2025:JHHC:23846-DB Page 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P(C).No. 294 of 2025 ----- M/s. Chourasiya Stone Works, a proprietorship Concern, having its works at Mouza Mundli, Mirzachouki, P.O. Mirzachouki, P.S. Sahibganj, District Sahibganj, through its proprietor namely, Ajay Kumar Chourasiya, aged about 39 years, son of Late Jagdish Prasad Chourasiya, resident of Mahadeo, Baran, Mirzachouki, P.O. & P.S. Sahibganj, District Sahibganj- 831208 (Jharkhand) … … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Secretary, Department of Industries, Mines and Geology, having its office at Yojna Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, PIN 834002, (Jharkhand) 2. Deputy Commissioner cum District Magistrate, Sahibganj, at Collectorate Building, Sahibganj, P.O. and P.S. Sahibganj, District Sahibganj, PIN 816109 3. District Mining Officer, Sahibganj, having its office at Collectorate Building, Sahibganj, P.O. and P.S. Sahibganj, District Sahibganj, PIN 816109 … … … Respondents ------- CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD :HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ------- For the Petitioner :Mr.Ranjeet Kushwaha, Advocate For the Respondents :Mr.Jayant Franklin Toppo, G.A.-V :Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.C. to G.A.-V ------ Order No.04/Dated14thAugust, 2025 1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking therein the following reliefs: (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction including Writ of Certiorari for quashing/setting aside the order contained in Memo No. 359/DB Sahibganj dated 23.09.2022 passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 12/2022-23 by Respondent No. 2- Deputy Commissioner cum District Magistrate (Annexure-8), wherein in utter violations of principles of natural justice petitioner has 2025:JHHC:23846-DB Page 2 been directed to dismantle its crusher plant situated at Mauza Mundli, Mirzachouki Plot No. 21 in the district of Sahibaganj, within fifteen days or else, direction has been given to demolish the crusher plant of petitioner by District Task Force. (ii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction including Writ of Declaration, declaring that while passing impugned order dated 23.09.2022, Respondent No.2 travelled beyond the scope of show cause notice which entails violation of principles of natural justice. (iii) For issuance of any other appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made writ petition has been required to be enumerated to be reads as under. The petitioner is engaged in crushing stone boulders and selling stone chips and dust. It held Dealer’s License No. 267/2015, valid until 13.03.2020, and applied for renewal online after expiry. A Consent to Operate (CTO) was obtained from the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board on 18.05.2022. Due to lack of awareness, limited operations were carried out during the interim period between license expiry and CTO issuance. On 22.05.2022, five days after the CTO was granted, the District Task Force conducted an unannounced inspection without the petitioner’s presence, and no inspection report was shared. Further inspections on 22.05.2022 and 14.06.2022 noted minor discrepancies such as an uncovered conveyor belt, inadequate plantation, lack of internal roads, insufficient water sprinkling, and absence of rainwater harvesting. Respondent No. 3 recommended 2025:JHHC:23846-DB Page 3 action under Rule 21 of the Jharkhand Mines Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, and Rule 11 of the 2017 Rules, alleging dispatch of materials without challans and CTO violations—though no specific findings were recorded. Based on this, Case No. 12/2023 was initiated, and a notice dated 17.06.2022 sought transport challans and stock details. In response dated 24.06.2022, the petitioner clarified that the plant operated only intermittently between 07.02.2022 and 18.05.2022, and no challans were issued during that time. Current stock details were submitted, and the petitioner undertook to compensate any government loss. Despite this, on 23.09.2022, Respondent No. 2 ordered the petitioner to dismantle the crusher unit within 15 days, failing which it would be demolished by the District Task Force, citing violation of the National Green Tribunal’s order dated 23.08.2022. The Pollution Control Board was also directed to cancel the CTO. 3. It is an admitted fact, as per the pleadings made in the writ petition, that the lease to operate the petitioner’s crusher unit was valid only up to 10.03.2020. Despite the expiry of the lease, the petitioner continued operating the crusher unit. Meanwhile, the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in Original Application No. 23/2017 (EZ), passed an order dated 23.08.2022, providing suggestions regarding the operation of crushers and mines, for the reference, the same has been referred herein:- (i) In the case of stone crushers, the crushing units (both primary & secondary) should be placed in a covered section and the crushing units having capacity more than 100 ΤΡΗ, shall be provided with bag house as emission control system (ii) The Crushers shall install scientifically designed adequate number of sprinklers with requisite hydraulic pressure and shall ensure that the sprinklers remained in operation during crushing period. 2025:JHHC:23846-DB Page 4 (iii) JSPCB along with district administration shall ensure that crushers are not in operation without having requisite pollution control measures through strict vigilance. Priority may be given for the grids where negative supporting carrying capacity has been observed (iv) Conveyor belts should be covered /enclosed to avoid fugitive emission, without side gaps, in enclosure and belts. (v) The crushed stones or finished products should be stored in a silo, or the finished goods should be kept lower than the height of wind-breaking walls. Strong structural base and framing should be provided for wind-breaking walls to withstand strong wind conditions. The height of the stockpile should always be kept lower than the height of the wind-breaking wall. The wall can be erected radially with a screen as center point. In addition, proper sprinkling arrangement should be provided all around the stockpiles. (vi) The haul roads/roads within the mines/industry premises used for the transportation of the products from the stone crushers or mines shall be paved and sufficient number of sprinklers be in operation. The concerned crushers shall be responsible for installation and O&M. (vii) Cleaning of crushing units and railway goods shed shall be performed with only mechanical means on regular basis. (viii) JSPCB shall direct the concerned agencies to maintain the national highways and other metalled roads to reduce fugitive emission. (ix) The stone dusts from the stone crushing/ mines are dumped in the nearby area causing may be utilized for construction activities of the 4-lane highway and Ganga 2025:JHHC:23846-DB Page 5 Bridge in the area and filling up the ponds/mine voids which were created during the stone mining or reclamation of the stone mines. (x) A proper green belt is to be developed surrounding the crushers. 4. The unit of the petitioner, running under the name and style of M/s Chourasiya Stone Works, was also found to be operating, along with others, in violation of the order passed by the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, therefore, the inspection team granted 15 days’ time to dismantle the unit, failing which the crusher plant would be demolished. 5. The aforesaid direction is impugned in the instant writ petition. 6. The writ petitioner being aggrieved with the said decision has preferred the writ petition on 04.10.2024, the present one. 7. The grounds have been taken that the order passed in Misc. Case No. 12 of 2022-23 directing to dismantle the crusher unit, failing which, it would be demolished, has been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 8. The learned counsel therefore has made out the ground that the said decision is in violation of the principle of natural justice, hence the same is ought to be quashed and set aside. 9. The State has filed counter affidavit stating therein that whatever decision has been taken that is based upon the suggestions given by the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi dated 23.08.2022 passed in Original Application No. 23/2017 (EZ). 10. The crusher unit, which the petitioner now claims to operate and in respect of which the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the direction for its dismantling or demolition, has already 2025:JHHC:23846-DB Page 6 lost its legal sanctity due to the expiry of validity of the license on 10.03.2020. 11. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that, since it is an admitted fact that there was no lease license after 10.03.2020, therefore, the principles of natural justice is not required to be followed. 12. Since the writ petitioner is aware of the fact that no lease license was valid after 10.03.2020, and yet was found to operate the crusher unit during the inspection carried out pursuant to the order passed by the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi dated 23.08.2022 in Original Application No. 23/2017 (EZ), the petitioner cannot claim any relief before this Court. 13. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has gone through the pleadings made in the writ petition as well as the counter affidavit. 14. The fact which is not in dispute is that the area where the crusher unit of the petitioner was found to be running on the day of inspection, i.e., 22.05.2022. 15. It is required to refer herein that the learned National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in a proceeding, has given various suggestions as quoted and referred hereinabove. 16. The aforesaid order has been passed by learned National Green Tribunal in order to maintain the ecological balance by controlling various types of pollution including water pollution, noise pollution, and especially air pollution. 17. The authority, in compliance to the aforesaid suggestions of the learned National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, has carried out inspection and in course thereof it has been found that crusher unit of the petitioner was operational even after expiry of the lease license. Subsequently, it has been found that that no valid lease 2025:JHHC:23846-DB Page 7 license was available after the expiry of the lease, which was valid up to 10.03.2020. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the consent to operate was available, but merely on the ground of consent to operate, no license can be said to be available with the petitioner unless the said consent to operate is conferred into valid lease issued by the competent authority in compliance of the various conditions. Moreover, merely on the basis of the CTO, no one can be allowed to carry out the crusher operation except if the validity of the lease license is available. 19. The State in the counter affidavit has come out with a specific stand that the lease license of the petitioner to operate the crusher unit was not available after 10.03.2020. As would be evident from the paragraphs 8,9,10 and 11of the counter affidavits and it appears from record that no rebuttal reply has been furnished on behalf of the petitioner by filing response to the counter affidavit. Therefore, the fact about no lease license after 10.03.2020 has been admitted by the petitioner. 20. The same is also in admission, since, learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to take aid of the mere CTO which cannot be said to permit the petitioner to carry out the crusher unit. 21. The question, therefore, is that when the petitioner is at fault and not just at fault, but has also flouted the conditions provided under the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 (as amended in 2017), which stipulate that no one can be allowed to operate a crusher unit in the absence of a license issued by the competent authority, but now he is before this Court for seeking direction to quash the decision so taken by the authority. 22. This Court is exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and in order to issue any direction in the exercise of power conferred under Article 226, the same must be issued in 2025:JHHC:23846-DB Page 8 favour of such litigant who has a legal vested right to seek such a direction, whether by issuance of a writ of certiorari or a writ of mandamus. 23. The fact about the order passed by the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, cannot be disputed. In such circumstances, whether the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice can be said to be valid ground, especially when the factual aspect regarding having no lease license after 10.03.2020 is not in dispute. 24. We are conscious of the fact that the principles of natural justice are to be followed in cases involving civil consequences. However, it is also well settled that the principles of natural justice are having no straitjacket formula, and merely because a show-cause notice has not been issued, the decision taken by the authority cannot be said to suffer from an error warranting interference. 25. It needs to refer herein that the principle of natural justice is having no straight jacket formula and that there is no requirement to follow the principle of natural justice when the fact is not in dispute, otherwise it will lead to futile exercise and empty formality as has been held by Hon’ble Apex in Escorts Farms Ltd. v. Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, U.P. & others, [(2004) 4 SCC 281] wherein Hon'ble the Apex Court has held at paragraph-64 as under: "64. Right of hearing to a necessary party is a valuable right. Denial of such right is serious breach of statutory procedure prescribed and violation of rules of natural justice. In these appeals preferred by the holder of lands and some other transferees, we have found that the terms of government grant did not permit transfers of land without permission of the State as grantor. Remand of cases of a group of transferees who were not heard, would, therefore, be of no legal consequence, more so, when on this legal question all affected parties have got full opportunity of hearing before the High Court and in this appeal before this Court. Rules of natural justice are to be followed for doing substantial justice and not for completing a 2025:JHHC:23846-DB Page 9 mere ritual of hearing without possibility of any change in the decision of the case on merits. In view of the legal position explained by us above, we therefore, refrain from remanding these cases in exercise of our discretionary powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India." 26. Further principle of natural justice is having no straight jacket formula as has been held Hon’ble Apex Court in Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and others, [(2015) 8 SCC 519] wherein their Lordships have held at paragraph- 39 as under: "39.We are not concerned with these aspects in the present case as the issue relates to giving of notice before taking action. While emphasizing that the principle of natural justice cannot be applied in straitjacket formula, the aforesaid instances are given. We have highlighted the jurisprudential basis of adhering to the principle of natural justice which are grounded on the doctrine of procedural fairness, accuracy of outcome leading to general social goals, etc. Nevertheless, there may be situations wherein for some reason perhaps because the evidence against the individual is thought to be utterly compelling- it is felt that a fair hearing "would make no difference"- meaning that a hearing would not change the ultimate conclusion reached by the decision-maker." 27. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order does not require any interference on the ground of non-issuance of a show-cause notice for two reasons: first, the petitioner did not have a valid lease license after 10.03.2020; and second, the action taken was in pursuance of the suggestions given by the National Green Tribunal. 28. If the petitioner had a valid lease, it could have been produced before the authority; however, since it is not available with the petitioner, no relief can be granted under such circumstances. 29. Accordingly, we are of the view that the writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. 30. Before parting with the order, it is necessary to refer to the fact that the Deputy Commissioner cum District Magistrate, Sahibganj, has 2025:JHHC:23846-DB Page 10 directed the petitioner to dismantle the crusher unit within 15 days, failing which the unit shall be demolished. 31. Learned counsel for the State is not in a position to state as to whether the said crusher unit has been demolished or not. 32. Therefore, we hereby issue a command upon the Deputy Commissioner cum District Magistrate, Sahibganj, to forthwith conduct an inquiry, and if the crusher unit has not been dismantled, to ensure that the same be dismantled within a week . 33. The instant writ petition stands dismissed and as such disposed of accordingly. 34. We are passing such order keeping the fact in consideration that the illegal doers who are playing with environmental laws do not deserve any sympathy since playing with the environment laws is crime against the society. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Umesh/Abhishek A.F.R.