Jharkhand High Court Upholds SEIAA's Decision to Deny Environmental Clearance in Eco-Sensitive Zone

Court emphasizes the importance of environmental conservation over commercial mining interests in Saranda Forest

In a significant judgment, the Jharkhand High Court has upheld the decision of the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) to deny environmental clearance for stone mining in the eco-sensitive zones of Saranda and Chaibasa, part of the Singhbhum district in Jharkhand. The case, titled M/s. Nishant Roadlines v. Union of India, focused on the application of M/s. Nishant Roadlines for environmental clearance to conduct stone mining operations in the region.

The court, presided over by Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Arun Kumar Rai, dismissed the writ petition filed by M/s. Nishant Roadlines, which sought to challenge the rejection of their environmental clearance application. The petitioners argued that the Management Plan for Sustainable Mining (MPSM), under which the clearance was denied, was applicable only to iron ore and manganese mining and not to stone mining. They contended that their operations should be exempt from the restrictions imposed by the MPSM.

However, the court highlighted the importance of environmental protection in eco-sensitive zones and noted that the MPSM was developed following recommendations from the Justice M.B. Shah Commission's report on illegal mining. This plan categorizes areas into mining zones and conservation areas, with the latter designated as no-mining zones to preserve ecological balance and biodiversity.

The judgment underscored that the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution includes the right to a clean and healthy environment. Therefore, the court emphasized the need for sustainable resource management, adhering to the principles of inter-generational equity to ensure that natural resources are preserved for future generations.

The court also addressed the broader implications of mining activities on the environment, including the potential destruction of wildlife habitats and degradation of natural resources. The decision to uphold the SEIAA's denial of clearance aligns with various environmental laws and the purpose of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, which prioritize the preservation and conservation of India's natural resources.

The judgment serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in balancing development with environmental conservation, ensuring that commercial interests do not compromise ecological sustainability.

Bottom Line:

Environmental protection is paramount in areas designated as eco-sensitive zones. The concept of ex-post facto environmental clearance is deemed illegal and against environmental jurisprudence.

Statutory provision(s): Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

M/s. Nishant Roadlines v. Union of India, (Jharkhand)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2779249