Binod Oraon Vs the Union of India through Its Secretary, Ministry of Mines and Geology, Government of India

2025:JHHC:14486-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(PIL) No. 1929 of 2025

Binod Oraon aged about 44 years S/o Shri Sukra Oraon, Resident of Brahmandiha Birsa Chowk, P.O. Nigni, P.S. Lohardaga, District Lohardaga, Pin 835302, Jharkhand.

¶4

... ... ... ... ... ... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Mines and Geology, Government of India, having its office at Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi, P.O. and P.S. -New Delhi.

¶7

The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, Government of Jharkhand having its office at Project Building, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶8

The Director, Mines and Geology Department, Government of Jharkhand having its office at Nepal House, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, Ranchi.

¶9

The Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga, P.O. and P.S. - Lohardaga, District – Lohardaga

¶10

The Circle Officer, Kisko, Lohardaga P.O. and P.S. -Lohardaga, District- Lohardaga.

¶11

Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board through its Chairman, having its office at Engineers Hostel, Dhurwa, P.O Jagannathpur, P.S Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

¶12

M/s Hindalco Ltd. through its Managing Director, having its office at 21^st Floor, One Unity Center, Senapati Bapat Marg, P.O. + P.S Prabhadevi, Mumbai.

¶13

M/S Hindalco Ltd. Through its General Manager, having its office at Court Road, P.O. and P.S. Lohardaga, District Lohardaga.

¶14

M/s BKB Transport Pvt. Ltd. through its Proprietor having its office at Jaridih Bazar, P.O + P.S Phusro, District Bokaro.

¶15

M/s Minerals and Minerals Pvt. Ltd. through its General Manager having its office at Court Road, P.O. and P.S. - Lohardaga, District – Lohardaga.

¶16

... … ... Respondents

¶17

¶18

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶19

-1 of 4-

¶20

2025:JHHC:14486-DB

¶21

--------For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the UOI: Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI for the JPCB: Mrs. Richa Sanchita, Advocate For the Res-7 to 10: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mrs. Prerna Jhunjhunwala, Advocate For the JPCB: Mrs. Richa Sanchita, Advocate --------- Reserved on: 06.05.2025 Pronounced on: 5/06/2025 Per M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.

¶22

1) This Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:

¶23

a. For direction upon the respondents to take appropriate action against the respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9 for having indulged in illegal mining of Bauxite from land appertaining to mauza-Pakhar, P.S. Kisko, Thana No. 104, Khata no. 164, plot no. 699 and 700 measuring an area of 8.15 acres and 2.46 acres, respectively, totalling to 10.61 acres of land, which belongs to the State Government.

¶24

b. For direction upon the Respondents to produce the mining lease deed and all the necessary clearance as required under the provisions of MMDR Act.

¶25

c. For direction upon the State authorities to take immediate steps and conduct an enquiry into the illegal mining activities being carried out by respondent no. 7, 8 and 9 as the act of mining has been carrying without valid permission from the competent authority and is directly in the teeth of Common Cause judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court [(2017) 9 SCC 499 ].

¶26

d. For direction upon the respondents to show as to what amount has been sanctioned in the DMFT fund for the welfare in the district of Lohardaga and provide up to date status of number of works that have been taken the State Government since the financial year 20-21 till date.

¶27

-2 of 4-

¶28

2025:JHHC:14486-DB

¶29

e. For direction upon the state government to take welfare steps under the District Mineral Foundation Trust (hereinafter referred to as "DMFT") in order to mitigate the sufferings of the masses whose lives have been affected on account of illegal mining.

¶30

f. For direction upon the respondents to ensure "Samtalikaran" of the land where illegal mining operations have been carried out.

¶31

2) The basis for claiming this relief is the petitioner‘s assumption that certain illegal mining activities were being carried out by a public sector undertaking - M/s Hindalco Limited (7^th respondent) which has a lease for mining Bauxite in the District of Lohardaga and that it is permitting other private respondents to do illegal mining; and that the Circle Officer, Kisko had sent a complaint on 16.09.2023 in this regard alleging illegal mining being done in Plot No. 699 and 700 measuring 8.15 acres and 2.46 acres of State Government Land.

¶32

3) According to the petitioner when a show cause notice was given by the Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga to the 7^th and 10^th respondents, the 10^th respondent had informed that the 9^th respondent had conducted mining operation on plot no. 675 and 674 of Khata no. 189 during financial year 2022-2023 and there was levelling of plots 700 and 699 to create a safe passage to the existing pond. It is alleged that the Circle Officer found that certain schools, where children studied, are located at a distance of 100-150 ft. from the mining area and their health and studies

¶33

-3 of 4-

¶34

2025:JHHC:14486-DB

¶35

are getting affected. It is stated that complaints were made to the Additional Director, Enforcement Directorate, (Regional) dt. 12.02.2024, to the Home Secretary, Government of Jharkhand on 11.03.2024, to the Chief Minister on 11.04.2024 and to the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Mines, Government of India also on 06.05.2024, but no action was taken.

¶36

4) Even according to the petitioner, there was only levelling of the plots 699 and 700 for the purpose of creating a safe passage to an existing pond (para 9 of the petition).

¶37

5) There is no other material on the basis of which the petitioner has been able to make out a case about illegal mining by the private respondents at the instance of the 7^th respondent, since even in Annexure-1, there is a reference to the denial by the 10^th respondent of the allegation of illegal mining.

¶38

6) At this point of time when the Public Interest Litigation is filed in March 2025, it is difficult to establish as to what transpired in the financial year 2022-2023 because of the delay in filing the Public Interest Litigation.

¶39

7) Therefore, this Public Interest Litigation is not entertained and it is accordingly dismissed.

¶40

(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)

¶41

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶42

N.A.F.R.

¶43

MM

¶44

-4 of 4-

Binod Oraon v. the Union of India through Its Secretary, Ministry of Mines and Geology, Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binod Oraon v. the Union of India through Its Secretary, Ministry of Mines and Geology, Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramu Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sadik Mian Alias Md. Saddik Vs the State of Jharkhand

Murli Mehto Vs the State of Jharkhand

The State of Jharkhand Vs Shivajee Sharma

Ajit Kumar Bariar Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner

The State of Jharkhand Vs Vijay Kerketta