Disposed¶30

Indra Nath Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC23 Sept 2024WPC/3689/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Locus standi of local residents to challenge lease of 22.92 acres of forest land (Khata No. 1, Plot No. 272, Village Budhakhap, P.S. Mandu, District Ramgarh) to M/s Alok Steel Industries (Pvt.) Ltd for a mini steel factory; demand for disclosure of environment clearance / pollution clearance for sponge iron production; demand for State policy/notification on forest land lease of 2004; writ petition disposed of for want of locus standi; liberty to pursue remedy in accordance with law; mandamus refused; Jharkhand High Court, single judge (Rajesh Kumar, J.), 23.09.2024.

What did the court decide?

The civil right of the petitioners is not in dispute, and the petitioners have no locus standi to affect the right of the private respondent No. 9 so far as construction of the industry is concerned. ¶29

Indra Nath Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether mandamus should issue restraining Respondent Nos. 2 and 5 to 8 from taking further action for lease of 22.92 acres of forest land (Khata No. 1, Plot No. 272, Village Budhakhap) in favour of Respondent No. 9, M/s Alok Steel Industries (Pvt.) Ltd, to establish a new Mini Steel Factory. +3 more

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The civil right of the petitioners is not in dispute, and the petitioners have no locus standi to affect the right of the private respondent No. 9 so far as construction of the industry is concerned.

¶29

Key takeaways

In view of the absence of locus standi, the Court found no reason to entertain the writ petition and disposed of it.ratio¶30
The parties are at liberty to work out their remedy in accordance with law.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (W.P.(C) No.3689 of 2022, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, Rajesh Kumar, J., order dated 23.09.2024): Twelve residents of Villages Budhakhap/Karma/Painki, P.S. Mandu, District Ramgarh sought mandamus (A) restraining Respondent Nos. 2 and 5 to 8 from taking further action for lease of 22.92 acres of forest land in Khata No. 1, Plot No. 272 of Village Budhakhap in favour of Respondent No. 9, M/s Alok Steel Industries (Pvt.) Ltd, to establish a new Mini Steel Factory; (B) directing Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to disclose whether any environment clearance / pollution clearance had been granted for construction of the industry and production of Sponge Iron; and (C) directing Respondent No. 2 to produce the State of Jharkhand's Policy / Notification on lease of forest land within the forest area in 2004. The Court held that the civil right of the petitioners was not in dispute and that they had no locus standi to affect the right of the private respondent No. 9 so far as construction of the industry was concerned; finding no reason to entertain the writ petition, it was disposed of, with liberty to the parties to work out their remedy in accordance with law. No relief was granted.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C) No.3689 of 2022

¶3

Indra Nath Mahto, aged about 37 years, son of Jivadhan Mahto, resident of village - Budhakhap, Near Shiv Mandir, P.O. Karma, P.S.- Mandu, District - Ramgarh.

¶4

Pradeep Sharma, aged about 38 years, son of Dukhan Thakur, resident of village Karma, Near Hanuman Mandir, P.O. Karma, P.S. Mandu, District - Ramgarh.

¶5

Dhaneshwar Mahto, aged about 60 years, son of late Dular Mahto, resident of village Karma, Amarpur, P.O.- Karma, P.S.- Mandu, District Ramgarh.

¶6

Rohan Lal Mahto, aged about 40 years, son of late Hublal Mahto @ Huglal Mahto, resident of village Budhakhap, Near Hanuman Mandir, Ρ.Ο.- Karma, P.S.- Mandu, District - Ramgarh. 5. Anil Yadav, aged about 32 years, son of Jugal Yadav, resident of village Pochra Mandey Tola, P.O.- Digwar, P.S.- Mandu, District - Ramgarh.

¶7

Dhaneshwar Yadav, aged about 48 years, son of late Ganesh Yadav, resident of village Pochra- Pipal Tola, P.O.- Digwar, P.S. Mandu, District Ramgarh, Jharkhand.

¶8

Suresh Munda, aged about 50 years, son of late Pachu Munda, resident of village - Painki -Munda Tola, Near Shiv Mandir, P.O.- Digwar, P.S.- Mandu, District- Ramgarh.

¶9

Rajendra Munda, aged about 26 years, son of late Budhan Munda, resident of village Painki Munda Tola, P.O.- Digwar, P.S.- Mandu, District- Ramgarh. 9. Binod Mahto aged about 36 years, son of Tilu Mahto, resident of village Budhakhap, Р.О.- Karma, P.S.- Mandu, District - Ramgarh.

¶10

Meghnath Mahto, aged abot 48 years, son of late Chintanman Mahto, resident of village Budhakhap, Near Shiv Mandir, P.O.- Karma, P.S.- Mandu, District - Ramgarh. 11. Bishnu Kumar Mahto, aged about 34 years, son of late Ruplal Mahto, resident of village Budhakhap, Near Durga Mandap, P.O.- Karma, P.S.Mandu, District - Ramgarh.

¶11

Kunwar Mahto, aged about 43 years, son of Govardhan Mahto, resident of village Budhakhap, Near Hanuman Mandir, P.O.- Karma, P.S.- Mandu, District - Ramgarh. … …Petitioner(s)

¶12

Versus

¶13

The State of Jharkhand.

¶14

The Principal Chief Conservation of Forest, Doranda, P.O.+P.S.- Doranda, District – Ranchi.

¶15

The Member Secretary, State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Dhurwa, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagarnathpur, District – Ranchi.

¶16

Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board represented through the Chairman, at E-1, CIF Colony, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi.

¶17

The Divisional Forest Officer, at P.O.+P.S.- Ramgarh, District - Ramgarh

¶18

The Deputy Commissioner, at P.O.+P.S.+District Ramgarh.

¶19

The Additional Collector, at P.O.+P.S.+District Ramgarh.

¶20

The Circle Officer, at P.O.+P.S.- Mander, District – Ramgarh.

¶21

M/s Alok Steel Industries (Pvt.) Ltd, at Bhudhakhap, P.O.- Karma, P.S.Mandu, District- Ramgarh. … … Respondent(s)

¶22

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶23

--For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankur Anand, Adv. For the respondent(s) : Ms. Richa Sanchia, Adv. ---

¶24

06/23.09.2024:

¶25

The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

¶26

“A. For issuance of an appropriate writ (s)/ order (s)/ direction (s) particularly in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the Respondent No. 2 and 5 to 8 not to take further action for lease of 22.92 acres of forest land situated in Khata No. 1, Plot No. 272 of Village Budhakhap, P.O. Karma, P.S.- Mandu, District Ramgarh in favour of Respondent 9 (M/s Alok Steel Industries (Pvt.) Ltd) to establish a new Mini Steel Factory."

¶27

B. For issuance of an appropriate writ (s)/ order (s)/ direction (s) particularly in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the Respondent more particularly Respondent no. 3 and 4 to present before this Hon'ble Court whether any environment clearance / pollution clearance have been granted or not for construction of M/s Alok Steel Industries (Pvt.) Ltd and production of Sponge Iron situated in Khata No. 1 Plot No. 272 of forest land of Village Budhakhap, P.O. Karma, P.S.- Mandu, District-Ramgarh.

¶28

C. For issuance of an appropriate writ (s)/ order (s)/ direction (s) particularly in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the Respondent No. 2 to show / produce the Policy / Notification of State of Jharkhand with reference to lease of forest land for the purpose of establishment of M/s Alok Steel Industries (Pvt.) Ltd within the forest area in 2004”.

¶29

Admittedly, the civil right of the petitioners is not in dispute. The petitioners have no locus standi to affect the right of the private respondent No.9 so far as construction of industry is concerned.

¶30

In that view of the matter, I do not find any reason to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, it is hereby, disposed of.

¶31

However, parties are at liberty to work out their remedy in accordance with law.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

Ravi/-

Uploaded

W.P.(C) No.3689 of 2022

¶36

-2-

Indra Nath Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indra Nath Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pawan Pandit Alias Pawan Kumar Pandit Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vikash Prasad Sahu Alias Vikash Kumar Saw Alias Vikash Ku Saw Alias Bikash Prasad Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sujit Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ram Kali Devi Vs Damodar Valley Corporation through Its Chairman

Babli Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sheereen Rukhsar Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.