SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 27

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Arun Kumar Rai, JJ.
Jharkhand Int Nirmata Sangh - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology – Respondent
W.P.(C) No.617 of 2021
Decided On : 15-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Shray Mishra, AC to AG

Environmental clearance is mandatory for brick kiln operations as soil extraction and brick manufacturing cannot be treated separately concerning environmental impacts.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 - Writ petition against directions to obtain environmental clearance and management fees for brick kilns - The petitioners contended that brick earth does not necessitate clearance. However, the court held that removal of soil is integral to brick-making and poses environmental risks, requiring compliance with the said rules. (Paras 1, 14, 52, 73)

(B) Environmental Law - The processes of extracting soil and brick manufacturing cannot be treated separately; environmental impacts necessitate adherence to pollution control laws. (Paras 10, 56, 61)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged mandatory environmental clearances and fees imposed by authorities for brick kilns, asserting that their operations do not involve minerals requiring consent under relevant rules.

Findings of Court:
The court found that removal of soil for brick kiln production does have adverse environmental impacts, necessitating the statutory compliance with environmental regulations.

Issues: Whether removal of soil can be segregated from brick manufacturing, exempting it from environmental clearance, and whether brick kilns fall under the definition of minerals requiring payments to the DMFT fund.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the processes are inseparable and must comply with environmental statutes to prevent ecological harm. Thus, manufacturers are obligated to adhere to the regulations concerning pollution and environmental preservation.

Result: The writ petition was dismissed.

Table of Content
1. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 14 , 62 , 66 , 72 , 73 , 75)

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief(s):

“For grant of appropriate writ/order/direction from this Hon’ble Court restraining the respondents from directing the petitioners to obtain consent to operate and Environment Clearance from appropriate authority under Rule 34(I) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 which is not applicable in respect of the permit holders;

And

For issuance of a further writ/order/direction from this Hon’ble Court restraining the respondents from asking for payment of DMFT in respect of brick kilns as brick earth being the separate category and does not find place in respect of brick earth;

And

For issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction from this Hon’ble Court under which provisions the Respondents are charging management fee and environmental cess in respect of the brick kilns;”

2. The brief facts of the case as per pleadings made in this writ petition are as under:

i. The petitioners are carrying on manufacture of brick kilns since long at several places in the district of East Singhbhum.

ii. Brick earth is the main ingredient in manufacture of the bricks and it is a seasonal operation which generally operates from the month of November to 1st week of May and after that due to summer and during rainy season, no manufacture of brick is physically possible.

iii. The District Mining Officer, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa had issued a Press Release No. 233182 (West Singhbhum) 2020-21 giving necessary information to the manufacturers of the brick kilns to obtain E.C. (Environmental clearance) and CTO (consent to operate) and thereafter to make any application for grant of permit along with payment of consolidated amount of royalty and other fees.

iv. Similar notices were also issued by the District Mining Officer, East Singhbhum and Seraikella Kharsawan for obtaining CTO and Environment Clearance and payment of DMFT.

v. One of the petitioners had received letter No. 1198, dated 29.12.2020 issued by District Mining Officer, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur whereby Priya Bricks have been asked to pay DMFT Rs. 17,100/-, Management fees Rs. 2019 and environmental cess Rs. 570/-.

3. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid directions, the petitioners have approached this court by filing the present writ petition.

4. It is evident from the factual aspect that the writ petitioners are claiming that there is no requirement to obtain consent to operate or environment clearance from the appropriate authority under Rule 34(I) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 (hereinafter, referred as Rule,2004). Likewise, the petitioners are also not liable to make payment of DMFT in respect of brick kilns as the brick kilns does not come under the fold of minerals.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioners:

5. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the issue which has been raised in the present writ petition is with respect to extracting soil from the earth and while doing so there is no requirement to obtain consent from the appropriate authority.

6. He has also submitted that removing soil from the earth is no way creating any adverse impact on the environment and, therefore, obtaining environmental clearance is also not necessary. However, brick kiln certainly requires environmental clearance as well as clearance from the Pollution Control Board as it has adverse impact upon the environment.

7. It has been contended that the respondent authorities have taken the ground in the counter-affidavit that in view of the provisions of Rule 34(1) of Rule 2004, it is mandatory for each lessee/permit holder to follow the provisions for Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Environmental (Cons

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top