2026:JHHC:3818-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(PIL) No.563 of 2026 ----- Sailesh Kumar, son of Sri Ramawtar Sahu, resident of Kesar Vihar, Tonko Road, Hatia, Ranchi. .......... Petitioner. -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 2. Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. 3. Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi. 4. Secretary, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, Sector-IV, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 5. Officer-in-charge, Jagarnathpur Police Station, Jagarnathpur, Ranchi. 6. Madan Prasad Sahu, son of Late Shivdayal Sahu, resident of Kesar Vihar, Tonko Road, Hatia, Ranchi. 7. Ram Ratan Sahu, son of Late Shivdayal Sahu, resident of Sonar Mohalla, Upper Hatia, Jagarnathpur, Ranchi. .......... Respondents. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate Mr. Vikesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Gaurav Raj, AC to AAG-II For Res. No.4 : Mrs. Richa Sanchita, Advocate : Ms. Malsi Pathak, Advocate ----- Order No.03 Date: 12.02.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner in purported public interest, has certain grievances against respondent nos.6 & 7 in the context of organising night cricket matches or other sports in the midst of colony/residential area. The complaint is primarily about noise pollution. The petitioner alleges breach of Noise Pollution (Regulation & Control) Rules, 2000. 3. By way of a supplementary affidavit along with the main petition, the petitioner has place on record complaint addressed to the Hon’ble Chief Minister with copies marked to the Deputy 2026:JHHC:3818-DB 2 Commissioner, Ranchi; Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi; and Officer In-charge of Jagarnathpur Police Station, Ranchi. Along with the supplementary affidavit, the petitioner has enclosed a representation dated 9th February, 2026 addressed to the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board. 4. In the exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we can obviously not adjudicate upon such complaints in the first instance. However, we agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the statutory authorities or the Law Enforcement Agencies first at least look into the petitioner’s complaints and if there is any merit in those complaints, then, take action in accordance with law. Even the role of the Writ Court in such matters is primarily to activate the statutory authorities in performing the duties imposed upon them under the law. 5. Therefore, we direct the respondent nos.3 & 4 to look into the petitioner’s above referred complaints and if there is any merit in the same, then, to take action in accordance with law. However, as clarified above, we are not commenting upon the merits or the veracity of the complaints because we believe that it is for the respondent nos.3 & 4 to look into the complaints in the first instance and take action in accordance with the law, if there is any substance in such complaints. 6. Considering the submission made on behalf of Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, we clarify that there is no question of the Pollution Control Board and the Senior Superintendent of Police 2026:JHHC:3818-DB 3 trying to pass the buck on each other and together doing nothing in the matter. Both the authorities have to at least look into the complaint and if they find merit in the complaint, to act in accordance with law. 7. This petition is disposed of in the above terms without any order for costs. 8. The Respondent Nos.3 & 4 must act on an authenticated copy of this order. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 12th February, 2026 Sanjay/Rahul Uploaded on 13.02.2026