2025:JHHC:28348-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.2767 of 2020 ----- Manjit Kumar Mehta, aged about 50 years, son of Bharat Naryan Mehta, resident of village Domchanch, PO: Domahanch, PS: Domchanch, District: Koderma. …. … Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Environment and forest, Govt. of India, New Delhi. 3. Member Secretary, State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Ranchi at Ashok Nagar, Road No.-4, PO: Ashok Nagar, PS: Argora, District: Ranchi. 4. The Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, Dhurwa, PO: Dhurwa, PS: Dhurwa, District: Ranchi. 5. The District Mining Officer, Koderma, PO and PS: Koderma. …. … Respondents ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ------- For the Petitioners(s) : Mr. K.K. Ojha, Advocate For the Resp. Nos.1 &2 : Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, CGC For the Resp. No.3 : Mr. Bhanu Kumar, Advocate For the Resp. No.4 : Ms. Richa Sanchita, Advocate; Ms. Risheeta Singh, Advocate ------ Order No.10/Dated: 16th September, 2025 [Per se, Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.] 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief(s): “a. the respondent number 3 to dispose of the application dated 14.10.2015 filed by the Petitioner for grant of environmental clearance certificate upon the submitted document as well as approved mining plan already being submitted by him and even his the matter of the Petitioner already being recommended in 34th meeting of the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Jharkhand on an irrational ground pursuant to the letter contained in memo no. 2220 dated 17.12.2015 issued under the signature of respondent number 3 the alleged certificate could not be issued to the petitioner till date resulting into complete closure of his mining project despite having no fault or any lapses on his part and at the same time on grant of extension of period of his mining lease he would not be in position to continue with his mining activities in lacking of the alleged certificate being an essential requirement and thus due to lethargic approach and arbitrary action of the respondent number 3 the petitioner 2025:JHHC:28348-DB 2 has suffered irreparable loss in terms of money and has caused great hardship to the Petitioner for keeping his matter related with to grant of Environmental Certificate.” 2. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that even though applications have been made before the respondent no.3, Member Secretary, State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Ranchi on 14.10.2015 for grant of environmental clearance certificate, no decision has been taken as yet. 3. Mr. Bhanu Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3 by referring to the stand inter alia taken into counter-affidavit, particularly, in paragraph no.11 thereof has submitted that entire area has been declared to be under Eco Sensitive Zone as per MOEF Notification No. 2895(E) dated 9th August, 2019 as appended to Annexure I. It has been contended by referring to paragraph no. 12 to the counter-affidavit that the project of the petitioner falls under violation category and, hence, no positive direction is to be issued in view of the absolute restrictions for carrying out mining operation after declaration of the entire area to be under Eco Sensitive Zone. 4. Mr.K.K.Ojha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted by referring to Annexure-9 appended to the rejoinder-affidavit that the other persons have been granted mining lease over the same plot. 5. Mr. Bhanu Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3 has submitted that the said permission has been 2025:JHHC:28348-DB 3 granted as per order dated 20.6.2015 passed by the Assistant Mining Officer, Koderma [Annexure-9 to the rejoinder-affidavit] which is much much prior to the Notification dated 9th August, 2019. Even though, he has submitted that if the mining operation is allowed to be carried out, the necessary initiation will be taken by the respondent no.3. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings made on behalf of the parties, the writ has been sought to be issued by way of command. The issue which has been raised in the writ petition is with regard to inaction on the part of the respondent no.3, Member Secretary, State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Ranchi in not taking final decision on the issue of issuance of environmental clearance, even though, the application was filed way back on 14.10.2015. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3 has come up with the argument on the basis of statements made in paragraph nos. 11 and 12 of the counter-affidavit that entire area has been notified under Eco Sensitive Zone as per the reference inter alia at page no. 31 and serial no.16 of the said notification. For ready reference paragraph nos. 11 and 12 of the counter-affidavit are as under: “11. That it is very important to submit that the said project "Stone Mine of Petitioner situated at Khata no. 1340, Plot no. 5688 (P), Village Domchanch, Tehsil Domchanch, Dist.: Koderma, Jharkhand (1.72 Ha) falls under Eco Sensitive Zone (ESZ) of Koderma Wild Life Sanctuary (Page no. 31 and Sl. no. 16) notified by Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, Govt. of India vide S.O. 2025:JHHC:28348-DB 4 2895(E), dated 09th August, 2019. It is pertinent to mention here that as per the ESZ notification commercial mining, stone quarrying and crushing units are prohibited activities which can not be allowed to operate. 12. That it is crystal clear from the statements and submissions made in the foregoing paragraphs of the instant affidavit that the project of the petitioner falls under violation category for which he never applied during the window period either before SEIAA or MOEF & CC. It is further stated that as per the ESZ notification project of the petitioner falls under prohibited Eco Sensitive Zone and therefore no prior EC can be issued to the petitioner project in view of MoEF & CC notification no. S.O. 2895(E), dated 09th August, 2019 of Koderma Wildlife Sanctuary.” 8. This Court is of the view, even accepting that no order was passed on 14.10.2015, if a direction will be issued, the same will be negative in view of the notification dated 9th August, 2019 by which the entire area has been declared to be under Eco Sensitive Zone. 7. So far as area within Domchanch at page no. 31 and serial no.16 thereof is concerned, this court is of the view that no positive direction is to be issued, however, argument of parity has been advanced on behalf of the petitioner by referring to Annexure-9 to the rejoinder-affidavit but law has been settled that Article-14 does not envisage the negative equality rather always envisages positive equality. 8. Be that as it may, the said order is dated 20.6.2015 by which other persons have been granted permission for mining operation and the restrictions have been imposed by virtue of notification dated 9th August, 2019 declaring entire area pertaining to the petitioner to be under Eco Sensitive Zone which is subsequent to the aforesaid order. However, as has been submitted by Mr. Bhanu Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2025:JHHC:28348-DB 5 respondent no.3 that if the mining operation is being carried out in that area by anybody, the initiation will be taken so that notification dated 9th August, 2019 be strictly adhered to. 9. The writ petition stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Dated: 16th September, 2025 KNR/NAFR