Meghalaya High Court Orders Vigil On Cement Company | State To Monitor And Prevent Illegal Limestone Mining
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Meghalaya Division Bench of Chief Justice I.P. Mukerji and Justice W. Diengdoh held that the State Government must maintain vigilance over limestone mining operations conducted under a licence granted to a private company. The court directed that the government must ensure the licence is properly utilised and that no illegal mining of limestone occurs. It further mandated the Chief Secretary or an authorised officer to issue quarterly communications, after due enquiry, to be published on the government’s website, stating whether the company continues to operate in accordance with its licence. With these directives, the public interest litigation was disposed of.
The matter before the court concerned allegations of illegal mining of limestone by a cement manufacturing company operating in the State of Meghalaya. The scope of the public interest litigation was restricted to this specific allegation against the respondent company, which operates a cement plant within the state. The petitioner alleged that the company, despite only obtaining a mining licence on 11 January 2023, had been engaged in illegal mining activities both prior to and after this date.
At an earlier hearing, the court called for a report from the State Government regarding the allegations. The State Government’s inquiry report concluded that the company had not engaged in illegal mining. The petitioner contested this finding, arguing that no “clean chit” should be granted and asserting that they had not been heard during the inquiry process. In response, the court allowed the petitioner to file a rejoinder. The rejoinder reiterated the denial of any exoneration of the company.
On 24 July 2025, the court directed that the public interest petition, the State Government’s report, and the petitioner’s rejoinder be placed before the Chief Secretary for consideration. The Chief Secretary was to instruct the learned Advocate General regarding submissions to be made on behalf of the State.
During the hearing, the Advocate General supported the State Government’s report. He stated that before obtaining the licence in 2023, the respondent company purchased limestone from private vendors within the State, which was lawful. He clarified that the issue before the Supreme Court concerning the sale of limestone by individual miners to purchasers in Bangladesh was unrelated to the present case. There was no Supreme Court order restricting private sale of limestone at the time.
The Advocate General also submitted that the petitioner acted in the interest of a rival industrialist engaged in similar business and aimed to disrupt the respondent company’s operations. He maintained that the respondent company had a valid licence since 2023 and had not engaged in illegal mining before or after its issuance.
Counsel for the respondent company informed the court that mining under the granted licence had not yet commenced but was expected to start shortly. The court recorded this statement in its proceedings.
The court noted: "We restrict the scope of this public interest litigation (PIL) to the allegation of alleged illegal mining of limestone by Amrit Cement Industries Limited, the respondent No.9 at Mulieh, Umlong village, East Jaintia Hills District." The bench recorded that this narrowing was necessary because another pending PIL covered broader questions on illegal mining.
The court observed that the petitioner’s allegations included that the respondent obtained its licence on 11 January 2023 but had been mining illegally before and after that date. In response to these allegations, the court had called for a State Government report. The report absolved the respondent company, but the petitioner challenged it, claiming they had not been heard.
The bench recorded: "We gave him a chance to respond to it. The rejoinder strongly denied that any clean chit be given to the company." The court’s directions from 24 July 2025 placed the matter before the Chief Secretary for assessment.
The Advocate General’s submissions, as noted by the court, included that the respondent had purchased limestone lawfully from private vendors prior to 2023 and that no order from the Supreme Court restricted such private sales. The court recorded that the Advocate General asserted the petitioner was acting for vested interests of a rival entrepreneur and maintained the company’s compliance with legal requirements.
The bench also noted the submission of the respondent company’s counsel that no mining activity under the licence had commenced but was planned to begin soon. The court took note of this statement.
Upon reviewing submissions, the government’s report, and the Chief Secretary’s stance, the court directed: "We direct that the State government keeps a vigil to ensure that the licence granted to the respondent No.9 is properly utilised and that it does not indulge in illegal mining of limestone." The bench further ordered that every three months, the Chief Secretary or an authorised officer must conduct an enquiry and publish a communication on the government’s website stating whether the company continues or does not continue to mine limestone in accordance with the licence. This was to ensure public access to information for any person concerned about illegal mining.
With these directives, the court disposed of the public interest litigation.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. A. Goyal, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. A. Kumar, Advocate General with Mr. N. Syngkon, GA; Mr. J.N. Rynjah, GA; Dr. N. Mozika, DSGI with Ms. K. Gurung, Advocate; Mrs. T. Yangi B, Senior Advocate; Mr. D.K. Banerjee, Senior Advocate with Ms. T. Sutnga, Advocate
Case Title: Sri Ranjit Chandra Goswami v. State of Meghalaya & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: MLHC:670-DB
Case Number: PIL No. 1/2025
Bench: Chief Justice I.P. Mukerji and Justice W. Diengdoh
