Khushilal Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 1331 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Khushilal Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 February, 2026

Author: Rajesh Shankar

Bench: Rajesh Shankar

                                                          2026:JHHC:4990-DB




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  W.P. (PIL) No.1932 of 2021
                                -----

1. Khushilal Mahto, son of Late Damarlal Mahto.

2. Ruplal Mahto, son of Late Pokha Mahto.

3. Saryu Mahto, son of Late Baijnath Mahto.

4. Yogendra Mahto, son of Sri Rijhoo Mahto.

Sl. Nos.1 to 4 are residents of Basantpur, P.O. Kedla, P.S. Mandu, District-Ramgarh.

5. Chaturvedi Mahto, son of Sri Doman Mahto, resident of Basantpur, Pachanda, P.O. Kedla, P.S. Mandu, District-Ramgarh.

.......... Petitioners.

-Versus-

1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, Govt. of Jharkhand having office at CDE 256, HEC Colony, CTI Colony, Sector-III, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.s. Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi.

3. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh.

4. Central Coalfields Limited having office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi.

5. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, having office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi.

6. General Manager, Washery, Division C.C.L., Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi.

7. General Manager, Hazaribagh Area, Central Coalfields Limited having office at + P.O. Charhi, P.S. Charhi, District-Hazaribagh.

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

-----

        CORAM :          HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
                              -----
        For the Petitioners :    Mrs. Aprajita Bhardwaj, Advocate
                                 Mr. Akash Ajit Kumar, Advocate
        For the State       :    Mr. Gaurav Raj, A.C. to AAG-II
        For the JSPCB       :    Mrs. Richa Sanchita, Advocate
        For the CCL         :    Mr. A.K. Das, Advocate
                              -----
        Order No.15                              Date: 19.02.2026

1.      Heard learned counsel for the parties.


                                                       2026:JHHC:4990-DB

2. This Public Interest Litigation concerns the Kedla Washery already

established by the Central Coalfields Limited-CCL (respondent

no.4) and the Basantpur Washery which is proposed to be

established at Basantpur, District Ramgarh.

3. In so far as the Kedla Washery is concerned, Mrs. Aprajita

Bhardwaj submits that the various permissions granted to the

CCL required the CCL to ensure that the water bodies in the

vicinity are not polluted. She referred to the photographs

annexed to the petitioners' rejoinder dated 15th September, 2025

and submitted that the water bodies are grossly polluted and the

Kedla Washery is being operated in breach of the terms and

conditions of the permissions issued by the statutory authorities.

She submitted that the petitioners have already complained to

the authorities but they are not interested in taking any action

though they are duty bound to. Therefore, she submitted that a

mandamus be issued to the statutory authorities to investigate

into the petitioners' complaint about pollution and environmental

degradation and further, action be taken against the Kedla

Washery as required under the law.

4. Mrs. Bhardwaj submits that in so far as the Basantpur Washery

is concerned, the CCL has obtained an environmental clearance.

For obtaining such environmental clearance, the CCL has

undertaken not to pollute the water bodies in the locality. Mrs.

Bhardwaj submits that going by the track record of the CCL and

the manner in which they have breached the undertakings or

terms and conditions in the context of the Kedla Washery, the

2026:JHHC:4990-DB

petitioners sincerely apprehend that the undertakings now given

by the CCL would remain paper undertakings. She relied on the

precautionary principle which is now accepted as a necessary

concomitant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and

submitted that the CCL must not be allowed to proceed to set up

the Basantpur Washery until, the water bodies that they have

polluted in an around the Kedla Washery are restored to their

original pristine condition.

5. Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel for the respondent-CCL submitted

that no complaints have been received from the petitioners with

regard to the Kedla Washery. He submitted that the Basantpur

Washery is yet to be established and the apprehensions now

expressed by the petitioners are quite imaginary and farfetched.

He submitted that there is no reason to presume that the

undertakings, if any, given by the CCL would not be complied

with by the CCL or that the CCL would establish the washery in

breach of the terms and conditions that may be imposed upon it.

6. Mrs. Richa Sanchita, learned counsel for the Jharkhand State

Pollution Control Board submitted that as yet no consent to

establish has been issued and even after consent to establish is

issued, the CCL would have to obtain consent to operate before

the actual operations commenced.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents, therefore, submitted

that this petition is entirely premature and based on

apprehensions that have no serious foundations.

2026:JHHC:4990-DB

8. We have heard the rival contentions and we propose to dispose

of this petition by not reacting to the various allegations made by

the petitioners but at the same time, remaining conscious that

environmental issues need to be addressed with seriousness

given the precautionary principle referred to by Mrs. Bhardwaj on

behalf of the petitioners.

9. In so far as the Kedla Washery is concerned, we find that the

petitioners have only referred to the alleged pollution caused on

account of this washery in the context of opposing the proposed

Bansantpur Washery.

10. Nevertheless, we grant the petitioners liberty to file a detailed

complaint along with photographs, scientific reports, if possible,

with regard to their charge that the Kedla Washery is polluting

the water bodies in the vicinity. If such complaint is filed, the

Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board and/or any other

statutory authorities, who are duty bound to act in the matter,

are directed to investigate into such complaint and dispose of the

same in accordance with law and on its own merits as

expeditiously as possible and in any event within two months

from the date of its receipt.

11. The statutory authorities including the Jharkhand State Pollution

Control Board must inspect the water bodies, obtain scientific

reports to determine whether these water bodies are polluted and

further whether the Kedla Washery is responsible for such

pollution. After that, if any substance is found in the petitioners'

complaint/allegations, the statutory authorities, including the

2026:JHHC:4990-DB

Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, must act in accordance

with law and take action against the polluters, whether they be

the CCL or any others.

12. Needless to add that if any of the parties are affected by the

decisions of the statutory authorities, including the Jharkhand

State Pollution Control Board, they would be at liberty to

challenge such action in accordance with law and before the

appropriate prescribed forum. At present, we clarify that we have

not investigated the allegations now levelled by the petitioners.

Therefore, we have neither accepted them nor accepted the

CCL's denials. All such matters are left open to be decided by the

statutory authorities in the first instance.

13. In so far as the Basantpur Washery is concerned, it has yet to be

established. Therefore, we agree with the learned counsel for the

respondents that this petition is rather premature. If and indeed,

the apprehensions now expressed by the petitioners turn out to

be correct, it is always open to the petitioners to take necessary

steps, which would include filing complaints with the statutory

authorities so that their grievances are redressed.

14. Again, we add that if such complaints are filed, the statutory

authorities must at least look into such complaints and dispose of

them in accordance with the law. At the same time, we expect

even the petitioners to be responsible when filing complaints, and

such complaints must not be filed for any extraneous

considerations or for pursuing any cause other than the

environment.

2026:JHHC:4990-DB

15. With the above directions and liberties, we dispose of this

petition. No costs. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy

of this order.

16. Interlocutory application(s), if any, is also disposed of.

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

(Rajesh Shankar, J.) 19th February, 2026 Sanjay/Rohit Uploaded on 20.02.2026