Prakash Chandra Yadav vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard Mr Parth Jalan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr Vibhor Mayank, learned A.C. to A.G. for Respondent Nos.1, 4 and 5 and Ms Richa Sanchita, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

We issue Rule and make the Rule returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner primarily challenges Annexure-9 at page 59 of the petition, by which his application for Consent to Operate (CTO) has been rejected by the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board (JSPCB), i.e. Respondent Nos.2 & 3 herein.

The petitioner was electronically issued a show cause notice on 24.02.2026 requiring him to show cause why such CTO should not be rejected. The petitioner failed to file any reply to the said show cause notice within 30 days.

Still, electronically, the petitioner was informed to attend the hearing on the scheduled date and time with proper documents in support of his application, failing which his application for CTO would be rejected. In the same electronic communication, the attention of the petitioner was invited to the order dated 16.01.2026 in W.P.(PIL) No. 3950 of 2024 and the direction therein that no consent should be granted for stone mining or stone crushers within one kilometre measured from the demarcated boundaries of the protected forest within the State of Jharkhand.

Finally, vide Annexure-9, the petitioner’s application for CTO was rejected by observing thus: -

In the peculiar facts of this case, though the petitioner may have failed to file a formal reply to the show cause notice, the JSPCB had the petitioner’s application dated 05.05.2025, read with the representation dated 31.01.2026, seeking consent to operate.

Further, Mr Parth Jalan pointed out that this Court modified the order dated 16.01.2026 in W.P. (PIL) No.3950 of 2024 by a subsequent order. He submitted that the petitioner bona fide believed that his application dated 05.05.2025, read with the representation dated 31.01.2026, in which he addressed the issue of distance from the demarcated boundary of the protected forest, was also duly addressed by him in paragraphs 5 to 8.

The show cause notice in this case was issued electronically on 24.02.2026. Despite this opportunity, the petitioner failed to file a reply. Therefore, whatever the petitioner’s bona fide belief, we cannot fault the respondent- JSPCB, or rather its computer system, for not considering the petitioner’s application dated 05.05.2025, read with the representation dated 31.01.2026, as a reply to the show cause notice that was subsequently issued.

Still, the interest of justice requires that the petitioner be granted an additional opportunity, given that the petitioner had made submissions on the distance issue in his representation dated 31.01.2026, which was already available with the Member Secretary of the JSPCB. Besides, the issue of modification of the order dated 16.01.2026 and its impact will also have to be considered.

Considering the above aspects, we are inclined to grant the petitioner an additional opportunity by quashing and setting aside Annexure-9, rejecting his application for issue of CTO.

Accordingly, we quash and set aside the impugned order at Annexure-9 and direct the JSPCB to consider afresh the petitioner’s application dated 05.05.2025 read with the representation for issue of CTO made on 31.01.2026 and dispose of the same in accordance with the law.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner will file a reply to the show cause notice dated 24.02.2026 within two weeks of today. If such a reply is filed in physical form, it should be accepted and considered by the JSPCB in this case. The petitioner is at liberty to annex documents to the reply or produce any other evidence in support of the reply.

The JSPCB must decide the petitioner’s application dated 05.05.2025 read with the representation dated 31.01.2026 in accordance with law and on its own merits as expeditiously as possible and in any event within two months from receiving the petitioner’s reply to the show cause notice.

Mr Vibhor Mayank, learned A.C. to A.G., pointed out that the petitioner seeks to take away/transport the stone chips (minor mineral), which the petitioner claims were extracted during the currency of the earlier CTO and on which royalty has already been paid. He further states that it needs to be verified whether the mineral was indeed extracted during the validity of the initial CTO, and whether the same pertains to the area leased out to the petitioner. He submits that this involves adjudication into disputed facts.

He further submits that unless there is a CTO, an application for taking away or transportation of mineral cannot be considered.

Accordingly, he submits that nothing in this order should preclude the concerned State Government authorities from considering all these aspects should the petitioner secure a CTO and apply for removal/taking away of the minerals from the site.

In this case, we have primarily dealt only with the issue of CTO and for this purpose quashed and set aside Annexure-9. We have not dealt with the issue of removal or transportation of the mineral. Therefore, all contentions in this regard are specifically kept open, and nothing in this order shall prevent either party from raising all permissible issues in this regard should any occasion therefor arise.

The petition is disposed of with the above directions and clarifications. Again, we clarify that the petitioner’s application dated 05.05.2025, read with the representation for CTO dated 31.01.2026, must be considered in accordance with law and on its own merits, since we have not adverted to the merits of the matter in this order. All contentions of all parties in this regard are specifically kept open for the second and third respondents to decide in the first instance.

The rule in this petition is made absolute to the above extent only and without any order for costs.

All concerned must act on an authenticated copy of this order.

Interlocutory applications, if any, will not survive and are disposed of.