(2026: JHHC:16897-DB) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(PIL) No. 6346 of 2019 Ajay Dubey, aged about 39, years son of Rajendra Dubey resident of SAIL City, New Pundag, P.O.- Hatia, P.S.-Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi. ….. ….. Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India through Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, having its office at Indra Paryawan Bhawan, Prithvi Wingh, Jorbag Road, P.O.+P.S.+ District- New Delhi. 2. Joint Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change having its office at Indra Paryawan Bhawan, Prithvi Wingh, Jorbag Road, P.O.+P.S.+ District- New Delhi. 3. State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, having its office at Project Building, P.O.- Dhurwa P.S.- Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi. 4. Principal Secretary, Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, P.O.- Dhurwa P.S.- Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi. 5. Principal Secretary, Land Revenue Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, P.O.- Dhurwa P.S.- Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi. 6. Chief Conservator of Forest, State of Jharkhand, having its office at Van Bhawan, P.O.+P.S.-Doranda, District- Ranchi. 7. State Pollution Control Board, Jharkhand through its Chairman having its office at H.E.С., Р.О.-Hatia, P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi. 8. Electrosteel Steels Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, Sialjori, Jogadih, Bhangaria, P.O.+P.S.-Chandankyari, District- Bokaro. 9. Vedanta Star Limited, having its office at M-11, 1st Floor, Harmu Housing Colony, P.O.- Harmu P.S.-Argora, District- Ranchi. …. …. Respondents ------ CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ------ For the Petitioner : Mr Abhay Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Resp.-JSPCB: Ms Richa Sanchita, Advocate Mr Vidhan Kumar Singh, Advocate ----- 06 /Dated: 11.06.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Mr Abhay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner had earlier filed a complaint before the Lokayukta. The Lokayukta recorded a finding that the property on which the respondents nos. 8 and 9 were operating the Steel Industry was, in fact, the forest land. He submitted that the respondents nos. 1 to 7, who have taken cognisance of this (2026: JHHC:16897-DB) 2 finding in the Lokayukta’s report / order, stopped the operations of the steel manufacturing factory. 3. Ms Richa Sanchita, learned counsel appearing for the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board (Board), submitted that the Board had initially withdrawn the Consent to Operate granted to the 8th respondent. However, this was challenged by the 8th respondent before this Court. An interim order was obtained by the 8th respondent, however, at a later stage it was vacated. 4. After that, the 8th respondent instituted Civil Appeal Nos. 7576-7677 of 2021 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court to challenge the stay vacation order. She pointed out that these appeals were allowed and she has placed on record the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment and order dated 9th December 2021. 5. From perusal of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment and order dated 9th December, 2021, it is apparent that this Court’s judgment and order, discontinuing the interim orders earlier passed allowing the 8th respondent to operate its unit under the supervisory regulatory control of the Board, which had been in force for over two years and were vacated, was set aside. 6. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the Union of India to take a decision on the 8th respondent’s application for revised Environmental Clearance (EC) in accordance with law within three months from the date. Further, pending such a decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed that the operation of the 8th respondent’s steel plant shall not be interfered with on the ground of want of EC, FC, CTE or CTO. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that to the best of his knowledge, the 8th respondent’s application for a revised EC is still pending before the Central Government, and up to now, no revised EC has been granted. He submits that even without there being any EC, the 8th respondent is (2026: JHHC:16897-DB) 3 continuing with the operation of the steel plant, based upon the operative direction in paragraph-95 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgement and order dated 9th December 2021. 8. For the grievance now raised by the petitioner, it is open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum. Similarly, insofar as the Lokayukta’s report dated 22.12.2017 is concerned, it is open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authorities if, to date, no action has been taken on that report. Based on the limited material placed on record and the fact that none of the counsels is able to apprise this Court of the developments since the passing of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order, this Court cannot make any effective orders. Pending the petition instituted in 2019 would also serve no purpose. 9. With the above liberty, we dispose of this petition without any order for costs. 10. Interim applications, if any, will not survive and are disposed of. (M.S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) June 11, 2026 Ranjeet / R.Kr. NAFR Uploaded on 12.06.2026