Dismissed

Rajan Kumar v. State of Bihar

NGT7 May 2025Original Application No. 53/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant challenged the operation of saw mills without licenses under the Bihar Saw Mills Act and for allegedly lacking environmental consents. The court held that the NGT lacks jurisdiction over the State Act as it is not in Schedule I and dismissed the application due to lack of evidentiary support regarding the alleged lack of clearances.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the applicant to file a fresh original application with proper documents and supportive evidentiary materials.

Rajan Kumar vs State of Bihar — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

Court No.1

¶2

Item No.05

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONE BENCH, KOLKATA

¶4

(THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING WITH HYBRID MODE)

¶5

Original Application No.53/2025/EZ

¶6

In the matter of: Rajan Kumar S/o Manejar Bhagat, Aged about 26 years, R/o Sugauli, P.O. – Sugauli, Dist. – East Champaran, Bihar - 855456

¶7

.... Applicant(s)

¶8

Versus

¶9

1. State of Bihar

¶10

Through Chief Secretary, General Administration Department Government of Bihar, Main Secretariat, Patna – 800015

¶11

2. Department of Environment, Forest & Climate Change

¶12

Government of Bihar

¶13

Through Secretary, Aranya Bhawan, State Forest HQ, Shahid Pir Ali Khan Path near Patna Airport Riding Road, Sheikhpura, Patna, Bihar – 800014

¶14

3. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest

¶15

Bihar Forest Department, Government of Bihar, Vishweshwariah Complex, Chowthi Manzil, Technology Bhavan, Beli Road, Patna, Bihar – 800015

¶16

4. Bihar State Pollution Control Board

¶17

Through Member Secretary, Parivesh Bhawan, Plot No.NS-B/2, Patliputra Industrial Area, Patliputra Patna, (Bihar)

¶18

5. District Magistrate

¶19

Office of the Collector & District Magistrate, At & PO – Motihari, District – East Champaran, Pin – 845401

¶20

¶21

6. Divisional Forest Office, Motihari Division

¶22

Office of Divisional Forest Office, Motihari Division, Gandhi Maidan Road Motihari near SP Office, District – East Champaran, Pin Code – 845401

¶23

7. Nathu Sharma

¶24

S/o Late Ganesh Sharma,, R/o Village Bahuarwa, Thana Majhuliya, District West Champaran, Bihar, Pin Code – 845456

¶25

8. Lal Bahadur Sharma

¶26

S/o Late Ganesh Sharma, R/o Village Bahuarwa, Thana Majhuliya, District – West Champaran, Bihar, Pin Code – 845456

¶27

9. Ashok Thakur

¶28

S/o Village Bhataha, Kachhari Tola, Thana Sugauli, District – East Champaran, Bihar, Pin Code – 845456

¶29

10. Bhushan Thakur

¶30

S/o Village Bhataha, Kachhari Tola, Thana Sugauli, District – East Champaran, Bihar, Pin Code – 845456

¶31

11. Manoj Thakur

¶32

S/o Village Bhataha, Kachhari Tola, Thana Sugauli, District – East Champaran, Bihar, Pin Code – 845456

¶33

.... Respondent(s)

¶34

Date of hearing: 07.05.2025

¶35

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. AMIT STHALEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. ARUN KUMAR VERMA, EXPERT MEMBER

¶36

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Prakash Pandey, Adv. (in Virtual Mode)

¶37

ORDER

¶38

Mr. Prakash Pandey, learned Counsel is present (in Virtual Mode) on behalf of the Applicant.

¶39

¶40

The Applicant has filed supplementary affidavit dated 28.04.2025 giving details of the locations of the Saw Mills in question.

¶41

Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Saw Mills being Respondent Nos.7 to 11 are operating without due license as required under the Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Act, 1990 and are therefore operating in violation of Section 5 of the Act, 1990.

¶42

We may refer here to the Provisions of Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act 2010 which reads as under :-

¶43

“Section 14 in The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010

¶44

Tribunal to settle disputes

¶45

(1) The Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment), is involved and such question arises out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I.

¶46

(2) The Tribunal shall hear the disputes arising from the questions referred to in subsection (1) and settle such disputes and pass order thereon.

¶47

(3) No application for adjudication of dispute under this section shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a period of six months from the date on which the cause of action for such dispute first arose: Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the application within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days.”

¶48

Schedule – I of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 is as under :-

¶49

“Schedule-I of NGT Act 2010

¶50

[See sections 14(1), 15(1)(a), 17(1), 17(2), 19(4) (j) and 34(1)]

¶51

1. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974;

¶52

2. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977; 3. The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980;

¶53

4. The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981;

¶54

5. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986;

¶55

6. The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991;

¶56

7. The Biological Diversity Act, 2002.”

¶57

¶58

We may note that the Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Act, 1990 is not one of the Acts mentioned in Schedule-I of the National Green Tribunal Act 2010 and therefore this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction U/S 14 in respect of violation under the said Act pertaining to the said Saw Mills not having a valid license.

¶59

The second point submitted by the learned Counsel for the Applicant is that Saw Mills are operating without the requisite Consents from State Pollution Control Board even though they are now in ‘Green’ category whereas earlier they were under ‘Orange’ category.

¶60

We asked the Counsel as to whether he has any evidence obtained from the RTI with regard to the statement that the Respondent Nos.7 to 11 are operating without a valid Consent to Establish (CTE) or Consent to Operate (CTO) but the learned Counsel could not answer in the positive, nor has any RTI document been filed with this Original Application to establish that the Respondent Nos.7 to 11 are operating without valid Consent to Establish or Consent to Operate from the Board. This Tribunal cannot launch proceedings against the Respondent Nos.7 to 11 on mere bald assertions of the Applicant without substantiating evidentiary material filed in support of those assertions.

¶61

Learned Counsel further states that he has preferred a representation before the Divisional Forest Officer, Motihari Division who is the Licensing Officer U/S 3 of the Act, 1990. However, the representation has not been filed with the Original Application.

¶62

¶63

The document at page 28 is only an email but does not show what issues were raised by the Applicant before the Divisional Forest Officer, Motihari Division.

¶64

We therefore dismiss the present Original Application with liberty to the Applicant to file fresh Original Application with proper documents and supportive evidentiary materials.

¶65

I.As, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

¶66

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶67

B. Amit Sthalekar, JM

¶68

….......................................... Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, EM

¶69

May 07, 2025, Original Application No.53/2025/EZ SKB

¶70

Rajan Kumar v. State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajan Kumar v. State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tejasvi Minhas vs Public Works Division

Anil Kumar Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh

News Item Titled "Villagers Seek Halt on Illegal Road Construction Appearing in the Arunachal Times Dated 22.04.2025" vs

News Item "Unchecked Urbanisation Pushing Deepor Beel Into Environment Crisis: Experts Appearing in the Assam Tribune Dated 22.04.2025" vs

Mantu Soni @Shani Kant vs

Citizens for Green Doon Cfgd vs State of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Kumar vs State of Bihar

News Item Published in the Tribune Dated 16TH January 2023 Titled Joshimath Disaster a Warning for Mussoorie vs

Rabindra Pradhan vs State of Odisha Representated by Chief Secretary Government of Odisha

Sumita Banerjee vs State of West Bengal

Baisakhi Bhowmik and Anr. vs the Member Secretary of West Bengal Pollution Control Board

Raghunath Maity vs West Bengal Pollution Control Board

Ravindra Kumar vs State of Bihar

Kali Charan Chand vs the Chief Secretary of Odisha