JUDGMENT :

The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the order as contained in letter No. 499 dated 01.10.2019 passed by the respondent No.8 whereby the Environmental Clearance (EC) granted to the petitioner for stone mining over the land appertaining to Khata No. 23, Plot No.98(P), Mouza-Kali Chattan, P.S-Bagodar, District-Giridih, measuring an area of 11.04 Acres has been withdrawn. Further prayer has been made for allowing the petitioner to continue with the said mining operation.

2. The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the petitioner had applied for getting lease of stone mining over the said land whereupon the respondent No.4 vide letter No. 1991/M dated 27.06.2013, asked the respondent No.6 about the distance of the said land from the notified forest boundary. The respondent No.6 vide letter No. 3069 dated 24.10.2013, informed the respondent No.4 that the said land was out of the notified forest area and the distance of the proposed site was more than 400 Meters from the forest boundary. Thereafter, the petitioner was given Consent to Operate under Section 25 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and under Section 21 of Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Jharkhand vide letter dated 09.09.2015, granted EC to the project of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was granted mining lease by the respondent No.2 for a period of 10 years from 15.10.2015 to 14.10.2025 through registered sale deed dated 03.11.2015 and then the petitioner was operating stone mining. In the meantime, the respondent No.8 vide letter No. 318 dated 19.07.2019, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner for furnishing forged letter No. 3069 dated 24.10.2013 which was purported to have been issued by the respondent No.6. The petitioner submitted reply to the same vide letter dated 28.07.2019 stating that it had no role in issuance of the said letter, rather the same was issued from the office of the respondent No.6 on the request of the respondent No.4 which would be evident from the dispatch register of the said office. However, the respondent No.8 vide impugned letter No. 499 dated 01.10.2019 has withdrawn the EC granted to the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one Kumar Roshan, Advocate, Civil Court, Koderma had filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 in the office of the respondent No.6 for furnishing details of the letter issued to the respondent No.4 concerning the stone mines of the petitioner whereupon photo copy of the relevant portion of the dispatch register along with the reply of the said application was provided, which shows that letter No. 3069 was properly issued in favour of the respondent No.4. It is further submitted that no minimum distance from the forest area has been fixed for mining of stones, rather a minimum distance of 250 meters is required for issuance of Consent to Operate by the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board (JSPCB) for operating stone crusher units. The respondents are completely misconceived in alleging that the said letter was fraudulently issued at the instance of the petitioner, rather the same was an internal communication between the Mining Department and the Forest Department. As per letter No. 4175 dated 20.08.1997, issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Bihar, the mining work should not be done within 7.5 Meters from the forest area whereas the distance of the mining area of the petitioner is more than the said limit.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-SEIAA submits that the EC was granted to the petitioner on the basis of the documents submitted by it which included letter No. 3069 dated 24.10.2013 issued by the respondent No.6 regarding the distance between the proposed mining area and the notified forest boundary. It is furt