(2026: JHHC:16859-DB) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(PIL) No. 6195 of 2017 Ram Keshwar Mahto, son of late Muneshar Mahto, resident of village Damdami, Ward No. 01, P.O. Kamgarpur, P.S. Hussainabad, Damdami, District-Palamau ….. ….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Mines & Geology, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi 3. The Director, Mines, Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, P.O & P.S. Medninagar, District Palamau 5. The District Mining Officer, Palamau, P.O & P.S. Medninagar, District Palamau 6. The Circle Officer, Hussainabad, P.O & P.S. Hussainabad, District Palamau 7. The Divisional Forest Officer, Medninagar, P.O & P.S. Medninagar, District Palamau 8. The Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board through its Member Secretary, P.O & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi 9. Union of India through Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change 10. Ministry of Mines and Geology, Union of India, New Delhi …. …. Respondents ------ CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ------ For the Petitioner : Mr Raj Vardhan, Advocate Mr Ram Subhag Singh, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr Gaurav Raj, AC to AAG-III For the Resp.-JSPCB : Ms Richa Sanchita, Advocate ----- 21 /Dated: 11.06.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The grievance in this Public Interest Litigation is that some illegal mining is going on in the village of Mouza- Damdami and Mouza- Kurmipur Tola, Jarahi (Kanchanpur), Hussainabad in the District of Palamau, and the statutory authorities, despite complaints, are not taking any action against such illegal mining. (2026: JHHC:16859-DB) 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this illegal mining is contrary to the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India (2022) 10 SCC 544. However, learned counsel is unable to produce the decision or show which portion of this decision is being violated. 4. In any event, from the various returns filed on behalf of the respondents, it is revealed that the following persons/entities are carrying the operation of stone mining/crushing in the area in question: - (a) M/s Maa Stone Works; (b) M/s Shubhlabh Dadan Kumar Singh Enterprises; and (c) M/s Damdami Stone & Morrum Deposit of Sri Dheerendra Kumar Singh. 5. The petitioner contends that all legal procedures for the grant of a lease and for the issuance of various permissions to operate the lease have not been followed. This is contested by the respondents to claim that all legal procedures have been duly followed. 6. The allegations in the petition are quite vague, in that the petitioner has not pleaded what, according to the petitioner, constitute the statutory or other legal violations. Merely alleging that mining activities are being carried out illegally, or that there is some discomfort to the villagers on account of them, is never sufficient. It is important to plead the nature of violations and give some idea of the statutory or other provisions that are alleged to be breached. 7. The Petitioner must also indicate whether he has approached the Authorities required to investigate the allegations of breach, and whether the Authorities have failed to take cognisance of the matter or act in it. The parties (2026: JHHC:16859-DB) 3 who are alleged to have breached the law and against whom action is sought must also be ordinarily impleaded as respondents. 8. Unless the petitions are reasonably well researched and contain proper pleadings backed by at least prima facie evidence, it becomes quite difficult for this Court to grant any effective relief. 9. In any event, considering the affidavits on record, including the letter of the Circle Officer, Hussainabad, dated 16.05.2023, we are of the opinion that the petitioner must be granted the limited relief in terms of prayer clause (iii) of the petition, which reads as follows: - (iii) For direction upon the respondents to dispose of representation of the petitioner on 15.08.2017 (Annexure-9) signed by the villagers also for taken action illegal mining activity within the District of Palamau specially under Mouuza Damdami and Mouza Kurmipur Tola, Jarahi (Kanchanpur) and cancel all the Patta of the Mining Licence of the area. 10. In fact, the respondents should have disposed of this representation so that even the petitioner would know where he or the other villagers stand. Normally, in Public Interest Litigation, our role is to ensure that the statutory authorities pay attention to complaints from villagers or other residents in the locality and determine whether the allegations in the complaint are correct. Ultimately, these are environmental matters that must be addressed by the authorities with greater sensitivity. 11. The representation was made on 15.08.2017. In the meanwhile, this Court in W.P.(PIL) No. 3950 of 2024 (Anand Kumar Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and W.P.(PIL) No. 290 of 2013 (Hemant Kumar Shikarwar Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.) has passed certain orders clarifying that no mining activity can be undertaken within 400 meters from the (2026: JHHC:16859-DB) 4 boundaries of forest/forest lands insofar as stone mining is concerned and within 500 meters insofar as operation of stone crusher is concerned. 12. Besides, this Court had reiterated that the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in orders dated 3rd June 2022 and 26th April, 2023 in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (supra) in the context of National Park and Wildlife Sanctuary must be obeyed and enforced by the State of Jharkhand and the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board (JSPCB). The latter orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court provide that there should be a buffer zone of one kilometre from the demarcated boundaries of the national parks and wildlife sanctuaries in the State of Jharkhand, unless a larger buffer zone has already been prescribed, in which case the larger buffer zone would apply. 13. Accordingly, in addition to the representation made on 15.08.2017, we permit the petitioner to make a supplementary and comprehensive representation, this time, setting out precisely the statutory violations which they allege. The petitioner may also point out in the supplementary representation the precise orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (supra), which, according to him, have been breached or violated. 14. We direct the Deputy Commissioner of Palamau and the Member Secretary of JSPCB to consider the original representation dated 15.08.2017, though it may have been addressed to the District Mining Officer, Palamau and the supplementary representation, which is to be filed within four weeks from today and, dispose of such representation within four months from the date of receipt of the supplementary representation. In addition, along with the supplementary representation, the petitioner must furnish a copy of the original (2026: JHHC:16859-DB) 5 representation dated 15.08.2017 to the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau and the Member Secretary, JSPCB. 15. The Deputy Commissioner and the Member Secretary must independently consider the representations and communicate their decisions to the parties. They must cause an inspection of the site and conduct all necessary enquiries before disposing of the representations. As a measure of fairness, they must hear not only the petitioner but, more crucially, the parties alleged to be carrying out illegal mining, i.e. the three parties referred to above. 16. The decision on such representations must be communicated to the petitioner and the other three parties within four months. 17. All contentions of all parties are left open for consideration by the Deputy Commissioner and the Member Secretary in accordance with the law and the factual position at the site. 18. The petition is disposed of in the above terms without any order for costs. (M.S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) June 11, 2026 Ranjeet / R.Kr. NAFR Uploaded on 12.06.2026