The High Court of Jharkhand, in a significant judgment concerning environmental protection, has upheld a decision by the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) rejecting Environment Clearance (EC) for a stone mining lease in an area designated as a ‘No-Mining Zone’ within the Saranda Forest region.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai, in its order dated September 2, 2025, disposed of a writ petition [W.P.(C) No. 4107 of 2023], finding that the SEIAA’s decision was in consonance with environmental laws and the conservation objectives of the “Management Plan for Sustainable Mining (MPSM) in Saranda and Chaibasa.”
The court ruled that the MPSM’s conservation restrictions are not limited to iron ore and manganese but apply to all mining activities, including stone, to protect the ecologically sensitive area.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, M/s. Nishant Roadlines, had challenged a rejection letter dated March 24, 2023, issued by the SEIAA (Respondent no. 4). The petitioner had been declared a preferred bidder for a stone mining lease over an area of 4 acres in Gundijora Stone Block, District West Singhbhum, and was issued a Letter of Intent (LoI) by the state government on September 15, 2022.
As a prerequisite for the execution of the mining lease, the petitioner applied to the SEIAA for an Environment Clearance. The SEIAA rejected this application on the ground that the village Gundijora, where the proposed mine is located, “falls under ‘No-Mining Zone’ as per the Management Plan for Sustainable Mining (MPSM).”
The petitioner sought a declaration that the MPSM “does not have force of law” or, alternatively, could not be applied to mining activities in non-forest areas. They also sought the quashing of the rejection letter and a direction (mandamus) for the SEIAA to grant the EC.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Submissions: The petitioner, represented by Advocate Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, argued that the MPSM was published in 2018 following a study by ICFRE in connection with the Justice M.B. Shah Commission’s report on illegal iron ore and manganese mining. It was contended that the management plan “has only considered the issue of mining operation of iron ore and manganese and nothing else.”
The petitioner argued that since their application was for stone mining, which was not specifically dealt with in the MPSM, the SEIAA’s rejection was “absolutely improper and without application of mind.”
Respondents’ Submissions:
- SEIAA (Respondent No. 4): Learned counsel for the SEIAA submitted that it was “incorrect” to claim the MPSM was confined to iron ore and manganese. The “sole criteria” for the decision was the “environmental issue.” The SEIAA, it was argued, took a “conscious decision in order to maintain the cause of conservation of the Saranda Forest.”
- Union of India (Respondent No. 1 – MoEFCC): The Union of India supported the SEIAA’s decision, confirming that the MPSM was prepared upon the ‘memorandum of action taken’ on the Justice M.B. Shah Commission’s report. It was submitted that the MPSM categorized the entire Saranda and Chaibasa area into two zones: ‘Mining Zone’ and ‘Conservation Zones’.
The Union of India stated that as per the MPSM, the “entire Gundijora Village has been kept under the Conservation Area/No mining zone.” Critically, it was submitted that “The MPSM did not differentiate between the type/category of mining activity.” The counsel argued that if any mining activity were permitted in the conservation zone, “the very purpose of conservation of flora and fauna would be defeated.”
- State of Jharkhand (Respondent No. 2): Learned counsel for the State submitted that although initial consent to operate was given, “based upon the MPSM, the State is not moving forward in the matter of issuance of lease.” It was affirmed that the lease “totally depends upon the issuance of Environment Clearance.”
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court framed the central issue as “whether the decision so taken by the Ministry of Environment and Forest by way of MPSM can only be given effect to in a case of mining of iron and manganese or it is to be implemented in order to protect the issue of environment by causing no threat to the area of the Saranda Forest?”
The Bench conducted an exhaustive review of environmental jurisprudence, including the objects of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the constitutional mandates under Articles 21, 48-A, and 51-A(g), and the “public trust doctrine.”
The court cited several Supreme Court judgments, including T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India (on the multifaceted nature of “environment”), Bittu Sehgal v. Union of India (affirming the “precautionary principle” and “polluter pays principle” as law of the land), and Vanashakti v. Union of India (holding that the “concept of ex post facto or retrospective EC is completely alien to environmental jurisprudence”).
The court also analyzed the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, citing the Supreme Court in Mineral Area Development Authority v. SAIL (2024), which held that the Central Government acts as a “public trustee of minerals” and must “restore the serious ecological imbalance.”
Applying these principles, the High Court rejected the petitioner’s primary argument. The judgment states: “…we are not in agreement with the said ground, reason being that when the issue of forest conservation is there then entire thing is to be taken into consideration as to how the forest area is to be saved.” (Para 62)
The court found that accepting the petitioner’s argument—that the MPSM is limited to iron ore—would “frustrate” the very purpose of the Justice M.B. Shah Commission, which was “constituted only for the purpose of protecting the forest area.”
The court noted the Union of India’s specific reference to the MPSM report “earmarking the same to be the conservation area as also earmarking it to be no mining zone.” In light of this, the court questioned “how can the stone mining can be allowed to be carried out[?]”
Addressing the distinction between stone and iron ore, the court observed: “…if such restriction is there for the mining of the iron ore and the manganese then whether the other mining operation of the stone etc. can be allowed? If the same will be allowed then what will happen to the Saranda Forest which is admittedly having wildlife and is one of the finest elephant habitats. If the same will be allowed then the entire Saranda Forest will be destroyed.” (Para 70)
The court concluded that allowing the mining operation would destroy the environment and jeopardize the “principle of inter-generational equity.”
Regarding the petitioner’s submission that other mining operations were being carried out (an argument under Article 14 of the Constitution), the court held this was not grounds for relief. It observed, “…if the State has committed any illegality or the Environment Clearance has been given to others, then it is the subject matter of reviewing the decision so that the same can be taken care of…” (Para 75)
The Decision
The High Court held that the decision taken by the SEIAA “cannot be said to suffer from an error.”
It found that the rejection of the EC was not vitiated by “perversity or in violation of principle of natural justice or contrary to any statutory mandate,” but was rather “in consonance with the object of different environmental laws as also the very purport for which the Commission has been constituted headed by Hon’ble Justice M.B. Shah.”
The Bench concluded that the SEIAA’s decision “needs no interference” and disposed of the writ petition. The court also directed the competent authorities (SEIAA, State Government, and Union of India) to “take care by taking follow up action” regarding any other mining operations being carried out in the area.
