2026:JHHC:9143-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (PIL) No. 1181 of 2026 Patwari Hansda, S/o Nayki Hansda, R/o Village-Paharpur, P.O.- Lohandia Bazar, P.S.-Lalmatia, District-Godda ….. Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India, through its Secretary, Ministry of Coal, New Delhi 2. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Ranchi 3. Deputy Commissioner, Godda 4. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director (CMD), Central Coalfields Ltd., Ranchi 5. Chief General Manager, Eastern Coalfields Limited, Rajmahal Area, Lalmatia, Godda 6. The Area General Manager, Eastern Coalfields Limited, Rajmahal Area, Dhankunda, P.S.-Senderpahari, Godda 7. Managing Director, Eastern Coalfields Limited, Sanctoria, P.O. & P.S.-Dishergarh, District-Paschim Bardhaman (West Bengal) 8. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Mahagama, Godda 9. The Block Development Officer, Boarijor Block, Godda 10. The Zonal Officer, Boarijor Block, Godda ….. Respondents ----- CORAM HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner: Ms. Khalida Haya Rashmi, Advocate For the Res.-U.O.I.: Mr. Prashant Pallav, A.S.G.I. For the Res.-State: Mr. Sonal Tiwary, A.C. to A.G. For the Res. Nos.5, 6 & 7: Mr. Rajesh Lala, Advocate ----- 02/01.04.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner, in purported public interest, is challenging a notification dated 30.04.2012 (Annexure-3) issued under Section 9(1) of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957. 3. The petitioner claims that even his land has been acquired under this notification. If so, we fail to understand as to how the petitioner can maintain a public interest litigation. This is the grievance personal to the petitioner and there is no explanation why he cannot, by instituting ordinary proceedings, raise the issue which is now sought to be raised in this purported public interest litigation. 2026:JHHC:9143-DB 2 4. Besides, this writ petition has been filed in January, 2026 to challenge the notification dated 30.04.2012. Prima-facie, the petitioner will have to answer the charge of delay and laches as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents now submit that the mining activity has already commenced on the acquired areas. 5. Even the allegations made in the writ petition are quite vague. On one hand, there is some reference to scheduled areas and on the other, there is reference to non-compliance with some statutory pre-conditions for acquisition. All such matters cannot be examined at the behest of the petitioner, who is personally interested in the matter, but has chosen to file a public interest litigation and that too, based on vague and unclear pleadings. Even the delay has not been explained appropriately. 6. On the above grounds, we decline to entertain this public interest litigation, but the rejection of this writ petition will not come in the way of the petitioner or any other affected parties in taking out appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum by making appropriate pleadings and explaining the delay. 7. The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the above clarification. 8. No costs. (M. S. SONAK, C.J.) (RAJESH SHANKAR, J.) 01.04.2026 Satish/Vikas/