Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19758-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (PIL) No. 2139 of 2020 Shiv Shankar Sharma, aged about 43 years, S/o Sri Gautam Sharma, R/O Village- Tikra Toli, Nagri, Piska, P.O. & P.S. Nagri, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. ....... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Shyamali Coloney, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Chief Conservator of Forest, Department of Forest and Wildlife, New Delhi, A-Block, 2nd Floor, Vikas Bhawan, P.S.- Vikas Bhawan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002 4. The Union of India 5. The Director General, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Core-4B, 2nd Floor India Haleitat Centre, Lodhi Road, P.O. & P.S. Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 6. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, Plot No. 5-B, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, P.O. & P.S. Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 7. The Director, Director General, Enforcement Directorate, PP Compound, Kaushalya Chambers II, Mahatma Gandhi Road, P.O. GPO, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Petitioner: Mr Rajeev Kumar, Advocate Ms Niteshwari Kumari, Advocate For the State: Mr Vibhor Mayank, A.C. to A.G. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19758-DB For the ED: Mr Amit Kumar Das, Senior Advocate Mr Saurav, Advocate Ms Komal Tiwary, Advocate --------- Reserved on: 18.06.2026 Pronounced on: 06/07/2026 Per M. S. Sonak, C.J. 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed in purported public interest, seeking, inter alia, the following reliefs:- A. For issuance of an appropriate Writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) commanding upon the respondents for investigating into the open sale of forest land to the tune of 1000 acres, specifically in the district of Hazaribagh where approximately 450 acres of land has allegedly been sold by the officers of the Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand, and similarly in the district of Bokaro where one Shambhu Prasad (Jharkhand Forest Service), Assistant Conservator, Bokaro Forest Division and In-charge Deputy Director, Jharkhand State Forest Corporation Ltd., Ranchi, has allegedly granted No Objection Certificates to land mafias and, under the shadow of senior officers namely Sanjay Kumar, the then Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, A.K. Rastogi, Principal Chief Secretary-cum- Officer, Forest Conservation Act, Shashi Nand Kuliar Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19758-DB and others, facilitated the alleged sale and purchase of forest land; B. For issuance of appropriate directions upon respondent nos. 1 to 3 to place before this Court the details regarding the alleged alienation of more than 450 acres of forest land in Hazaribagh, 74.39 acres of forest land in Chandankiyari Block, Bokaro, and several other plots in Bokaro and Chaibasa, and to disclose the action taken against the officers and persons allegedly involved therein; C. For issuance of appropriate directions upon respondent nos. 6 and 7 to investigate the properties of Mr. Sanjay Kumar, the then Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, A.K. Rastogi, Special Secretary, and Shashi Nand Kuliar, the present Chief Conservator of Forests, in connection with the allegations made in the writ petition; D. For issuance of appropriate directions upon respondent nos. 1 and 2 to protect the forests of the State of Jharkhand, which, according to the petitioner, are shrinking day by day on account of the alleged sale and purchase of forest land; and E. For any other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19758-DB 3. The petitioner alleges that extensive tracts of forest situated across various districts in the State of Jharkhand, including within the district of Hazaribagh, have been illegally transferred to private individuals, industrial establishments and other entities. The allegation is that the transfers and the user of such transferred lands are in violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the constitutional mandate governing the protection and preservation of the environment. 4. The petitioner, as it appears, is the regular pattern with him and has alleged collusion and corruption against Forest Department officials. The petitioner has highlighted transfer and use for non- forest purposes by M/s Electrosteel Steels Limited, Bokaro. The petitioner has demanded investigations by the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Enforcement Directorate, alleging that the senior officers of the Forest Department will prevent and block investigations by the State Police machinery. 5. The respondents have filed their counter affidavits in which, at the outset, they have raised strong objections to the petitioner's credentials and urged that this petition, at his behest, not be Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19758-DB entertained. On behalf of the respondents, it was submitted that the petitioner is habituated to filing purported Public Interest Litigations to practise extortion and blackmail. They have submitted that this petition is yet another instance in a series in which this petitioner has been chided for abusing the judicial process and the institution of Public Interest Litigation. 6. The respondents have also contended that the sale deeds the petitioner alleges are unauthorised pertain to the period 2008 – 2013. They point out that this petition was instituted only in 2020. The parties alleged to be beneficiaries of the transfers, or against whom the petitioner has alleged unauthorised use, have not been impleaded as respondents in the present proceedings. For these reasons, the respondents have urged that this petition not be entertained. 7. Without prejudice, the respondents have contended that, independent of the petitioner’s complaints, enquiries and investigations have already been carried out and are being carried out by the authorities. Wherever illegalities were detected, action has been taken or is being taken. The respondents have submitted Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19758-DB that the petitioner is fully aware of all this but has filed the present Public Interest Litigation solely for mala fide purposes of extortion and blackmail. 8. The respondents have submitted that the authorities are actively investigating issues of unauthorised transfers or unauthorised use of forest lands, and that action has been taken where the allegations were found to have even prima facie merit. There is no question of entrusting investigations to the CBI or the ED. They pointed out that this is the standard pattern the petitioner invariably adopts by instituting alleged Public Interest Litigations, even though such attempts have been deprecated by this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court by imposing, or upholding the imposition of, costs upon the petitioner. 9. In this case, the Coordinate Benches of this Court, without going into the issues of the petitioner’s credentials and perhaps to satisfy itself about the veracity of the allegations made and the status of any investigations, did make some orders from time to time, requiring the respondents to file counter affidavits and to place on record the status of any investigations, if any, into the Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19758-DB allegations of unauthorised transfer of forest lands and/or the use of forest lands for non-forest purposes. 10. 10. Pursuant to such orders, the respondents have filed counter- affidavits from time to time, disclosing the status of investigations and the action taken wherever prima facie merit was found in the allegations. The respondents have clarified that such action had already commenced before the petitioner instituted this Public Interest Litigation and that it is independent of the petitioner’s vague and extortionist complaints. 11. The petitioner has also filed rejoinders in the matter, claiming that this is a bona fide Public Interest Litigation and that only after the institution of this litigation were some half-hearted investigations carried out by the authorities. The petitioner has made wild allegations that senior forest officials are involved in what he describes as a scam, and that high-ranking investigating officers and agencies are shielding those responsible for this large-scale scam. Again, we note that the allegations against the officials are neither supported by any material, nor have any of Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19758-DB the officers been impleaded as parties in their personal capacities. 12. Upon evaluation of the pleadings in the petition, which would include not only the petition but also the counter affidavits, rejoinders and the documents annexed therewith, we proceed to dispose of this petition as hereafter. 13. The first issue to be decided is whether this petition should be entertained at the behest of the present petitioner, and whether the unsupported allegations against “high-ranking officers”, without even impleading them as parties to the petition, need to be gone into at the behest of this petitioner. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the petitioner who invokes the PIL jurisdiction of a constitutional court must approach it with clean hands, transparent motives, and materials of sufficient credibility to demonstrate bona fides in instituting such litigation (see Kalyaneshwari v. Union of India, (2011) 3 SCC 287, and Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2005) 5 SCC 136). Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19758-DB 15. In fact, in K. R. Srinivas v. R. M. Premchand, (1994) 6 SCC 620, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a writ petitioner who comes to the court for relief in public interest must come only with clean hands like any other writ petitioner, but further, must come with a clean heart, clean mind and a clean objective as well. 16. In State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, (2010) 3 SCC 402, the Hon’ble Supreme Court after examining the evaluation of Public Interest Litigations in India, reiterated the need for the courts to remain vigilant against its misuse. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that while PIL is intended to secure access to justice for those who may otherwise be unable to approach the courts, such jurisdiction cannot be invoked for personal, political, or paisa interests. In short, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that such jurisdiction must not be invoked for any extraneous consideration. 17. In Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B., (2004) 3 SCC 349, the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasised that while PILs serve an important conditional purpose, the courts must remain ever Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19758-DB vigilant against their misuse. A petition, ostensibly filed in public interest, may, in a given case, be motivated by private considerations, including extraneous considerations. Therefore, it is incumbent on a court to examine the bona fides of a petitioner invoking such jurisdiction and the true nature of the grievance that he seeks to project. 18. There is substance in the respondents’ contention that the petitioner has a history of filing purported Public Interest Litigations for mala fide purposes. The record shows that some of such petitions were dismissed by this Court by imposing exemplary costs and others were held as not maintainable by the Hon’ble Supreme Court at the behest of the present petitioner. From the cases cited before us, we note that the petitioner has adopted a pattern of making wild and reckless allegations against high-ranking officials, including the Chief Minister, Ministers, etc., and then demanding investigations by the CBI and ED. 19. In W.P. (PIL) No. 4290 of 2021, the petitioner made allegations of corruption against the then Chief Minister and sought investigations by the CBI and ED. This petition was entertained Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19758-DB by this Court. However, the State carried the matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and its decision in State of Jharkhand v. Shiv Shankar Sharma is now reported in (2022) 19 SCC 626. 20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, upon a detailed consideration not only of the evaluation of the PIL jurisdiction, but in the specific context of the petitioner herein, i.e. Shiv Shankar Sharma, held that the High Court should not have entertained such a Public Interest Litigation. Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it would amount to abuse of the process of court to invoke writ jurisdiction against high-constitutional functionaries like the Chief Minster by presenting vague, generalised, bald, unsubstantiated and baseless allegations, without even exhausting alternate remedies like filing FIRs, etc and without coming to the court with clean hands, that is, suppressing facts like past enmity of the petitioner with the Chief Minister in another case and about the failure of similar attempts by another petitioner, thus also violating the High Court Rules with regard to filing of PILs. 21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Shiv Shankar Sharma (the petitioner in the present case), by filing a purported PIL making Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19758-DB reckless allegations of grant of mining lease and seeking his disqualification from office, was totally an abuse of the process of the court. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that allegations of money-laundering and money being invested in shell companies were again mere allegations, unsupported by any material placed on record by the petitioner. The petitioner's locus stood in question, and it was clear that he had not approached the court with clean hands. The Hon’ble Supreme Court therefore held that Shiv Shankar Sharma’s purported Public Interest Litigation was liable to be dismissed at the very threshold. 22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that a constitutional court is not a forum to settle private disputes or political disputes. The remedies evolved by way of writ petitions are of an extraordinary nature and relief cannot be granted therein as a matter of course where statutory remedies are available to the petitioner. The petitioner must first approach the investigating agency directly with the incriminating material and then it is for the investigating agency to decide on the further course of action. Mere raising of apprehension that the efforts of the petitioner to uncover alleged Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19758-DB corruption may be obstructed by entrenched interests, is not sufficient to not exhaust the alternate statutory remedies available in such matters. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the important jurisdiction of PILs should not be allowed to be abused at the hands of ill-motivated individuals, busybodies and the publicity seekers. 23. Hon’ble Supreme Court further reiterated that what is of crucial significance in a Public Interest Litigation is the bona fides of the petitioner who files the PIL. It is an extremely relevant consideration and must be examined by the court at the very threshold itself, and this has to be done irrespective of the seemingly high public cause being espoused by the petitioner in a PIL. The Courts cannot allow their process to be abused for oblique purposes. On generalised averments which are nothing but mere allegations, the Court cannot become a forum to investigate the alleged acts of misdeeds against high constitutional authorities. 24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it was improper for the High Courts to entertain a PIL based on mere allegations and Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19758-DB half-begged truth, particularly when brought by a person who has not been able to establish their credentials and comes to the courts with unclean hands. The Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified that it was not, for a moment, saying that people who occupy high offices should not be investigated. But for a High Court to take cognisance of the matter on generalised submissions which do not even make out a prima facie case is nothing but an abuse of the process of the court. 25. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also held that making allegations against parties without impleading them as respondents in the petition is one of the grounds for refusing to entertain a purported Public Interest Litigation. In the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was found that Shiv Shankar Sharma made allegations of money-laundering through shell companies, which were not supported by any evidence whatsoever. Names of persons allegedly responsible for the operation of these companies were mentioned, but no concrete evidence was produced. It was alleged that these persons were connected to, or close aides of, the Chief Minister. None of the companies were Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19758-DB made parties to the PIL. Despite this, Shiv Shankar Sharma sought an order directing the Enforcement Directorate to investigate these so-called “shell companies” without even making the companies parties to the writ proceedings. The petitions were filed without availing the statutory remedies. The petitioner did not even disclose his credentials. On all these grounds, regarding the present petitioner, i.e. Shiv Shankar Sharma, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the petitions before the High Court were wrongly entertained and should have been dismissed at the threshold. 26. The petitioner filed W.P. (PIL) No. 689 of 2021 in this Court, again, making wild and reckless allegations. This petition was dismissed by the Division Bench by judgment and order dated 09.05.2025, with costs of Rs. 50,000/-. At least at the time when this matter was closed for orders, the petitioner had not even bothered to pay the costs, on the specious plea that he had applied for a review of the judgment and order dated 09.05.2025. 27. On 02.07.2026, even the Civil Review (Filing) No. 5985 of 2025 was dismissed by this Court. By then, the petitioner had paid the Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19758-DB costs of Rs. 50,000/- imposed upon him for filing W.P. (PIL) No. 689 of 2021, which abused the process of the court and was filed with mala fide intention, probably to blackmail State Government officials and private citizens for unlawful gain. 28. In the present petition as well, there are hardly any averments to show the credentials of the petitioner. The history of the past litigations initiated by this petitioner shows that he is accustomed to filing frivolous PILs or filing PILs with oblique motives and for extraneous considerations. 29. All these factors prompted us to consider dismissing this petition without even referring to the allegations therein. However, for reasons discussed hereafter, and although we are not at all satisfied with either bona fides or the credentials of the petitioner, we propose to look into the allegations made in this petition for the limited extent of determining whether there is any prima facie merit in the same and further, whether the investigating authorities have or are sincerely investigating the same. This we do in the spirit that, at least in matters of the environment, the message is sometimes more important than the messenger. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19758-DB Merely because the messenger may be tainted, the cause, if at all it has any prima facie merit, should not go unaddressed or unattended. 30. Besides, in this case, the Coordinate Benches have already issued orders from time to time, requiring the respondents to file counter affidavits and submit reports on the status of investigations into the allegations. Such affidavits are already a part of the record. At this stage, therefore, instead of disposing of this petition on the ground that it was not entertainable at the behest of the present petitioner, we propose to dispose of this petition on its own merits. 31. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if a public interest litigant wishes to withdraw a PIL or if such petitioner is not found to be genuine or having sufficient credentials, it is always open to a court to remove such petitioner but pursue the cause by appointing an Amicus Curiae. This is to prevent the petitioner from trying to derive undue and oblique advantages by instituting such petitions. In this case, however, that stage has already passed. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19758-DB 32. Therefore, even though there is merit in the respondents’ contention that this petition does not deserve to be entertained at the behest of the present petitioner, having regard to the issues raised and the orders passed by the Coordinate Benches from time to time, we propose to deal with this petition on the merits. 33. Based on the Coordinate Bench’s order dated 29.03.2023 directing a preliminary enquiry into the authenticity of the allegations made in the petition, the Additional Chief Secretary, Forests, Environment and Climate Change Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, filed a supplementary affidavit along with a report dated 12.07.2023 in this Court. Upon perusing this affidavit and the independent report, further orders were made on 28.07.2025 and 4th of August 2025. 34. In the above orders, the Coordinate Benches noted some of the contents of the affidavits filed on behalf of the Secretary, Department of Forest, Environment and Climate Change, Government of Jharkhand. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19758-DB 35. Paragraph 7 of the Secretary’s affidavit, which was noted in the Coordinate Bench’s order dated 4th of August 2025, it was stated thus: “7. That it is humbly submitted that in Hazaribagh district a total of 1200 sale deeds were received from the District Sub-Registrar, Hazaribagh. Out of these 1200 sale deeds, 848 sale deeds received were without maps hence, their verification was not possible from the forest records only. Thus, Deputy Commissioner (DC) Hazaribagh vide memo no. 2842 dated 17.08.2023 and memo no. 3069 dated 05.09.2023 constituted various committees under the chairmanship of concerned Circle Officer to conduct field verification of the sale deeds received without maps. While, 352 sale deeds (347 are in Hazaribagh West Division and 5 in Hazaribagh East Division) were received with maps and they were verified with the forest records. On verification of the rest 352 sale deeds with maps, it was found that 123 sale deeds are Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19758-DB not related to the notified forest land, while the remaining 229 sale deeds are related to notified forest land. Of the said 229 sale deeds, 191 sale deeds are outside demarcated forest land, 4 sale deed pertains to land diverted under FC Act-1980, 18 deed with maps are also such deed where maps are not clear thus they also under field verification by the committees formed by Deputy Commissioner Hazaribagh. While in case of remaining 16 sale deeds, the lands pertaining to 14 sale deeds found to be free from any encroachment and are under the peaceful possession of the Forest Department, whereas, the lands pertaining to the rest 02 sale deeds are under encroachment, accordingly, forest offence cases were lodged under Indian Forest Act, besides, BPLE case too, has been initiated for its eviction.” 36. From the materials placed on record by the respondents in this petition, broadly, the following position emerges in relation to the Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19758-DB petitioner’s allegation that almost 450 acres of forest land was unauthorisedly transferred and put to use for non-forest purposes:- a) Upon field verification of the land parcels mentioned in the two thousand and three (2,003) sale deeds submitted by the petitioner, it was found that only seventy-four (74) deeds pertained to lands located, either partially or wholly, within the legal boundary of the notified forest land. b) The total area of land in these 74 deeds is 112.3098 acres. Of this, only 91.5298 acres were found to be situated inside the legal boundary of the notified forest land. c) From this 91.5298 acres of land, no encroachment was found on 80.0398 acres. This land remains in the peaceful possession of the Forest Department. d) A total of 11.490 acres of notified forest land was found to be under encroachment. Upon discovery Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19758-DB of this encroachment during field verification, a forest offence was registered, and legal proceedings under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment (BPLE) Act are being initiated to remove it and recover the land. e) There is no evidence of illegal land transfer or unlawful lease deeds concerning the lands transferred to coal mining companies. The lease deeds for these forest lands were executed only after receiving the requisite forest clearance from the competent authority, the Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) f) The land leased for stone mining is also located outside the legal boundary of the notified forest land. An appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, regarding plot no. 771(P) of Mauza Karma, Block Chouparan, is pending before the Hon'ble High Court, Ranchi, in W.P. (C) 4260 of 2020. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19758-DB 37. Thus, whilst the petitioner’s allegation of unauthorised alienation of more than 450 acres of forest land, or its use for non-forest purposes, may be reckless and exaggerated, the record still bears out that some substance was found in respect of some of the allegations made in the petition. The records also disclose that such allegations did not surface only after the petitioner instituted the present petition. The investigating authorities had already commenced investigations in the matter upon detecting prima facie violations. 38. Besides, contrary to the Petitioner’s allegations in the petition, none of the sale deeds submitted by the complainant was found to contain a No Objection Certificate (NoC) from the Forest Department, thereby refuting any allegation of connivance by forest officials. Before making such allegations and approaching the Court, the Petitioner neither bothered to verify the correct position nor lodge any complaints to the Authorities. 39. The Petitioner, as appears to be the pattern with him, failed to disclose in the petition that in 2019 the Forest Department had already submitted a negative list to the district revenue Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19758-DB authorities. This list includes all land plots for which the forest's legal boundary does not cover the entire plot, a measure to ensure that land registration for these plots is carried out only after the Forest Department has verified the land's location. 40. The respondents have, along with the substantial material produced on the record in this matter, annexed a tabular statement which is reproduced below for the convenience of reference: - SN Vender / Vendee Name Deed No. Year Total Area (Acres) Area under Encroachment Area under Possession of Forest Dept. Remarks 1 Sanjay Kumar Prajapati / Prashant Kumar Verma 2722 2013 0.0800 0.000 0.0800 Lands mentioned in these cases is under peaceful possession of forest department and a title suit (declaratory suit) has been filed in Civil Court, Hazaribagh for cancellation of sale deed 2 Malti Devi / Kundan Kumar Singh 2974 2013 0.2000 0.000 0.2000 3 Mahabir Prajapati / Pinki Devi 5270 2013 0.0400 0.000 0.0400 4 Nirmal Mahto and Pradeep Kumar Kushwaha / S.T.C. Ltd. JhumriTilaiya (Th- Shashikant Kanaudiya) 6246 2012 3.5000 0.000 3.5000 5 Manoj Kumar / S.C.Pvt. Ltd (Th Abhijit Kumar) 1358 2013 13.0000 0.000 13.0000 6 Prashant Kumar Sinha / Manoj Kumar Gupta 8976 2012 2.0000 0.000 1.3000 7 Bijay Kumar / Gayitri Devi 1054 2012 1.0000 0.000 1.0000 8 Bijay Kumar / Shivani Devi 1055 2012 1.0000 0.000 1.0000 9 Bijay Kumar / Munni Devi 1056 2012 1.0000 0.000 1.0000 10 Yasmin Rahmaan / Md. Aslam 6829 2009 0.6700 0.000 0.6700 11 Bibi Saleha Begam / Sanjeet Kumar Mishra 11097 2012 1.0000 0.000 1.0000 Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19758-DB SN Vender / Vendee Name Deed No. Year Total Area (Acres) Area under Encroachment Area under Possession of Forest Dept. Remarks 12 Sukdeo Mahto / Most. Mangri 1030 2011 0.5500 0.000 0.5500 13 Balkrishna Prasad / Ram Kishor Sawant 9872 2011 1.4200 0.000 1.4200 14 Dr. Kavita Sinha / Md. Ijhar Ansari 6116 2010 2.0000 0.000 2.0000 15 Karam Ram / Vivek Pratap Singh 2194 2009 5.7500 0.000 5.7500 Land mentioned in these sale deeds, which is found to be inside legal boundary of notified forest, is under peaceful possession of forest department 16 Gandhori Saw / Vivek Pratap Singh 2327 2009 0.5500 0.000 0.5500 17 Gandhori Saw / Vivek Pratap Singh 4221 2009 5.3800 0.000 5.3800 18 Prameshwar Prajapati / Vivek Pratap Singh 6745 2009 6.8500 0.000 6.8500 19 Parmeshwar Prajapati / Vivek Pratap Singh 6774 2009 1.0000 0.000 1.0000 20 Parmeshwar Prajapati / Vivek Pratap Singh 6775 2009 0.0315 0.000 0.0315 21 Parmeshwar Prajapati / Birendra Kumar 10710 2009 6.5000 0.000 6.5000 22 Prameshwar Prajapati / Birndra Kumar 10722 2009 1.0000 0.000 1.0000 23 Karam Ram / Briendra Kumar 12409 2008 2.0000 0.000 2.0000 24 Karam Ram / Virendra Kumar 12619 2008 0.0250 0.000 0.0250 25 Virendra Kumar / Vivek Pratap Singh 12881 2008 2.5000 0.000 2.5000 26 Kapur Devi / Manju Devi 9862 2009 0.5000 0.000 0.5000 27 Kapur Devi / Manju Devi 9862 2009 0.0050 0.000 0.0050 28 Kapur Devi / Manju Devi 9862 2009 0.0050 0.000 0.0050 29 Kapur Devi / Manju Devi 9862 2009 0.0100 0.000 0.0100 30 Doman Rana / Ranjan Ram 2677 2009 1.0000 0.000 1.0000 31 Bhuneshwar Prasad Mehta and others / Mithilesh Kumar Singh and others 4403 2012 15.0000 0.000 5.0000 32 Kanhai Rana / Jawed Ashraf 4974 2012 4.7000 0.000 4.7000 33 Raushan Pd. Mehta and others / Tarun Devi 5104 2012 0.2500 0.000 0.2500 34 Bhuneshwar Prasad Mehta / 5105 2012 0.5000 0.000 0.5000 Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19758-DB SN Vender / Vendee Name Deed No. Year Total Area (Acres) Area under Encroachment Area under Possession of Forest Dept. Remarks Sunita Devi 35 Raushan Pd. Mehta and others / Sheela Devi 5107 2012 0.2500 0.000 0.2500 36 Bhuneshwar Pd. Mehta / Mahendra Thakur 11304 2008 1.0000 0.000 1.0000 37 Rohan Ram / Sarita Devi 13185 2009 0.0533 0.000 0.0533 38 Manoj Kumar / Rakesh Kumar Singh 1943 2011 2.0000 0.000 0.2700 39 Manoj Kumar / Sandeep Kumar 1973 2011 1.6000 0.000 0.3100 40 MD. Murtuja / Kiran Devi 10568 2011 0.4600 0.000 0.0600 41 Ram Chandra Paswan / L.T.P.P. Comp. Ltd. Th- Aniruddh Kumar 4089 2010 7.0000 0.000 7.0000 42 Nidali Mitra / Shiv Lal Mahto 201 2010 4.5300 0.000 0.7800 43 Bhikhari Rana / Dukhani Devi 11788 2009 0.2700 0.2700 0.000 Encroachment has been detected in these 32 cases involving a total of 11.49 Acre of land and forest offence has been filed. Legal proceeding to recover the land are being initiated. 44 Sarju Rana / Dukhani Devi 11789 2009 0.9300 0.9300 0.000 45 Lalo Mahto / Sakila Khatoon 13101 2008 0.8800 0.8800 0.000 46 Usman Miyan / Sazda Khatoon 10794 2013 1.0000 1.0000 0.000 47 Ashutosh Prasad / Reena Kumari 10173 2013 1.0000 1.0000 0.000 48 Asutosh Prasad / Abhishek Gaurav 10294 2013 1.2700 1.0000 0.000 49 Chhatu Miyan / Harish Kumar Tivdewal 5734 2013 0.5300 0.5300 0.000 50 Saro Devi / Renu Devi 5734 2012 0.5000 0.5000 0.000 51 Saro Devi / Shila Devi 5735 2012 0.5000 0.5000 0.000 52 Abdul Wahab / Bibi Noorjaha Khatoon 6574 2012 0.1200 0.1200 0.000 53 Bibi Sahida Khatoon / Bibi Noorjahan Khatoon 6576 2012 0.2600 0.2600 0.000 54 Md. Quamruddin / Bibi Ashma Khatoon 6833 2012 0.3600 0.3600 0.000 55 Abdul Wahab / Md. Sanauwar Ansari 7944 2012 0.2000 0.2000 0.000 56 Most. Jamni / Malo Devi 36 2009 0.3500 0.3500 0.000 57 Most. Jamni / Malo 36 2009 0.0350 0.0350 0.000 Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19758-DB SN Vender / Vendee Name Deed No. Year Total Area (Acres) Area under Encroachment Area under Possession of Forest Dept. Remarks Devi 58 Most. Jamni / Malo Devi 36 2009 0.0250 0.0250 0.000 59 Most. Jamni / Chinta Devi 13656 2008 0.1700 0.1700 0.000 60 Damodar Das / Yamuna Prasad Mehta 1577 2011 0.4000 0.0800 0.000 61 Salim Miyan / Manwa Devi 12941 2011 0.2800 0.2800 0.000 62 Salim Miyan / Manwa Devi 12941 2011 0.3600 0.3600 0.000 63 Abdul Wahid / Umed Bhuiyan 12005 2011 0.1200 0.1200 0.000 64 Abdul Wahid / Gudan Bhuiyan 12006 2011 0.0800 0.0800 0.000 65 Abdul Wahid / Mahendra Bhuiyan 12007 2011 0.0800 0.0800 0.000 66 Md. Murtuza / Abhay Kr. Sinha 10565 2011 1.5000 0.5200 0.000 67 Md. Murtuja / Dineshchandra Agrawal 10566 2011 1.0000 0.2600 0.000 68 Dukhan Ganjhu / Mahendra Ganjhu 2865 2010 0.5000 0.5000 0.000 69 Balo Mahto / Sajiban Khatoon 12088 2010 0.4400 0.4400 0.000 70 Md. Jamal / Md. Muslim 8445 2010 0.8000 0.2000 0.000 71 Shivnath Rana / Churaman Ram 10130 2010 0.0500 0.0500 0.000 72 Shivnath Rana / Churaman Ram 10131 2010 0.0500 0.0500 0.000 73 Seraj Uddin / Bibi Kabulan Khatoon 5093 2010 0.0600 0.0600 0.000 74 Surja Bhuiyan / Malti Devi 1963 2010 0.2800 0.2800 0.000 Total 112.3098 11.490 80.0398 41. From the tabular statement above and the affidavits filed in this matter, it appears, at least on the face of it, that there is no substance to the allegations of collusion between some high- ranking forest officials and any encroachers, or those alleged to Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19758-DB have secured transfers of forest lands by executing sale-deeds. In any event, the material on record indicates that the Forest Department has taken, or is taking, steps against the encroachers and has, in several instances, filed civil suits for the cancellation of the sale-deeds, and such suits are pending. The petitioner’s allegation that the sale-deeds were executed after obtaining “No Objection Certificates” from the Forest officials is not substantiated, and, in fact, the records show that no such “No Objection Certificates” were issued by the Forest Department officials. 42. The petitioner has made an allegation against M/s Electrosteel Steels Limited. The petitioner has alleged that this company is illegally occupying and utilising almost 174.39 acres of notified forest land and this was possible only on account of connivance and collusion with the Forest and other statutory authorities. 43. The petitioner’s allegations relate mainly to the year 2009. This petition was filed only in 2020. There is no explanation whatsoever for this inordinate delay. Neither this M/s Electrosteel Steels Limited impleaded as a respondent nor are the Officers Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19758-DB who are alleged to have colluded or connived with this company impleaded as respondents in this matter. The counter affidavits filed by the authorities admit to some encroachment and to attempts to use the lands for non-forest purposes. However, the counter affidavits provide a detailed account of the action initiated against this company from 2009 onwards, i.e., well before the present petitioner instituted this petition after a delay of over 10-12 years. 44. The counter affidavits refer to actions by the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, the Central Powered Committee constituted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and several other authorities. Therefore, based on the material on record, there is no warrant to issue any directions for further investigations or for handing over the investigations to the CBI or the ED, and that too at the behest of the present petitioner. 45. In genuine Public Interest Litigations, the constitutional courts are permitted a degree of procedural flexibility. However, that does not mean that belated allegations can be routinely examined. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again held Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19758-DB that when allegations are made against specific parties, then, it would not be appropriate, even in a Public Interest Litigation, to make any orders against such parties, without their being impleaded as respondents and granted a reasonable opportunity in their defence (see Prem Porwal v. Jagdeesh Chandra Prajapati, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1100, and Sudama Singh v. Deepak Mohan Spolia, (2018) 14 SCC 756). 46. As regards the demand for investigation by the CBI or ED, which is again a pattern with this petitioner, we refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Legislative Council v. Sushil Kumar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2254, wherein it is held that whilst the High Courts possess power under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct such investigations, such power is not unfettered. The Court must independently assess the material on record and be satisfied that a prima facie case warranting such an intention is made out. A direction for a CBI investigation cannot be issued merely based on allegations made by a party. 47. In Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services, U.P. v. Sahngoo Ram Arya, (2002) 5 SCC 521, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19758-DB that the power to direct an enquiry by the CBI can be exercised by a Court under Article 226 of the Constitution only when, after considering the material on record, the Court concludes that such material discloses a prima facie case calling for investigation by the CBI or any other similar agency. 48. In State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a direction for investigation by the CBI constitutes an extraordinary remedy that must be exercised sparingly and cautiously, and only in exceptional circumstances. Such a course may be warranted when it becomes necessary to instil public confidence in the administration of justice, where the protection of a fundamental right so requires, or where circumstances give rise to a reasonable apprehension that the integrity of the investigative process stands compromised. 49. As noted earlier, here, the allegations made by the petitioner are mostly reckless, and even the petitioner's credentials are seriously doubtful. The record shows that the statutory authorities, even before institution of this petition, have investigated and are taking Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19758-DB steps regarding the encroachments and transfers of forest land. This is not a case where the investigating agencies were completely silent or have evinced any reluctance to proceed with the investigations and the action. Even in a genuine PIL, the role of this Court is normally to compel the authorities to act when a case of inaction or dereliction is made out. After that, unless any exceptional circumstances are made out, it is not for this Court to continuously monitor the investigations by calling for repeated reports or directing the course of the investigations in a particular direction. 50. In the present case, as noted above, none of the circumstances referred to in State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights [Supra], even remotely exists. Firstly, the petitioner's credentials are seriously in doubt. Secondly, most of the allegations made by the petitioner are unsubstantiated and were made without bothering to ascertain the correct facts. Thirdly, the allegations have been made belatedly without any explanation for the delay. Fourthly, where allegations have been made against specified parties, the petitioner has not bothered to Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19758-DB include them as respondents. Fifthly, reckless allegations have been made against the high-ranking officers but without specifically naming most of them or, in any event, without impleading them as parties. Seventhly, this is not a case where the investigating authorities have abandoned the investigation or conducted it so shoddily as to raise doubts about their impartiality or efficiency. In the past, similar purported Public Interest Litigations instituted by this very petitioner have been dismissed with costs as constituting an abuse of the judicial process and as attended by mala fides. A specific allegation made by the respondents against the petitioner is that the petitioner is used to filing such petitions to practise extortion and blackmailing. For all these reasons, no case is made out for directing any investigations through the CBI or the ED. 51. For all the above reasons, even after examining the petitioner’s allegations, we do not think that any further orders are required to be made in this petition. 52. This should not be construed as this Court having given any clean chit to any of the alleged wrongdoers against whom proceedings Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19758-DB are pending or in contemplation. None of the observations in this judgment and order is intended to and should be construed as an expression of any opinion by this Court on the merits of the proceedings already pending against certain parties for having encroached upon or unauthorisedly using forest lands. All such matters must be decided on their own merits and in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations in this judgment and order. The observations in this judgment and order are in the context of the purported Public Interest Litigation instituted by a petitioner, himself having doubtful credentials. 53. Though we are not at all satisfied with the petitioner's credentials or bona fides, the issues raised by the petitioner were examined because the petitioner sought to make out a case that almost 450 acres of forest land were illegally transferred with the collusion and connivance of the Forest officials. Though the petitioner’s claims were highly exaggerated, the counter affidavits and the status reports of the investigations have revealed that there were encroachments and transfers, and the authorities are taking steps to address these issues before the competent fora. Therefore, we Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19758-DB note that it is not as if action was taken by the authorities only after the petitioner's belated institution of the present petition. 54. Rather, this appears to be a case where the Petitioner has attempted to intermeddle belatedly and sensationalise the issue, given the pattern he is used to adopting in such matters. This Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court have dismissed the petitions instituted by him as constituting abuse of the judicial process and because they were found to be instituted for malafide purposes and with oblique intentions. 55. The petition is accordingly disposed of, without imposing any costs on the petitioner. 56. Pending interim applications, if any, will not survive and are disposed of. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) July 06, 2026 A.F.R. Manoj/Cp.2 Uploaded on 06.07.2026