Babu Ram Hembrom Vs State of Jharkhand, through Chief Secretary

¶1

2026:JHHC:3819-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A No.52 of 2026

¶3

¶4

Babu Ram Hembrom, son of Khara Manjhi, resident of Parasnath Hill, Madhuban, P.O. Shikharjee, P.S. Pokhariya, Pirtand, Giridih, Jharkhand-825108.

¶5

Sanjho Manjhi, son of Jagan Manjhi, resident of Parasnath Jarabad, Madhuban, P.O. Shikharjee, P.S. Madhuban, Giridih, Jharkhand-825329.

¶6

Somara Hembram, son of Patiya Hembram, resident of Parasnath Jarabad, Madhuban, P.O. Shikharjee, P.S. Madhuban, Giridih, Jharkhand-825329.

¶7

Munulal Murmu, son of Katiya Murmu, resident of Parasnath Jarabad, Madhuban, P.O. Shikharjee, P.S. Madhuban, Giridih, Jharkhand-825329.

¶8

Lakhiram Soren, son of Rorha Soren, resident of Parasnath Jarabad, Madhuban, P.O. Shikharjee, P.S. Madhuban, Giridih, Jharkhand-825329.

¶9

Ratiya Kisku, son of Badka Kisku, resident of Parasnath Jarabad, Madhuban, P.O. Shikharjee, P.S. Madhuban, Giridih, Jharkhand-825329.

¶10

.......... Appellants.

¶11

-Versus-

¶12

State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi.

¶13

Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, through its Secretary, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Jorbagh Road, New Delhi-110003.

¶14

Department of Tourism, Art, Culture, Sports & Youth Affairs, Jharkhand, through its Secretary, F.F.P., Building, 2^nd Floor, HEC Campus, Dhurwa, Ranchi.

¶15

Deputy Commissioner, Giridih.

¶16

Sub Divisional Officer, Dumri, District Giridih.

¶17

Superintendent of Police, Giridih.

¶18

1

¶19

2026:JHHC:3819-DB

¶20

Sunil Kumar Murmu, son of Jayram Murmu, resident of Parasnath Jarabad, Madhuban, P.O. Shikharjee, P.S. Madhuban, Giridih, Jharkhand-825329.

¶21

.......... Respondents.

¶22

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

¶23

For the appellants	----- : Mr. Shubhashis Rasik Soren, Advocate Ms. Shobha Gloria Lakra, Advocate Ms. Priti Hembrom, Advocate
For the State	: Mr. Ritesh Ranjan, AC to AG
For Res. No.2	: Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI Mr. Ayush, Advocate -----

¶24

Order No.02 Date: 12.02.2026

¶25

Heard Mr. Shubhashis Rasik Soren with Ms. Shobha Gloria Lakra and Ms. Priti Hembrom for the appellants; Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI who appears with Mr. Ayush for the second respondent; and Mr. Ritesh Ranjan, AC to AG for the respondent nos.1, 3, 4, 5 & 6 (State authorities).

¶26

This appeal is directed against learned Single Judge’s Order dated 2^nd December, 2025.

¶27

The impugned order, in para-1 refers to hearing of the parties; in para-2 transcribes the reliefs sought in W.P.(C) No.6571 of 2025; and in para-3 gives the reason for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶28

Accordingly, we transcribe para-3 of the impugned order dated 2^nd December, 2025 for the reference of convenience:-

¶29

“Prima facie, it appears that the petitioners have no locus. Further, the present matter is not a private interest litigation but a public interest litigation, and therefore this Court is not the appropriate forum for adjudication. Accordingly, I do not find any reason to entertain the present writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.”

¶30

2

¶31

2026:JHHC:3819-DB

¶32

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that even the prima facie finding that the appellants/original petitioners have no locus standi is vulnerable. The appellants have clearly pleaded that they are the agriculturists, cultivating lands situated within Parasnath- Mauza. They have also pleaded that some of the petitioners are traditional Doli workers engaged in carrying pilgrims to the Jain pilgrimage site at the top of Parasnath Hill, covering nearly 18 km. per trip. They have pleaded that the respondents' actions are directly affecting their livelihoods. They have also pleaded that, in their opinion, certain actions of the respondents are illegal.

¶33

Given the averments in the petition, we do not accept the learned Single Judge’s prima facie opinion that the appellants lacked locus standi to institute the petition. Moreover, we note that the petition was dismissed on the first day it was considered. While there may be no bar to disposing of a petition on the very first day of its hearing, we note this because neither respondent had filed any reply objecting to the appellants’ locus standi.

¶34

In any event, based upon a “prima facie” finding that the appellants “appear” to have no locus standi, the petition would not have been dismissed in its entirety. Based on a prima facie finding, at the highest, if any interim or ad interim relief had been sought, the same would have been declined in case the petitioners were pressing the same. However, based solely on a prima facie finding, the entire petition would not have been

¶35

3

¶36

2026:JHHC:3819-DB

¶37

dismissed in limine on the ground that the appellants lack locus standi.

¶38

Learned Single Judge has also held that the petition, as filed, was not a Private Interest Litigation but a Public Interest Litigation. The appellants had specifically pleaded how they were personally affected. Had they instituted a Public Interest Litigation, it is possible that the counterargument would be to question their competence to file a Public Interest Litigation when they claimed to have been personally affected by certain acts or orders of the respondents. In any event, now that we find that the petitioners have locus standi, the finding that the petition is not private interest litigation would not survive.

¶39

For the above reasons, we set aside the impugned order dated 2^nd December, 2025 and restore W.P.(C) No.6571 of 2025 to the file of the learned Single Judge for its fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law and on its own merits.

¶40

All contentions of all parties, including those that learned ASGI attempted to raise before us on the issue of the availability of an alternative remedy, are specifically kept open. In fact, we have not adjudicated upon any of the merits or demerits of the issues that may have been raised in this petition, and therefore, all such issues are left open to be considered by the learned Single Judge consequent upon the restoration of W.P.(C) No.6571 of 2025 to the learned Single Judge’s file.

¶41