Jharkhand High Court
Abhinash Kumar Bhagat Aged About 35 ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 30 June, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 3046 of 2025
Abhinash Kumar Bhagat aged about 35 years son of Pradip Prasad Bhagat
resident of Mouza Baliapatra, P.O. & P.S. Maheshpur, District- Pakur
... ... ... ... ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Dy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Pakur, having its office at
Collectorate, P.O. & P.S. Pakur, District-Pakur.
3. Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, represented through its Secretary
both having its office at TA Division Building ( Ground Floor) H.E.C.
Dhurwa P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi ... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG-II
Mrs. Richa Sanchita, Adv
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, S.C.-I
--------
Reserved on: 26.06.2025 Pronounced on: 30 / 06 /2025
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.(Oral)
1) Heard the counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sachin Kumar, AAG-II
for Resp. No. 2.
2) Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Jharkhand State Pollution
Control Board has proposed to hold a public hearing on 3.7.2025 at 11.00
O'Clock for the purpose of deciding whether or not to grant environmental
clearance to the petitioner, but the Resp. No. 2 had orally refused to hold the
said public hearing citing pendency of WP (C) No. 2366 of 2025. He also
contends that there is no stay in the said Writ petition of any statutory
functions required to be done for grant of an environmental clearance and the
2nd respondent is not empowered to refuse to hold a public hearing mandated
by the 3rd respondent on behalf of the State Environment Impact Assessment
-1 of 2- W.P. (C) No. 3046 of 2025
Authority. It is further contended that the role of the 2nd respondent is only
relating to the grant of mining lease and the 2nd respondent has no role at the
stage of holding of a public meeting for issuance of Environmental
Clearance.
3) Counsel for the 2nd respondent contended that the petitioner had not
placed all the facts before this Court and that certain facts which are relevant
are on record in WP (C ) No. 2366 of 2025. He also placed reliance on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Vanashakti v. Union of India 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 1139, where the Supreme Court had held that ex post facto
environmental clearances cannot granted. However, he did not dispute that
the 2nd respondent would come into the picture only after the Environmental
Clearance is granted, which has not yet happened because the public hearing
is scheduled on 3.7.2025, and only thereafter question of considering grant of
mining lease by 2nd respondent arises.
4) Therefore, there shall be interim direction restraining the 2nd
respondent from obstructing the holding of the public hearing on 3.7.2025 as
per Annexure-7 dt. 26.5.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent and the 2nd
respondent shall do all things necessary to facilitate the holding of such
meeting.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
N.A.F.R.
Sharda/-
-2 of 2- W.P. (C) No. 3046 of 2025
