Dharmraj Singh Vs The State of Bihar

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14299 of 2025

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Dharmraj Singh S/O Angrahit Singh, R/O Village - Rupsagar, P.S - Nawanagar, District Buxar.

¶4

Bhola Kumar, S/O Ramchandra Singh, R/O Village- Rupsagar, P.S - Nawanagar, District - Buxar.

¶5

Raju Sharma, S/O Nandlal Sharma, R/O Village- Rupsagar, P.S - Nawanagar, District Buxar.

¶6

Ramesh Sharma, S/O Chaturgun Sharma, R/O Village- Rupsagar, P.S - Nawanagar, District - Buxar.

¶7

Bhart Sharma, S/O Birja Sharma, R/O Village- Rupsagar, P.S Nawanagar, District-Buxar.

¶8

Sonu Kumar Singh, S/O Raj Kumar Singh, R/O Village- Rupsagar, P.S Nawanagar, District Buxar.

¶9

Raj Kumar Singh, S/O Kuwar Singh, R/O Village- Rupsagar, P.S - Nawanagar, District Buxar.

¶10

Sangita Devi, W/O Sonu Kumar Singh, R/O Village- Rupsagar, P.S Nawanagar, District Buxar.

¶11

Ram Ayodhya Sharma, S/O Gupteshwar Sharma, R/O Village- Rupsagar, P.S Nawanagar, District - Buxar.

¶12

Makardhvaj Sharma, S/O Bashist Sharma, R/O Village- Rupsagar, P.S -Nawanagar, District - Buxar.

¶13

Barmeshwar Rai, S/o Laxman Rai, R/O Village- Rupsagar, P.S.-Nawanagar, District - Buxar.

¶14

Sumant Rai, S/O Kedaranath Rai, R/O Village- Rupsagar, P.S - Nawanagar, District Buxar.

¶15

Dhanji Rai, S/O Kedar Nath Rai, R/O Village Rupsagar, P.S Nawanagar, District -Buxar.

¶16

Sarita Devi, W/O Dan Ji Ray, R/O Village- Rupsagar, P.S - Nawanagar, District Buxar.

¶17

Dilip Kumar, S/O Late Shivji Singh, R/O Village- Rupsagar, P.S Nawanagar, District Buxar.

¶18

Amit Kumar Singh, S/o Dinesh Kumar Singh, R/O Village- Rupsagar, P.SNawanagar, District - Buxar.

¶19

Dinesh Singh, S/O Jagarnath Rai, R/O Village- Rupsagar, P.S - Nawanagar, District Buxar.

¶20

Vibhla Devi, W/O Dinesh Singh, R/O Village- Rupsagar, P.S - Nawanagar, District Buxar.

¶21

Lalita Devi, W/O Amit Singh, R/O Village- Rupsagar, P.S - Nawanagar,

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.14299 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026 2/10

¶23

District Buxar.

¶24

Ramesh Chandra Singh, S/O Kedarnath Ray, R/O Village- Rupsagar, P.SNawanagar, District Buxar.

¶25

Krishna Kant Singh, S/O Lallu Singh, R/O Village- Rupsagar, P.S - Nawanagar, District Buxar.

¶26

Subhash Singh, S/O Devmuni Singh, R/O Village-Pathkauli, P.S- Semri, District Rohtas.

¶27

Gopal Jee Kumar, S/O Sudarshan Ray, R/O Village- Rupsagar, P.S Nawanagar, District Buxar.

¶28

Deepak Kumar, S/O Mukit Nath Singh, R/O Village- Dhawai, P.S Semri, District -Rohtas.

¶29

Krishna Murari Mishra, S/O Hari nandan Mishra, R/O Village- Sripalpur, P.S Punpun, District Patna.

¶30

Sanjeet Kumar, S/O Rajmohan Singh, R/O Village- Dhawai, P.S.-Semri, District Rohtas.

¶31

Ravi Kumar, S/O Dadan Singh, R/O Village- Harkhamal dehari, P.SJamsona, District Rohtas.

¶32

Manoj Kumar Singh, S/O Bijeshwari Prasad Singh, R/O Village- Bokaro Steel City, P.S - Bokaro, District - Bokaro (Jharkhand).

¶33

Vinay Kumar, S/O Bala Prasad, R/O Village- Rupsagar, P.S Nawanagar, District -Buxar.

¶34

Jitendra Kumar Singh, S/O Lakshman Singh, R/o Village-Rupsagar, P.S.Nawanagar, District-Buxar.

¶35

... ... Petitioner/s

¶36

Versus

¶37

The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar.

¶38

Bihar State Pollution Control Board through its Chairman, Patna Bihar.

¶39

The District Magistrate, Cum Collector, Buxar, Bihar.

¶40

The Principal Secretary, Department of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of Bihar.

¶41

The Principal Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Bihar.

¶42

Aradhya Bhog Private Limited, Rupsagar, Buxar, Bihar.

¶43

Santoshi Rice Mill, Vill.-Rupsagar, P.S. -Nawanagar, Buxar, Bihar.

¶44

Amba Rice Mill, Vill.-Rupsagar, P.S. -Nawanagar, Buxar, Bihar. 9. Gurudev Rice Mill, Vill.-Rupsagar, P.S. -Nawanagar, Buxar, Bihar.

¶45

... ... Respondent/s

¶46

Patna High Court CWJC No.14299 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026 3/10

¶47

=================== Appearance :	===================================
For the Petitioner/s :	Mr. Shashwat Sahil Singh, Advocate Mr. Saurabh Kumar, Advocate Ms. Swarnima, Advocate
For the State :	Mr. P.K. Shahi, A.G. Mr. Vikash Kumar, A.C. to A.G.
For the B.S.P.C.B. :	Mr. Kumar Ravish, Advocate Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ayush Kumar, Advocate
For the Resp. Nos. 6 to 9: ===================	Mr. Ravi Raj, Advocate ===================================

¶48

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and

¶49

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 25-03-2026

¶50

The present writ petition, in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, has been filed by the petitioners seeking the following reliefs:-

¶51

"(i) For the issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s), or direction(s) commanding the State Authorities i.e., Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, to take immediate and urgent action against the operations of Respondent Nos. 6,7, 8, and 9, who are running rice mills within residential areas of Rupsagar village, District Buxar, Bihar without any pollution control devices, environmental clearance or emission compliance under the applicable environmental laws and thereby causing hazardous air pollution through the release of husk and dust particles into the environment.

¶52

(ii) And further be pleased to direct the Respondents to forthwith suspend or stop the

¶53

Patna High Court CWJC No.14299 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026 4/10

¶54

operation of the said rice mills until such time that they comply with the norms, orders, and environmental safety measures prescribed under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, CPCB/SPCB guidelines, and all other applicable environmental regulations.

¶55

(iii) For that the air pollution being caused due to husk and dust emissions is directly in contravention of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the operational norms/guidelines issued by the Central and Bihar State Pollution Control Boards regulating emissions from agro-industrial units.

¶56

(iv) For that the writ jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is the only efficacious and appropriate remedy for enforcing the constitutional and statutory rights of the citizens affected by this continuous pollution.

¶57

(v) For that the action/inaction of the Respondents, in failing to conduct inspections, enforce standards, or control pollution, amounts to gross negligence, procedural arbitrariness and abdication of public duty and violates the binding directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 375 of 2012."

¶58

2. From the averments made in the writ petition

¶59

Patna High Court CWJC No.14299 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026 5/10

¶60

and the submissions advanced, it appears that the grievance of the petitioners is that the rice mills, i.e., Respondent Nos. 6 to 9, are operating without obtaining the requisite consent orders and, therefore, their operations are unauthorized.

¶61

3. However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 6 to 9 has filed a counter affidavit, a copy whereof has already been served upon the learned counsel for the petitioners. In the said counter affidavit, it has been stated that the petitioners have deliberately suppressed material facts, particularly with regard to the grant of consent to operate by the Bihar State Pollution Control Board, the existence of pollution control measures, the actual location of the units, and the demographic nature of the area.

¶62

4. The relevant paragraphs of the counter affidavit are quoted hereinbelow:-

¶63

"6. That the petitioners have deliberately suppressed material facts, particularly regarding grant of Consent to Operate (CTO) by the Bihar State Pollution Control Board (BSPCB), existence of pollution control measures, actual location and demographic nature of the area.

¶64

7. That the instant petition under reply is not maintainable as it is based on vague and unsubstantiated allegation without any expert report and it seeks drastic relief of closure of

¶65

Patna High Court CWJC No.14299 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026 6/10

¶66

lawful industries without any adjudicated violation and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that PIL jurisdiction cannot be invoked on mere apprehensions or bald allegations without cogent material evidence.

¶67

8. That the contents of the writ petition are denied to the extent they allege illegal operation or violation of environmental norms as Respondent Nos. 6 to 9 have obtained valid Consent to Establish (CTE) and Consent to Operate (CTO) from the Bihar State Pollution Control Board.

¶68

9. That it is most respectfully submitted that Respondent No. 6, namely Aaradhyabhog Fresh Product Pvt. Ltd., has duly obtained the requisite Emission Consent Order under Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, vide Letter No. 1840 dated 26.07.2024. and the Discharge Consent Order under Sections 25/26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, vide Letter No. 1841 dated 26.07.2024, both issued by the Bihar State Pollution Control Board. That similarly, Respondent No. 7, namely Santoshi Rice Mill, has been granted valid Consent to Operate vide Letter No. 963 dated 12.05.2023 by the competent authority. That further, Respondent Nos. 8 and 9, namely Amba Rice Mill and Gurudev Rice Mill, have also been granted Consent to Operate by the Bihar State Pollution Control Board vide

¶69

Patna High Court CWJC No.14299 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026 7/10

¶70

Letter No. 2325 dated 14.11.2022 and Memo No. 1409 dated 18.08.2025 respectively. That in view of the aforesaid statutory consents granted by the competent authority, it is evident that the answering respondents are operating strictly in accordance with and within the parameters prescribed under the provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and there is no violation whatsoever as alleged in the writ petition.

¶71

10. That the allegation that the answering respondents are operating without pollution control devices is wholly incorrect, misconceived and is hereby categorically denied. In this regard, it is most respectfully submitted that adequate and proper infrastructure for handling and storage of husk has been duly established prior to commencement of operations in the ongoing milling season. In particular, Respondent No. 6, namely Aradhya Bhog Pvt. Ltd., and Respondent No. 9, namely Gurudev Rice Mill, have already installed permanent scientifically designed husk storage facilities , ensuring effective containment of husk and dust particles and preventing their dispersion into the surrounding environment. It is further submitted that all standard operational protocols and environmental safeguards are being strictly adhered to so as to minimize any emission."

¶72

Patna High Court CWJC No.14299 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026 8/10

¶73

5. The consent orders have been brought on record and annexed to the counter affidavit as Annexure–R/1 series. Upon perusal thereof, it transpires that the competent authority has granted consent to operate in favour of Respondent Nos. 6 to 9 for running the rice mills.

¶74

6. In such circumstances, if the petitioners are aggrieved by the grant of the said consent orders, the appropriate remedy lies under Section 31 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1981 Act”), which provides for an appeal before the Appellate Authority constituted thereunder.

¶75

7. Accordingly, any challenge to the aforesaid consent orders is required to be made before the said Appellate Authority in terms of Section 31 of the 1981 Act. The relevant provision, i.e., Section 31 of the 1981 Act, is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶76

"31. Appeals.-(1) Any person aggrieved by an order made by the State Board under this Act may, within thirty day from the date on which the order is communicated to him, prefer an appeal to such authority (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Authority) as the State Government may think fit to constitute:

¶77

Provided that the Appellate Authority

¶78

Patna High Court CWJC No.14299 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026 9/10

¶79

may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if such authority is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.

¶80

(2) The Appellate Authority shall consist of a single person or three persons as the State Government may think fit to be appointed by the State Government.

¶81

(3) The form and the manner in which an appeal may be preferred under subsection (1), the fees payable for such appeal and the procedure to be followed by the Appellate Authority shall be such as may be prescribed.

¶82

(4) On receipt of an appeal preferred under sub-section (1), the Appellate Authority shall, after giving the appellant and the State Board an opportunity of being heard, dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible."

¶83

8. In view of the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy, it is open to the petitioners to avail such remedy in accordance with law.

¶84

9. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

¶85

10. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the present Public Interest Litigation or on the correctness or legality of the

¶86

Patna High Court CWJC No.14299 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026 10/10

¶87

consent orders granted in favour of Respondent Nos. 6 to 9 for operating the rice mills.

¶88

(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)

¶89

(Harish Kumar, J)

¶90

Neha/-

¶91

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date	26.03.2026
Transmission Date

Dharmraj Singh v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmraj Singh v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Avanish Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Alauddin Bismil Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ram Kishun Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Rama Shankar, (Udi No. Ram13101983LAW00440767), Vs The State of Bihar

Sanjha Devi Vs The State of Bihar