Recently, the High Court of Meghalaya examined a Public Interest Litigation (hereinafter referred to as “PIL”) concerning alleged illegal limestone mining by a cement company in East Jaintia Hills. The case raised pressing questions about whether mining activities were conducted without proper authorisation and whether the State Government’s oversight and inquiry into these allegations were thorough and transparent, putting environmental compliance and public interest under the judicial scanner.
Brief Facts:
The Petitioner alleged that the cement company, operating a plant in Meghalaya, carried out illegal limestone mining at a site in Mulieh, Umlong village, East Jaintia Hills District. While the company obtained a mining licence in 2023, it was contended that unauthorised mining occurred both before and after the licence was granted. The Petitioner emphasised the need for thorough scrutiny, noting that suspect practices reportedly continued even after official permission was obtained.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Petitioner challenged the State Government’s inquiry, which had cleared the company of wrongdoing. He argued that the inquiry was flawed because he was not afforded an opportunity to be heard. Further, the counsel for the Petitioner maintained that illegal mining had taken place and that the process lacked transparency and robustness. The counsel urged the Court to ensure effective enforcement of mining regulations, prevent further violations, and hold the responsible parties accountable.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The State Government, through its counsel, defended the inquiry and its conclusions, asserting that the company had not engaged in illegal mining either before or after obtaining the licence. It was explained that prior to 2023, the company procured limestone lawfully from private licensed vendors. The State also contended that the Petitioner had a vested interest aimed at disrupting the company’s operations. Counsel for the company further clarified that actual mining under the licence had not commenced at the time of the hearing.
Observations of the Court:
The Court, after carefully considering the submissions from both sides, confined the scope of the litigation by stating, “We restrict the scope of this public interest litigation to the allegation of alleged illegal mining of limestone by Amrit Cement Industries Limited, the Respondent No.9 at Mulieh, Umlong village, East Jaintia Hills District.” The bench acknowledged that there were other public interest petitions on similar issues, but clarified that their inquiry in this proceeding pertained solely to the alleged illegal mining by the company in question.
Referring to the procedure followed, the court recorded that “At the last hearing of this PIL on 24th July, 2025, we, inter alia, directed that this public interest petition, the report of the State government and the rejoinder of the Petitioner to it be placed before the Chief Secretary for consideration. On such consideration, he was expected to instruct the learned Advocate General about the submissions to be made in this PIL today, on behalf of the State.”
The Court expressed that it had considered that “the rival submissions made, the report of the government and the stand taken by the Chief Secretary,” and found it fit to direct the State government “to keep a vigil to ensure that the licence granted to the Respondent No.9 is properly utilised and that it does not indulge in illegal mining of limestone.” The Court further observed the statement of the company’s counsel, as captured in the order, “We take note of this submission of Mr Banerjee.”
Thus, the Court clearly indicated its expectation that the state authorities would exercise continuous oversight, stating that “the State government keeps a vigil to ensure that the licence granted to the Respondent No.9 is properly utilised and that it does not indulge in illegal mining of limestone.”
The decision of the Court:
The Court directed the Chief Secretary, or an authorised officer, to issue quarterly updates on the Respondent company’s limestone mining, to be published online for public scrutiny. The PIL was disposed of, emphasising state vigilance, transparency, and strict compliance with mining laws.
Case Title: Sri Ranjit Chandra Goswami Vs. The State of Meghalaya & ors.
Case No.: W.A. No. 02 of 2025
Coram: Chief Justice I.P. Mukerji and Hon’ble Mr Justice W. Diengdoh,
Counsel for the Petitioner: Adv. A. Goyal
Counsel for the Respondents: Advocate General A. Kumar, with GAN. Syngkon, GA J.N. Rynjah, DSGI Dr N. Mozika, with Adv. K. Gurung, SR. Adv T. Yangi B, Sr.Adv. D.K. Banerjee, Adv T. Sutnga.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
