Jharkhand High Court Upholds State's Refusal To Grant Environmental Clearance For Stone Mining In Saranda Forest
The Jharkhand High Court has upheld the decision of the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) refusing environmental clearance (EC) to a proprietorship firm for stone mining in the Saranda forest's no-mining zone.
The Court held that the “Management Plan for Sustainable Mining in Saranda and Chaibasa of Singhbhum District, Jharkhand,” framed in 2018, applied to the entire forest area irrespective of the type of mineral and that permitting stone mining in a conservation or no-mining zone would defeat the purpose of forest preservation.
Rejecting the petitioner's contention that the report of Justice MB Shah Commission which was constituted was to check upon the mining of iron ore and the manganese and cannot be made applicable to stone mining in the forest area the division bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai observed,
“...when the issue of forest conservation is there then entire thing is to be taken into consideration as to how the forest area is to be saved.”
The Court further noted, “In view of the aforesaid specific reference made in the said report earmarking the same to be the conservation area as also earmarking it to be no mining zone, then the question is that how can the stone mining can be allowed to be carried out in view of the said finding recorded in the said MPSM in which the consideration has been given with respect to designation of mining zone, conservation area and no mining zone.”
The petitioner, M/s Nishant Roadlines, participated in an auction for grant of a mining lease for stone in village Gundijora, district West Singhbhum, and was declared the preferred bidder.
A letter of intent was issued, and the petitioner complied with all requisite conditions. The mining plan was approved by the competent authority. However, when the petitioner sought environmental clearance from the SEIAA, the application was rejected on the ground that Gundijora falls within a “conservation/no-mining zone” as per the Management Plan for Sustainable Mining (MPSM), 2018.
The petitioner argued that the management plan for sustainable mining had only considered the issue of mining operation of iron ore and manganese and nothing else.
The respondents, SEIAA and the Union of India, contended that the Management Plan was formulated to ensure conservation and protection of the Saranda–Chaibasa forest region as a whole, without distinction of mineral type. It was stated during the arguments that the area is categorised into two zones: Mining Zone and Conservation Zones.
They argued that permitting any mining activity there would defeat the purpose of the Plan and cause ecological imbalance, and that SEIAA's decision was based on valid environmental considerations and did not suffer from any legal infirmity.
Findings
The Bench held that the Management Plan's purpose was environmental protection of the Saranda forest as a whole, not specific to minerals. It further affirmed that SEIAA's decision aligned with statutory duties under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and the EIA Notification 2006.
The Court said that allowing the mining operation will further lead to destroying the environment and thereby, it further said,
“the principle of inter-generational equity that present generation has a solemn responsibility to protect and improve the environment for the present and future generations will ultimately be jeopardized and not only jeopardized, we will go into a situation from where the same cannot be repaired. Therefore, it is the duty of the present generation to safeguard the natural resources of the earth through careful planning and to undertake to pass on to the future generations.”
Upholding SEIAA's decision, the Court stated, “This Court, therefore, is of the view that if such is the consideration as is evident from the impugned decision taken by the SEIAA for the purpose for which the SEIAA has been constituted and fully relying upon the purport of the MPSM based upon the Hon'ble Justice M.B. Shah Commission report, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error.”
Referring to the report of the Shah Commission the court said that while it was conscious that the observations therein were made with respect to mining of iron ore and manganese; but the question is that if such restriction is there then whether the mining of stone can be allowed?
"If the same will be allowed then what will happen to the Saranda Forest which is admittedly having wildlife and is one of the finest elephant habitats. If the same will be allowed then the entire Saranda Forest will be destroyed," the bench emphasized.
In conclusion, the Court declined to interfere under its writ jurisdiction, observing,
“the question of issuance of writ of certiorari is not fit to be issued for the reason that the decision so taken by the SEIAA cannot be said to suffer either from the perversity or in violation of principle of natural justice or contrary to any statutory mandate, rather, the same is in consonance with the object of different environmental laws as also the very purport for which the Commission has been constituted headed by Hon'ble Justice M.B. Shah.”
Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of.
Case Title: M/s Nishant Roadlines v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 4107 of 2023