Illegal Mining In Hazaribagh Amounts To Assault On Environment, Right To Clean Air Can't Be Sacrificed: Jharkhand HC
The Jharkhand High Court has held that illegal mining activities and operation of non-compliant stone crusher units in the Ichak region of Hazaribagh stand established, observing that authorities can no longer plead “institutional unpreparedness” to justify inaction against large-scale environmental degradation.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar was hearing a public interest litigation concerning rampant illegal stone mining and operation of crusher units around the Siwane River in the Ichak region of Hazaribagh district.
The petitioner alleged that illegal mining and unauthorised stone crusher operations were causing severe environmental damage, including emission of large quantities of stone dust affecting nearly 100 hectares of cultivable land, disruption of the Siwane River ecosystem, and harm to residents, crops and cattle. It was further alleged that these operations were being carried out in collusion with local authorities and without mandatory statutory clearances, including environmental permissions and explosive licences.
The Court noted that the issue transcended a mere private dispute and involved protection of ecological integrity and environmental rights of residents of the region. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, the Court reiterated that environmental protection and preservation of ecology fall squarely within the scope of public interest litigation jurisdiction.
The High Court further observed that throughout the pendency of the matter, the respondent authorities had never outright denied the allegations of illegal mining, and had instead filed several affidavits over the years acknowledging the existence of the issue and detailing measures purportedly taken to control it.
The Court emphasised that the right to a clean and pollution-free environment forms part of Article 21 of the Constitution, read with Articles 48A and 51A(g). While noting that certain steps had been taken by authorities, including imposition of a ban on mining activity in Village Tepsa and constitution of teams for surprise inspections, the Court observed that these measures had failed to produce the desired outcome.
The Court observed:
“Yet, while our jurisprudence has long celebrated this nonenumerated right to a clean, healthy and pollution-free environment, the ground reality in Hazaribagh reveals a landscape in deep distress…The unregulated mining witnessed here is not merely a technical breach of industrial standards; it has become a relentless assault on the essential building blocks of life. The stone dust generated by these units does not remain confined to the pits of extraction; it travels on the wind, a silent and invisible toxin that carries the harmful effects of mining activity even to distant places. Air, which should be a source of vitality, has become the "worst affected environmental matrix," acting as a conduit for ecological decay.”
Rejecting the contention that mining could continue merely because Village Tepsa was not formally included within an Eco-Sensitive Zone, the Court clarified that absence of such classification does not grant a “license to engage in ecological destruction.”
The Court further made strong observations regarding the role of authorities, stating that such large-scale quarrying operations involving heavy machinery, labour and transportation could not continue without the knowledge of enforcement agencies. It observed that law enforcement authorities appeared content with “paper assurances” while avoiding actual enforcement.
Holding that illegal mining activities and operation of non-compliant stone crusher units stood established, the Court issued a series of directions to the State authorities. These included review of all statutory permissions granted to mining and crusher units in the affected areas, prohibition on mining and crusher operations until verification of compliances, implementation of technology-driven enforcement mechanisms including CCTV surveillance and GPS tracking, establishment of complaint helplines, initiation of prosecution under the MMDR Act and environmental laws, assessment of environmental compensation on the basis of the “Polluter Pays” principle, and submission of compliance reports by concerned officials within four months.
The Court also reiterated that no mining activity or operation of stone crusher units shall take place within a one-kilometre buffer zone from the boundary of the Hazaribagh Wildlife Sanctuary, subject to any larger statutory buffer zones already prescribed.
The PIL was accordingly disposed of with directions.
Case Title: Hemant Kumar Shikarwar v. State of Jharkhand.
Case No.: W.P. (PIL) No. 290 of 2013.
Appearance: Mr. Vijay Narayan Singh appeared for the Petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Raj appeared for the State. Mr. Prabhash Kumar and Mr. Manish Sharma appeared for the other Respondents.