Sailesh Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 1053 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Sailesh Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 February, 2026

Author: Rajesh Shankar

Bench: Rajesh Shankar

                                                           2026:JHHC:3818-DB




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   W.P.(PIL) No.563 of 2026
                               -----

Sailesh Kumar, son of Sri Ramawtar Sahu, resident of Kesar Vihar, Tonko Road, Hatia, Ranchi.

.......... Petitioner.

-Versus-

1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi.

2. Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi.

3. Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi.

4. Secretary, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, Sector-IV, Dhurwa, Ranchi.

5. Officer-in-charge, Jagarnathpur Police Station, Jagarnathpur, Ranchi.

6. Madan Prasad Sahu, son of Late Shivdayal Sahu, resident of Kesar Vihar, Tonko Road, Hatia, Ranchi.

7. Ram Ratan Sahu, son of Late Shivdayal Sahu, resident of Sonar Mohalla, Upper Hatia, Jagarnathpur, Ranchi.

.......... Respondents.

-----

       CORAM :          HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
                               -----
       For the Petitioner :       Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate
                                  Mr. Vikesh Kumar, Advocate
       For the State       :      Mr. Gaurav Raj, AC to AAG-II
       For Res. No.4       :      Mrs. Richa Sanchita, Advocate
                           :      Ms. Malsi Pathak, Advocate
                               -----
       Order No.03                                Date: 12.02.2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner in purported public interest, has certain grievances

against respondent nos.6 & 7 in the context of organising night

cricket matches or other sports in the midst of colony/residential

area. The complaint is primarily about noise pollution. The

petitioner alleges breach of Noise Pollution (Regulation & Control)

Rules, 2000.

3. By way of a supplementary affidavit along with the main petition,

the petitioner has place on record complaint addressed to the

Hon'ble Chief Minister with copies marked to the Deputy

2026:JHHC:3818-DB

Commissioner, Ranchi; Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi;

and Officer In-charge of Jagarnathpur Police Station, Ranchi.

Along with the supplementary affidavit, the petitioner has

enclosed a representation dated 9th February, 2026 addressed to

the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board.

4. In the exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226

of the Constitution of India, we can obviously not adjudicate upon

such complaints in the first instance. However, we agree with the

learned counsel for the petitioner that the statutory authorities or

the Law Enforcement Agencies first at least look into the

petitioner's complaints and if there is any merit in those

complaints, then, take action in accordance with law. Even the

role of the Writ Court in such matters is primarily to activate the

statutory authorities in performing the duties imposed upon them

under the law.

5. Therefore, we direct the respondent nos.3 & 4 to look into the

petitioner's above referred complaints and if there is any merit in

the same, then, to take action in accordance with law. However,

as clarified above, we are not commenting upon the merits or the

veracity of the complaints because we believe that it is for the

respondent nos.3 & 4 to look into the complaints in the first

instance and take action in accordance with the law, if there is

any substance in such complaints.

6. Considering the submission made on behalf of Jharkhand State

Pollution Control Board, we clarify that there is no question of the

Pollution Control Board and the Senior Superintendent of Police

2026:JHHC:3818-DB

trying to pass the buck on each other and together doing nothing

in the matter. Both the authorities have to at least look into the

complaint and if they find merit in the complaint, to act in

accordance with law.

7. This petition is disposed of in the above terms without any order

for costs.

8. The Respondent Nos.3 & 4 must act on an authenticated copy of

this order.

(M. S. Sonak, C.J.)

(Rajesh Shankar, J.) 12 February, 2026 th Sanjay/Rahul Uploaded on 13.02.2026