Jharkhand High Court Upholds SEIAA’s Refusal of Environmental Clearance for Stone Mining in Saranda Forest’s No-Mining Zone
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Jharkhand, Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai upheld the decision of the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) refusing environmental clearance to a proprietorship firm seeking to conduct 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, applies to the entire forest area regardless of the mineral involved. It observed that allowing stone mining in a designated conservation zone would undermine the very objective of protecting the Saranda and Chaibasa forest ecosystems.
The petitioner, a proprietorship firm, participated in an e-auction conducted by the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, for a stone mining lease located in village Gundijora, West Singhbhum District. After being declared the successful bidder, a Letter of Intent was issued on 15 September 2022, followed by the approval of a mining plan on 14 October 2022 by the competent authority. The petitioner thereafter applied to the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) seeking environmental clearance, a prerequisite under the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006.
On 24 March 2023, the SEIAA rejected the application, citing that the proposed site fell within a “No-Mining Zone” under the Management Plan for Sustainable Mining (MPSM) prepared in 2018 by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC). The petitioner contended that the MPSM was formulated only for iron ore and manganese mining, not for minor minerals such as stone, and that it had no statutory force. It was further argued that the area identified for mining was not forest land and that the SEIAA’s decision exceeded its jurisdiction.
The Union of India submitted that the MPSM was a comprehensive environmental safeguard plan developed in compliance with directions arising from the Justice M.B. Shah Commission’s report on illegal mining in the Singhbhum region. The State of Jharkhand maintained that no mining lease could be executed without prior environmental clearance and that the site identified in the MPSM as a conservation or no-mining zone could not be disturbed. The SEIAA asserted that its decision was taken in adherence to environmental protection measures, ensuring compliance with the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and sustainable mining norms.
The Court observed that “the issue which requires determination is whether the decision taken by the Ministry of Environment and Forest by way of MPSM can only be given effect to in a case of mining of iron and manganese or it is to be implemented in order to protect the issue of environment by causing no threat to the area of the Saranda Forest.”
It stated that “the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 has been enacted for the protection and improvement of environment and for matters connected therewith,” and that “under Section 3 of the said Act, the Central Government is empowered to take measures for putting restrictions of areas in which any industries, operations or processes shall not be carried out or shall be carried out subject to safeguards.”
The Bench recorded that “the MPSM was formulated in the year 2018 to ensure that mining in the Saranda and Chaibasa region is carried out in a manner that does not cause irreparable damage to the flora and fauna of the forest,” and that “the area in question has been specifically identified under the plan as a conservation or no-mining zone.”
The Court stated that “we are not in agreement with the said ground, reason being that 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.” It further recorded that “if the contention of the writ petitioner will be accepted, then the very purpose of constitution of the Commission of Hon’ble Justice M.B. Shah will be frustrated which has been constituted only for the purpose of protecting the forest area which has been considered to be the dense forest area of the region.”
It noted that “the Ministry of Environment and Forest has constituted a Commission for the purpose of Management Plan for Sustainable Mining in Saranda Forest, Chaibasa in the Singhbhum West district,” and that “the entire area has been said to be conservation area/no mining zone.” The Court observed that “if the area has been earmarked as conservation area and no-mining zone, then the question is how stone mining can be allowed to be carried out in view of such findings recorded in the MPSM.”
The Bench stated that “if such restriction is there for the mining of the iron ore and manganese then whether the other mining operation of the stone etc. 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.” It further recorded that “allowing the mining operation will further lead to destroying the environment and thereby the principle of inter-generational equity will ultimately be jeopardized.”
It observed that “since the SEIAA has relied 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.” The Court also stated that “the SEIAA is the authority to take its subjective satisfaction for the purpose of granting Environment Clearance.”
Finally, the Court recorded that “we are not in agreement with such submission merely for the reason that if the State has committed any illegality or the Environment Clearance has been given to others, then it is the subject matter of reviewing the decision so that the same can be taken care of by putting restriction upon the same to have the foremost consideration for the purpose of saving the environment.”
The Court stated that “since we are considering the legality and propriety of the decision taken by the SEIAA as has been alleged on behalf of the writ petitioner, the decision so taken by the SEIAA cannot be said to suffer either from perversity or in violation of principle of natural justice or contrary to any statutory mandate. “The decision so taken by the SEIAA cannot be said to suffer from any error, 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.”
“So far as carrying out the other mining operation is concerned, the competent authority of the SEIAA or the State Government or the Union of India through the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change has to take care by taking follow up action in this regard.” The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate; Mr. Ranjeet Kushwaha, Advocate; Ms. Tanya Kumari, Advocate; Mr. Anish Lal, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate for the Union of India; Mr. Shray Mishra, A.C. to A.G. for the State of Jharkhand; Mr. Bhanu Kumar, Advocate for the SEIAA
Case Title: M/s Nishant Roadlines v. Union of India & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:JHHC:26701-DB
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 4107 of 2023
Bench: Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai
