and considering the fact that the mining area is situated outside the periphery of 250 meters, the mining lease has been granted, but erroneously the 11 2025:JHHC:33967-DB authority has come to the conclusion that the mining area is situated within the periphery of 250 meters from the forest land that too without any decision to that effect by the SEIAA, the competent body.
37. It has been contended that the SEIAA although has called upon the record from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, as would appear from the communication dated 25.04.2025, so that the fact about the distance of the mining area from the forest land be ascertained.
38. It has been contended that the SEIAA has not taken any decision coming to the conclusive finding that the area is situated within the periphery of 250 meters from the forest land. However, the Deputy Commissioner has presumed the distance of the mining area from the forest land within 250 meters and, thereafter, has issued show cause notice and accordingly cancelled the lease for the remaining period.
39. It has been contended that SEIAA being the competent body to cancel the environment clearance in case of any violation of the environmental laws and once the environment clearance had been cancelled, then only it was available for the Deputy Commissioner to take decision of cancellation of lease deed for the remaining period. But the Deputy Commissioner, merely on presumption, has 12 2025:JHHC:33967-DB cancelled the lease deed, therefore, the present writ petition.
40. Per contra, Mr. Bhanu Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the SEIAA, has submitted regarding the requirement of the location of the mining lease hold area for the purpose of carrying out the mining operation is beyond the distance of 250 meters from the forest land. But herein, the mining area is situated within the periphery of 250 meters from the forest land. The Deputy Commissioner, therefore, has taken the decision by considering the same.
41. However, Mr. Bhanu Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-SEIAA, has fairly admitted the fact that the SEIAA has not come out by passing any order of cancellation of environment clearance, save and except the communication dated 25.04.2025 by which documents have been sought for from the office of Deputy Commissioner to ascertain the aforesaid fact.
42. The State, who has been represented by Mr. Shray Mishra, learned A.C. to A.G., has also admitted that the SEIAA has not come out with the cancellation of the environment clearance and the Deputy Commissioner, has passed the order presuming the fact that the mining area is located within the periphery of 250 meters.
43. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding recorded by the Deputy 13 2025:JHHC:33967-DB Commissioner, as available in the impugned order, as also the communication made by the SEIAA to the Deputy Commissioner dated 25.04.2025 as appended as Annexure- 11 to the writ petition.
44. The fact about the environment clearance which was mandatory condition as per the terms and conditions is not in dispute but the question which has been raised on behalf of the petitioner that the SEIAA being the competent body to issue environment clearance and the SEIAA has issued, based upon that that the lease deed was entered for execution of the mining operation but in absence of any order said to be passed by the SEIAA for cancellation of the environment clearance, the Deputy Commissioner has got no jurisdiction to presume the violation of the guidelines of the SEIAA.
45. This Court, in order to examine the aforesaid fact, has come up with the content of the communication dated 25.04.2025, as appended as Annexure-11 to the writ petition, which has been addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau by making a request to send all the relevant documents i.e., original file with respect to environment clearance issued by the DEIAA, Palamau, so that the fact about the distance in between the mining area and forest land be ascertained.
14
2025:JHHC:33967-DB
46. The Deputy Commissioner, based upon the aforesaid communication, has issued show cause notice to the petitioner and thereafter, when it has been replied, the Deputy Commissioner has presumed that the environment clearance certificate has been cancelled by the SEIAA which led the Deputy Commissioner in passing the order which is impugned in the present writ petition.
47. The question is that how the Deputy Commissioner has come to the conclusive finding of non-availability of environment clearance unless it has been cancelled.
48. Further, how the Deputy Commissioner has come to the conclusion that the distance between the mining area and forest land is within 250 meters unless a finding to that effect is given by the competent revenue authority and based upon that any decision would have been taken by the SEIAA being the competent authority for cancellation of environment clearance.
49. The report of Circle Officer, revenue authority, is there, but the decision has to be taken by the SEIAA based upon the said report and if the distance in between has been measured to be within 250 meters in between the mining area and the forest land, then certainly SEIAA has got the power to cancel the environment clearance and once the environment clearance would be cancelled then only 15 2025:JHHC:33967-DB the Deputy Commissioner is competent enough to take decision for cancellation of the lease deed.
50. Herein, as per the admitted case of SEIAA and the State, the environment Clearance has not been cancelled. Then the question is that on what basis the Deputy Commissioner has come to the conclusion that the distance in between the mining area and the forest land is within 250 meters and moreover, the environment clearance is yet to be cancelled.
51. This Court, considering the aforesaid fact, is of the view that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner suffers from an error and it needs to be interfered with.
52. Accordingly, the Memo No.1335 dated 23.05.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau is hereby quashed and set aside.
53. We are conscious that on technicalities no advantage can be extended in favour of any of the parties and as such, are of the view that the matter needs to be remitted before the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau for taking decision afresh.
54. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau while doing so will call upon a report from SEIAA regarding the position of the environment clearance based upon the measurement already made by the revenue authority.
16
2025:JHHC:33967-DB
55. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau is further directed to take appropriate decision in accordance with law.
56. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
57. It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the issue on merit regarding the distance in between the mining area and the forest land. The authority is to take its own independent decision.
58. This instant writ petition stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) 12th November, 2025 Birendra/A.F.R. Uploaded on 18.11.2025 17