[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Anand Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief ... on 16 April, 2026

Author: Rajesh Shankar

Bench: Rajesh Shankar

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  W.P. (PIL) No. 3950 of 2024
Anand Kumar, retired Range Forest Officer, aged 61 years, Son of late
Jadunandan Roy, Resident of Flat No.- 302, Krishna Shree Apartment,
Anantpur, P.O.- Doranda, P. S. Chutiya, District at Ranchi- 834002
which unique identification number belongs to 299754518777
                                            ...... Petitioner (In-Person)
                          Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary of the State of
   Jharkhand, Office at Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District-
   Ranchi, Pin-code number-834004.
2. Government of India through Secretary, Ministry of Environment,
   Forest and Climate Change, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Jor Bagh
   Road, Head Post Office- Lodhi Road, Jor Bagh, Police Stations- Jor
   Bagh, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi-110003.
3. Chairman, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, T.A. Division
   Building (Ground Floor), H.E.C., Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. - Dhurwa,
   Ranchi-834004.
4. Shri Sanjay Kumar Suman, Ex. Member Secretary, Jharkhand State
   Pollution Control Board, T.A. Division Building (Ground Floor),
   H.E.C., Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S.- Dhurwa, Ranchi-834004.
5. Chairman, The State Level Environment Impact Assessment
   Authority (SEIAA), Jharkhand State, Aarya Enclave, Govindnagar,
   Tilta, Ratu, P.O. and P.S.-Ratu Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand - 835222.
6. Additional Chief Secretary, Forest, Environment and Climate
   Change Department, Government of State of Jharkhand, Nepal
   House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi-834004.
7. Special Secretary, Forest, Environment and Climate Change
   Department, Government of State of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O.
   & P.S.- Doranda, District- Ranchi-834002.
8. Deputy Secretary, Forest, Environment and Climate Change
   Department, Government of State of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O.
   & P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi- 834002.
9. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Government of Jharkhand,
   Office at Van-Bhavan, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District- Ranchi-
   834002.


                           Page 1 of 25
 10.Secretary, Department of Mines & Geology, Office at Nepal House,
   3rd Floor, Yojna-Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District- Ranchi-
   834002.
11.Director General-cum-Chief of Anti-Corruption Bureau, Office at
   Audrey House, P.O. & P.S.- Kanke Road, District-Ranchi, Pin-code
   number-834001.
12.The Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Pravartan Bhawan, APJ
   Abdul Kalam Road, P.O & P.S. & District- New Delhi-110011.
13.The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, 6th Floor, Plot No.-5-
   B, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium Marg, CGO Complex, P.O.-Block M,
   Lodhi Road & P.S.-Pragati Vihar, CGO Complex, District- New
   Delhi-110013.
                                                    .......... Respondents
   To,
                         ---------
CORAM:              HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
                         ---------
For the Petitioner:      Party-In-Person
For the State:           Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General
                         Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G.
                         Mr. Gaurav Raj, A.C. to A.A.G.-II
For the CBI:             Mr. Prashant Pallav, A.S.G.I.
For the ED:              Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
                         Mr. Shivam Utkarsh Sahay, Advocate
For the JSPCB:           Mrs. Richa Sanchita, Advocate
                         Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, Advocate
For the SEIAA:           Mr. Bhanu Kumar, Advocate
For the Acct. General: Mr. Sudarshan Shrivastava, Advocate
                         ---------
Reserved on: 08.04.2026                Pronounced on: 16/04/2026
Per M. S. Sonak, C.J.

I.A. No. 2542 of 2026 & I.A. No.2684 of 2026

1. Heard the petitioner who appears In-person.

2. Learned Advocate General for the State and Mr. Sunil Kumar,

learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Jharkhand State Pollution

Control Board (JSPCB), were heard.

3. By order dated 16th January 2026, this Court, relying primarily on

the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 3rd June 2022 in the case of

In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India and

Others, (2022) 10 SCC 544, directed that no consents be granted by the

JSPCB for stone mines and/or for establishing stone crushers within

one kilometre measured from the demarcated boundaries of protected

forests in the State of Jharkhand.

4. This Court also directed that if consents have already been

granted in the above areas, then the JSPCB should conduct an

immediate survey and file a list of such consents already granted, so

that the Court could consider what orders could be made in their regard.

Further, this Court, in its order dated 16th January 2026, directed the

JSPCB to maintain constant vigil for unauthorised mining activities or

operation of stone crushers within a one-kilometre buffer zone from the

boundaries of the protected forests.

5. The above directions were interim in nature, intended to operate

until pleadings were complete and, perhaps, the matter could be

considered for final disposal.

6. The State and the JSPCB have now filed I.A. Nos. 2542 of 2026

and 2684 of 2026 seeking vacation/variation of our order dated 16th

January 2026, arguing that the one-kilometre buffer zone directed to be

created by the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 3rd June 2022

applies only to national parks and wildlife sanctuaries, but not the

protected forests or reserved forests.

7. The learned Advocate General, who appeared for the State, took

us through the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 3rd June 2022 and

submitted that this order applies only to national parks and wildlife

sanctuaries. He further submitted that the direction is to have an Eco-

Sensitive Zone (ESZ) of at least one kilometre measured from the

demarcated boundaries of such national parks and wildlife sanctuaries,

and that the activities proscribed and prescribed in the guidelines of 9th

February 2011 shall be strictly adhered to.

8. The learned Advocate General, however, submitted that there is

nothing in the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order to suggest that the ESZ

of one kilometre was to be maintained from the demarcated boundaries

of either reserved or other protected forests. Accordingly, he submitted

that our direction, amounting to creating an ESZ of one kilometre from

the demarcated boundary of all types of protected forests, was not

consistent with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

its order dated 03.06.2022.

9. The learned Advocate General, after referring us to the

supplementary counter-affidavit filed by the Member Secretary of the

JSPCB, submitted that the impugned notifications dated 07.12.2015 and

18.10.2017, which reduced the minimum distance for setting up stone

mines and stone crushers around forests or forest lands from the

previously notified 400/500 metres to 250 metres, were based on the

decision of an Expert Committee at its meeting dated 02.12.2015

(Annexure B, Page 32 to the JSPCB affidavit). He pointed out that the

Expert Committee had also considered the position of other States, such

as Orissa, West Bengal, Rajasthan, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, and

Bihar, where the minimum distance for setting up stone mines or stone

crushers from the boundaries of forest land was less than 250 metres.

Accordingly, he submitted that even the impugned notification reducing

the minimum distance to 250 metres was based on expert advice, which

was consistent with the position in other States.

10. Learned Advocate General also referred to the Control of Air

Pollution (Grant, Refusal or Cancellation of Consent) Guidelines, 2025,

issued by the Central Government, to submit that stone mining or

establishing stone crushers were classified in the 'Orange' category. He

submitted that in terms of Clause 9 of the Guidelines, which deal with

the procedures for selection of locations for setting up industries

classified as 'Red', 'Orange' or 'Green', any industry or industrial plant

in the 'Orange' category can be set up only beyond 200 meters from

sensitive areas, such as, national parks, reserved forests, etc. He

submitted that in this case, the JSPCB, by the impugned notifications,

has provided for a buffer of 250 meters, which is almost 50 meters in

excess of the minimum prescribed by the Central Government.

11. Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

JSPCB, adopted the arguments and submissions made by the learned

Advocate General for the State of Jharkhand. He pointed out that

several applications for renewal of consents had been received but

could not be processed on account of this Court's interim order dated

16.01.2026. He therefore joined the learned Advocate General in

submitting that the interim order be vacated or at least varied by

restricting the minimum distance or buffer zone to 250 meters from the

demarcated boundaries of any protected forests.

12. The learned Advocate General filed a synopsis of his arguments

on the 10th of April 2026.

13. Mr Anand Kumar, the petitioner, who appeared in person, relied

on the affidavit he filed opposing the grant of any relief in the interim

applications seeking vacations/variations. He submitted that much harm

will be caused to reserved and protected forests if stone mines or the

establishment of stone crushers were permitted within the buffer zone

of one kilometre from the demarcated boundaries.

14. Mr. Anand Kumar submitted that even the Hon'ble Supreme

Court's order dated 3rd June 2022 makes specific reference to

"protected forest". Therefore, he submitted that the order requiring the

creation of an ESZ or a buffer zone of one kilometre from the

demarcated boundaries applies to all protected forests, not just national

parks and wildlife sanctuaries.

15. Mr Anand Kumar submitted that his challenge was to the

impugned notifications dated 07.12.2015 and 18.10.2017, which

arbitrarily reduced the buffer zone or minimum distance requirement

from 400/500 to 250 metres from the boundaries of all forests,

including reserved or protected forests. He submitted that, at the time

these notifications were issued, the Central Government's Guidelines of

2025 did not exist. Therefore, a reduction in the buffer zone could not

be based on those Guidelines. He further submitted that no

retrospective effect can be given to the 2025 Guidelines.

16. Mr. Anand Kumar submitted that the 2025 Guidelines, apart

from lacking binding effect, run contrary to the Hon'ble Supreme

Court's order in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (supra), as

interpreted by the respondents, because they purport to include even

national parks and wildlife sanctuaries, which, even according to the

State and the JSPCB, are covered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court's

order providing for a buffer zone of one kilometre. He therefore

submitted that the 2025 Guidelines cannot be relied upon to seek the

vacation of this Court's order dated 16.01.2026.

17. Mr Anand Kumar submitted that despite this Court granting an

opportunity, neither the State nor the JSPCB have placed any credible

material for reducing the buffer zone from 400/500 to 250 meters from

the demarcated boundaries of protected forests. He submitted that the

document relied upon, along with the JSPCB affidavit, simply relies

upon the alleged position in some other States. He submitted that the

position in different States is bound to differ, and therefore any blind

reliance on the position in other States to reduce the buffer zone would

amount to a complete non-application of mind and a failure to advert to

relevant considerations.

18. For all the above reasons, Mr Anand Kumar submitted that these

interim applications may be dismissed.

19. Mr. Anand Kumar has also filed a synopsis of his argument on

13.04.2026.

20. The rival contentions now fall for our determination.

21. In this Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner has challenged the

notification dated 07.12.2015 reducing the minimum distance for stone

mines and/or establishing stone crushers around forests and forest land

from the previously notified 400/500 meters to 250 meters.

22. By an interim order dated 16.01.2026, this Court, relying

primarily on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated

3rd June 2022, in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (supra),

directed the JSPCB not to grant any consents for stone mining or

establishing stone crushers within one kilometer measured from the

demarcated boundaries of protected forests in the State of Jharkhand.

23. Now these interim applications filed by the State and the JSPCB

seek a vacation or variation of this interim order by arguing that the

Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 3rd of June 2022, in T.N.

Godavarman Thirumulpad (supra), providing for a one-kilometre

Eco-Sensitive Zone, applies only to national parks and wildlife

sanctuaries, but not to other protected or reserved forests.

24. The JSPCB filed a counter-affidavit in this matter seeking to

justify the reduction of the minimum distance for stone mining and/or

for establishing stone crushers around forests or forest lands from the

previously notified 400/500 meters to 250 meters in the impugned

notifications dated 07.12.2015 and 18.10.2017. This justification was,

no doubt, contested by the petitioner, who appeared in person.

25. Therefore, from the pleadings and rival contentions, the

following two points arise for determination in these IAs:-

(a) Whether this Court's order dated 16th January 2026, to the

extent it restrains the respondents, including the JSPCB, from

issuing any consents for stone mines and/or from establishing

stone crushers within one kilometre of the demarcated

boundaries of protected forests in Jharkhand, needs to be

vacated in its entirety?

(b) Should the restrictions on granting consents for stone mines

and/or for establishing stone crushers be set at a minimum of

500 metres measured from the demarcated boundaries of

protected forests in Jharkhand?

26. Insofar as the first point for determination is concerned, this

Court, in the absence of proper pleadings and in the face of unclear

submissions across the Bar and following the direction in paragraph

56.1 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 03.06.2022 in T.N.

Godavarman Thirumulpad (supra), issued the interim order dated

16th January 2026.

27. The above-referred paragraph 56.1 reads as follows:-

"56.1. Each protected forest, that is, national park or wildlife

sanctuary must have an ESZ of minimum one kilometre

measured from the demarcated boundary of such protected

forest in which the activities proscribed and prescribed in the

Guidelines of 9-2-2011 shall be strictly adhered to. For Jamua

Ramgarh Wildlife Sanctuary, it shall be 500 m so far as

subsisting activities are concerned."

28. This Court, at that stage when it made the order of 16th January

2026 was not apprised of further orders made by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court, clarifying the position that ESZ of minimum one kilometer was

to be measured from the demarcated boundaries of national parks and

wildlife sanctuaries and not from all kinds of protected forests, as

defined under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.

29. Paragraph 56.1, quoted above, no doubt, begins with the

expression "each protected forest"; however, this expression is

immediately followed by "that is, national park or wildlife sanctuary

............". Thus, in paragraph 56.1 itself, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

explained what it meant by its expression "each protected forest".

30. The expression "protected forest", whether used generically or as

defined under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, is the larger

set, of which a national park or wildlife sanctuary is its smaller subset.

Thus, while all national parks or wildlife sanctuaries would be

protected forests, not all the areas of a protected forest would

necessarily be the national parks or wildlife sanctuaries unless so

specifically declared.

31. From the context in paragraph 56.1 and the following paragraphs

up to paragraph 56.8, it appears that the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order

dated 3rd June 2022 directed that the ESZ of at least one kilometre be

measured from the demarcated boundaries of national parks and

wildlife sanctuaries, not from all protected forests as defined

generically or under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.

32. Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 3rd June 2022, of which

paragraph 56.1 was relied upon by us, was modified on 26th April 2023.

This order, after discussing the genesis of providing a buffer zone

around national parks and wildlife sanctuaries, also supports the view

that an ESZ of at least 1 kilometre had to be measured from the

demarcated boundaries of national parks and wildlife sanctuaries.

33. Paragraphs 21, 22, 25, 26, 65 and 66 of this order are relevant

and, therefore, quoted below for the convenience of reference: -

"21. The next order of this Court is dated 21st April 2014 in

the case of Goa Foundation v. Union of India and Others. It

will be relevant to refer to the following observations of this

Court in the said order:

"49. ......The result is that the order passed by this

Court saying that there will be no mining activity

within one kilometre safety zone around national

park or wildlife sanctuary has to be enforced and

there can be no mining activities within this area

of one kilometre from the boundaries of national

parks and wildlife sanctuaries in the State of

Goa."

22. The Court has clarified that there shall be no mining

activity within one kilometre of the safety zone around

National Park or Wildlife Sanctuary and that this has to be

enforced. It is also reiterated that there can be no mining

activities within this area of one kilometre from the

boundaries of National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries in the

State of Goa.

23. ... ... ...

24. ... ... ...

25. It will be relevant to refer to paragraphs 87.3 and 88.1

of the said order, which read thus:

"87.3. Until the order dated 4-8-2006 [T.N.

Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (2010) 13

SCC 740] of this Court is modified by this Court in IA

No. 1000 in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of

India, there can be no mining activities within one

kilometre from the boundaries of national parks and

sanctuaries in Goa.

88.1. MoEF will issue the notification of eco-sensitive

zones around the national park and wildlife sanctuaries

of Goa after following the procedure discussed in this

judgment within a period of six months from today.

26. It can thus be seen that this Court has held that until the

order dated 4th August 2006 (supra) is modified by this Court

in IA No. 1000 of 2003 in the case of T.N. Godavarman

Thirumulpad v. Union of India, there can be no mining

activities within one kilometre from the boundaries of

National Parks and Sanctuaries in Goa. The Court further

directed MoEF to issue the notification of ESZs around the

National Park and Wildlife Sanctuaries of Goa after following

the procedure discussed in the said judgment.

27 - 59. ... ... ...

60. Insofar as the restriction on mining is concerned, we are of

the considered view that it has been the consistent view of this

Court that the mining activities within an area of one kilometre

of the boundary of the Protected Areas will be hazardous for

the wildlife. Though in the case of Goa Foundation (supra),

the said directions were issued in respect of State of Goa, we

find that such directions need to be issued on Pan-India basis.

61 - 64. ... ... ...

65. We also modify the direction contained in paragraph 56.4

of the order dated 3rd June 2022 (supra) and direct that

mining within the National Park and Wildlife Sanctuary and

within an area of one kilometre from the boundary of such

National Park and Wildlife Sanctuary shall not be

permissible.

66. We also modify the directions contained in paragraph 56.5

of the order dated 3rd June 2022 (supra) and replace the same

as under:

(i) The MoEF & CC and all the State/Union Territory

Governments shall strictly follow the provisions in the

said Guidelines dated 9th February 2011 and so also the

provisions contained in the ESZs notifications

pertaining to the respective Protected Areas with regard

to prohibited activities, regulated activities and

permissible activities;

(ii) We further direct that while granting Environmental

and Forest Clearances for project activities in ESZ and

other areas outside the Protected Areas, the Union of

India as well as various State/Union Territory

Governments shall strictly follow the provisions

contained in the Office Memorandum dated 17th May

2022 issued by MoEF & CC."

34. From the above, it appears that the ban on mining activities

within a one-kilometre safety zone was intended to apply around

national parks or wildlife sanctuaries, not only in the State of Goa but

on a Pan-India basis.

35. Court decisions are not to be read as statutes. The context is

important. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated

03.06.2022 had to be read and construed in its entirety, together with

the clarifications and modifications issued by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court on 26th April 2023. Thus, read and construed, the direction to

prohibit mining within the buffer zone of one kilometre measured from

the demarcated boundaries of all kinds of protected forests may not

align with the Hon'ble Supreme Court's above-referred orders.

36. To the above extent, therefore, our order dated 16th January 2026

warrants modification. The restriction will apply only to the buffer zone

of a minimum of one kilometre from the demarcated boundaries of

national parks and wildlife sanctuaries in Jharkhand, and not to other

protected forests, unless, of course, there exist any other statutory

restrictions that govern this aspect. At least none were pointed out to us.

The entire focus of the petitioner was on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's

order dated 3rd June 2022 and the use of the expression "protected

forest" in paragraph 56.1 thereof.

37. The second point for determination is whether the restriction on

the issue of consents for stone mining and/or the establishment of stone

crushers should apply only within a 250-metre zone demarcated along

the boundaries of all kinds of protected forests in the State of

Jharkhand, or whether the petitioner has made out a strong prima facie

case against the impugned notifications dated 07.12.2015 and

18.10.2017 issued by the JSPCB, which reduce the minimum distance

for stone mining and/or the establishment of stone crushers around

forests or forest lands from the previously notified 400/500 metres to

250 metres?

38. The learned Advocate General argued that JSPCB has the legal

authority to prescribe siting norms under the Air (Prevention and

Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. He referred to Sections 17, 19, 21 and

31-A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, to

explain the statutory scheme and source.

39. At this stage, we do not wish to address the question of the

source of power. Assuming that the JSPCB has the power to prescribe

siting norms, the issue concerns the exercise of that power in issuing

the impugned notifications, which reduce the minimum distance for

stone mining and/or the establishment of stone crushers from the

previously notified 400/500 metres to 250 metres from the demarcated

boundaries of forests and forest lands.

40. The State and the JSPCB have relied on the NOC dated 2nd

December 2015, based on which the impugned notifications were

issued, and submitted that the reduction was based on the

recommendation of a committee comprising experts, specialists,

eminent persons, scientists, and other members with domain expertise

in environmental regulations and pollution control. They argued that

this court ought to defer to the expert opinion in such scientific matters.

41. The second reason cited by the learned Advocate General and the

learned senior counsel for the JSPCB was the regulatory practices

prevalent in multiple States, such as Orissa, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab,

Rajasthan, West Bengal, and Bihar. It was submitted that the JSPCB

had considered the status of such restrictions in the neighbouring States

for deciding the extent of restrictions that could be imposed in

Jharkhand.

42. The learned Advocate General and the learned senior counsel for

the JSPCB also relied on CPCB siting guidelines of 2025 to submit that

the minimum distance now provided by the CPCB for stone mines or

stone crushers was only 200 metres from forests or forest lands,

whereas the JSPCB had provided 250 metres. It was submitted that

since the JSPCB norms were stricter than those prescribed by CPCB, no

case for interference with the impugned notifications was made out.

43. Based mainly on the above arguments, it was urged that the

restrictions should be reduced to 250 metres from the boundaries of

demarcated forests or forest lands as provided in the impugned

notifications by modifying the order dated 16th January 2026.

44. To appreciate and evaluate the rival contentions on the above

issue, we must mainly focus on what is set out in the impugned

notifications dated 07.12.2015 and 18.10.2017, to be read with the

NOC issued by the Expert Committee in its meeting held on

02.12.2015. Further, we must also consider the impact of the CPCB's

2025 siting guidelines, which the Respondent State and the JSPCB

relied upon.

45. The notifications themselves say little, except that the distance is

being reduced from 500/400 meters to 250 meters. However, the NOC

of the so called Expert Committee issued in its meeting held on

02.12.2015 does say the following: -

(a) Paragraph 1 of the NOC states only that the experts deliberated on

the issue of reducing distances from forest boundaries and forest

land for setting up stone crushers.

(b) Paragraph 2 then states that the experts also considered the siting

guidelines across different States, including Orissa, West Bengal,

Rajasthan, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, and Bihar.

(c) Paragraph 3, which is the final paragraph, then concludes that the

minimum distance of 500 meters should now be reduced to 250

meters from the boundaries of forests and forest lands.

46. The committee, which issued the NOC in its meeting held on

02.12.2015, comprised the following:-

      (i)     Sudhir Kumar, Environment Engineer,

      (ii)    Phillip Mathew, JSIA,

(iii) B.B. Singh, Additional Director, Mines and Geology,

(iv) B.M. Lal Das, Deputy Director, Industries Department,

(v) Sanjay Kumar Suman, Member Secretary.

47. From the foregoing, we find that, apart from Sudhir Kumar, the

Environment Engineer, and perhaps Phillip Mathew, JSIA, the other

members can hardly be described as specialists or experts in the field of

the environment or environmental issues. The meeting of the so-called

expert committee held on 02.12.2015 was to consider the siting

guidelines for the boundaries of forests and forest lands. Yet it is

surprising that no experts in forestry, or at least experienced forest

officials, were part of the so-called expert committee. A majority of the

members were bureaucrats, and apart from styling them as domain

experts in the JSPCB affidavit, nothing else was produced to even

prima facie demonstrate their expertise in this interdisciplinary field

involving mining, forestry and the environment.

48. That apart, the NOC and the affidavits filed simply refer to the

position in some other States like Orissa, West Bengal, Rajasthan,

Punjab, Himachal Pradesh and Bihar, without even an attempt to

determine whether the condition of forests, topography, etc of the

forests in Jharkhand is comparable with similar parameters in other

States. The so-called expert committee, with respect, without any

application of mind, has simply stated that it has considered the siting

guidelines for other States and based upon the same, drastically reduced

the minimum distance of 500 meters from boundaries of forests and

forest land for the purpose of stone mining and/or establishing stone

crushers to 250 meters.

49. In the synopsis of written arguments furnished by the learned

Advocate General, it is pointed out that the Orissa and Himachal

Pradesh norms do not impose any restrictions in relation to the reserved

or protected forest lands. While Punjab imposes a restriction of 300

meters from wildlife sanctuaries and protected forests, no minimum

distance is prescribed from reserved or protected forests. Rajasthan

prescribes 100 meters restriction from some specified sanctuaries. West

Bengal and Bihar adopt a graded, site-specific approach to distance

norms from forest lands for stone crushers calibrated to the type of

forest area and local ecological conditions.

50. The synopsis filed by the Learned Advocate General summarises

the position of restrictions in the States in the following terms: -

"D.6 SUMMARY i. The distance norms vary by category of forest, type of activity and ecological sensitivity of the specific area; and ii. Several States prescribe no minimum distance from forest land at all for stone crusher operations.

The Notification B-15 dated 18/10/2017 is thus not only legally valid but is aligned with the prevailing national regulatory practice.

It is based upon the recommendation of the Committee dated 02/12/2015 which decided to bring down the distance from 500 m to 250 m based on the prevailing conditions of the neighbouring States such as Rajasthan, Bihar, Orissa and other neighbouring states."

51. Upon the due consideration of the affidavit filed by the JSPCB,

the impugned notifications and the NOC dated 02.12.2015, we are

satisfied that the petitioner has made out a strong prima facie case in his

challenge to the impugned notification dated 07.12.2015.

52. Firstly, neither the State nor the JSPCB has produced any

material to justify the abrupt reduction from 500 to 250 metres. The

NOC dated 02.12.2015 is vitiated by non-application of mind. The

NOC cannot be said to have been issued by an expert committee, given

its composition. The so-called expert committee, in any event, has

simply referred to restrictions in other States without independently

analysing the position in the context of the requirements of the State of

Jharkhand.

53. As noted above, even the synopsis of the argument submitted by

the learned Advocate General accepts that the distance norms in other

States "vary by category of forest, type of activity, and the ecological

sensitivity of the specific area". Such an exercise does not appear to

have been carried out by the so-called expert committee or the JSPCB,

which has simply and abruptly reduced the distance of 500 to 250

meters "based on prevailing conditions of neighbouring States, such as

Rajasthan, Bihar, Orissa and other neighbouring States."

54. The impugned notification is, thus, a product of non-application

of mind, exclusion of relevant considerations and focus upon irrelevant

considerations. The reduction, though significant and capable of

causing substantial harm to ecologically sensitive forests in the State of

Jharkhand, was taken in a casual manner without any serious

application of mind. While this Court, exercising the limited power of

judicial review, would be loath to second-guess the opinion of experts,

this Court cannot be precluded from satisfying itself whether the

opinion was indeed rendered by any domain experts and, further,

whether relevant considerations were completely ignored and the

decision or opinion was based upon irrelevant considerations.

55. By exercising such limited judicial review in this matter, we are

satisfied that the abrupt reduction in the distance from 500 meters to

250 meters is vulnerable, and the petitioner has made out a very strong

prima facie case in this regard. The balance of convenience also favours

retaining a restriction on development within 500 meters of forests and

forest lands, because the harm to the ecology is often irreversible. The

precautionary principle that must be applied in such matters also tilts

the balance of convenience considerably towards imposing restrictions

on the grant of consents within 500 meters of forests and forest lands,

which was the position before the impugned notification was issued,

reducing this distance from 500 meters to 250 meters.

56. Sustenance can be drawn from the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union

of India and Others, (1996) 5 SCC 281, where one of the challenges

was the abrupt reduction of the 'No Development Zone' (NDZ) for

rivers, creeks and backwaters, from 100 metres from High Tide Land

(HTL) to 50 metres. The challenge was that such a reduction was

arbitrary and made on no basis.

57. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after rejecting arguments very

similar to those now raised on behalf of the State of Jharkhand and the

JSPCB, held that such a reduction was not made for any valid reason

and was arbitrary. The Hon'ble Court held that in the absence of any

justification for this reduction, the only conclusion which can be arrived

at is that the reduction to 50 meters was done "for some extraneous

reason". In the absence of any categorical statement being made in an

affidavit that such a reduction will not be harmful or result in a serious

ecological imbalance, the Hon'ble Court held that it was unable to

conclude that the reduction has been made in the larger public interest

and was valid. Finally, the Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that this

reduction was contrary to the object of the Environment Act and had

not been made for any valid reason and was, therefore, held to be

arbitrary, illegal and struck down.

58. The learned Advocate General also relied on the CPCB

Guidelines, 2025, to submit that stone mining or stone crushers are

categorised as 'Orange'. He further submitted that, under the 2025

Guidelines, any 'Orange' category industries can be set up beyond 200

metres from sensitive areas, such as national parks, reserved forests,

etc. He contended that since the JSPCB, by the impugned notifications,

has provided for a buffer of 250 metres, which is almost 50 metres

more than the minimum prescribed by the Central Government, there is

no case for interference.

59. Firstly, there is no question of relying on the 2025 Guidelines to

explain the abrupt reduction from 500 metres to 250 metres in the

impugned notification for the State of Jharkhand. Secondly, the 2025

Guidelines prescribe only a minimum. The actual distances are to be

determined by considering a host of factors, such as the nature of the

activity and the ecological sensitivity of the specified area, as set out in

the synopsis of the written argument filed by the learned Advocate

General.

60. Secondly, at least prima facie, the provision of a minimum of

250 metres in respect of 'Orange' industries from sensitive areas such

as national parks or wildlife sanctuaries would be contrary to the

directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as construed and interpreted

by the learned Advocate General of Jharkhand and the JSPCB.

61. Therefore, at least prima facie, based on the 2025 Guidelines, we

do not think that any dent has been made to the strong prima facie case

made out by the petitioner for restraining the State and the JSPCB from

granting any consents to operate within the zone of 500 metres from the

boundaries of forests and forest lands, which was, in fact, the position

before the issuance of the impugned notification.

62. For all the above reasons, we dispose of these interim

applications by making the following orders: -

(a) The interim order dated 16th January 2026, to the extent it

had restrained the JSPCB from issuing consents for stone

mining or establishing stone crushers within a one-

kilometre zone measured from the demarcated boundaries

of protected forests in the State of Jharkhand, is hereby

varied and modified, as indicated hereinafter.

(b) The restriction on the grant of consents as above will now

apply to the zone of 500 metres from the boundaries of

forests/forest land insofar as stone mining is concerned,

and to the zone of 400 metres insofar as stone crushers are

concerned, instead of 250 metres as provided in the

notification dated 07.12.2015 or 18.10.2017; In short, the

position prevailing before the issue of the impugned

notifications is restored until the final disposal of this

Petition. This is, of course, subject to any other statutory