ANIL KUMAR PATHAK vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
(2026: JHHC:27257-DB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(PIL) No. 216 of 2020
1. Anil Kumar Pathak, aged about 54 years, S/o Gupteshwar Pathak, R/o
Village Lapra, P.O & P.S. Mccluskiegunj, District Ranchi, Jharkhand
2. Raghunath Yadav, aged about 36 years, S/o Ramsevak Yadav, R/o
Village Harkha, P.O. Mongor, P.S. Latehar, District Latehar,
Jharkhand
3. Pradeep Ram, aged about 47 years, S/o Bipat Ram, R/o Village
Harkha, P.O. Mongor, P.S. Latehar, District Latehar, Jharkhand
4. Sonu Yadav, aged about 24 years, S/o Kishun Yadav, R/o Village
Harkha, P.O. Mongor, P.S. Latehar, District Latehar, Jharkhand
5. Ramesh Yadav, aged about 29 years, S/o Khait Yadav, R/o Village
Harkha, P.O. Mongor, P.S. Latehar, District Latehar, Jharkhand
... ... … Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Office,
Dhurwa, P.O & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand
3. The Secretary, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, Nepal
House, Ranchi, P.O & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi
4. The Secretary, (Urban Development and Town Planning), Project
Office, Dhurwa, P.O & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand
5. The Deputy Commissioner, Latehar, having its office at Latehar, P.O
& P.S. Latehar, District Latehar
6. Circle Office, Latehar having its office at Latehar, P.O & P.S. Latehar,
District Latehar
7. The Executive Officer, Latehar Nagar Panchayat, P.O & P.S. Latehar,
District Latehar.
… ... … Respondents
------
CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
------
For the Petitioners : Mr Abhay Kumar Mishra, Advocate
Ms Adya Mishra, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr Manish Kumar, Sr. S.C-II
Mr Ashwini Bhushan, A.C o Sr. S.C-II
For the Resp.-JSPCB : Ms Richa Sanchita, Advocate
-----
15 /Dated: 10.09.2026
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
th
2. This Public Interest Litigation has inter alia objected to the 7
respondent’s setting up a solid waste management plant in the district of
Latehar at Mauza Harkha, Khata no. 49, Plot No. 877A (said Plot).
1
(2026: JHHC:27257-DB)
3. The petitioners have raised several objections, including that the said
Plot is located on the bank of rivers and a portion of the plot is, in fact, a
Water Body.
rd
4. The 3 respondent, i.e. Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board
(JSPCB) had filed an affidavit before us on 1.7.2024 submitting that a
Consent to Establish (CTE) with general and specific conditions as
contained therein was granted to the project proponent on 15.06.2023 on a
written request submitted to the Board by the Executive Officer, Nagar
Panchayat, Latehar. The affidavit admits that this Consent to Establish was
valid for one year.
5. Upon our query, Mr Manish Mumar admitted that neither renewal was
applied for before expiry of one year nor has any application been made for
grant of fresh Consent to Establish. He tried to explain the reasons why this
could not be done.
6. At this stage, we are not concerned with the reasons; the fact remains
that the Consent to Establish dated 15.06.2023 is no longer valid, and based
th
on the same, there is no question of the project proponent or the 7
respondent proceeding with the construction of a solid waste management
plant.
7. Ms Richa Sanchita, learned counsel for the JSPCB, also submitted
that without a Consent to Establish, there is no question of any project
proponent proceeding with the construction of a solid waste management
plant. She, however, maintained that there was no illegality in the grant of
Consent to Establish dated 15.06.2023.
8. Mr Manish Kumar submitted that the construction work has already
stopped pursuant to assurances given to this Court as recorded in some of
2
(2026: JHHC:27257-DB)
th
the orders made by the Co-ordinate Benches. He submitted that the 7
respondent, or the project proponent, has no intention of proceeding with
construction until it obtains all requisite permissions, including the Consent
to Establish. He, however, contested the petitioners' allegations raised in the
petition and maintained that there was nothing wrong with the Consent to
Establish already issued.
9. Mr Manish Kumar further submitted that within fifteen days from
th
today, the 7 respondent/project proponent would apply to the JSPCB for
Consent to Establish. He submitted that a suitable direction be issued to the
JSPCB for expeditious disposal of the said application.
10. Mr Abhay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners,
submitted that the JSPCB should also be directed to hear the petitioners on
the serious objections raised in this petition before considering the
application for Consent to Establish. He further submitted that liberty should
th
be granted to the petitioners to file their objections to the 7
respondent/project proponent’s application seeking Consent to Establish a
solid waste management plant at the said Plot.
11. Learned counsel for the parties, in the peculiar facts of the present
case, agreed that directions should be issued to the JSPCB for the
expeditious disposal of the application for Consent to Establish, after
th
hearing the 7 respondent/project proponent and the petitioners herein.
12. Accordingly, we direct that a copy of the application for Consent to
Establish must be furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioners, who
has agreed to accept the copy on behalf of the petitioners before the same is
filed with the JSPCB. Within ten days of the receipt of such copy, the
3
(2026: JHHC:27257-DB)
petitioners may file their objections along with the documents for the grant
of Consent to Establish.
th
13. The JSPCB should hear the representatives of the 7
respondent/project proponent and one of the nominated petitioners or their
Advocate and dispose of the application for Consent to Establish as
expeditiously as possible and in any event, within 120 days of its receipt.
14. The JSPCB need not be influenced either by any orders made in this
petition or the earlier affidavits filed by the JSPCB on this issue. The matter
must be considered afresh, in accordance with law, after considering the
contentions of all parties.
15. The JSPCB should communicate its decision to the parties within this
120-day period. If any of the parties is aggrieved by such decision, they are
at liberty to take out appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum
to challenge the same in accordance with law.
16. Both the parties, including the petitioners, must cooperate with the
JSPCB to conclude the process expeditiously and, in any event, within the
timeline now indicated. In particular, the petitioners must not seek any
adjournment or delay the matter before the JSPCB. If for any reason, the
petitioners / their representatives or Advocate cannot attend the proceedings
before the JSPCB, they should file their written submission on or before the
appointed day, so that JSPCB can consider the same.
17. Needless to add that until Consent to Establish and other required
th
permissions are obtained, there will be no question of the 7 respondent
/project proponent proceeding with the construction of the solid waste
management plant or dumping any garbage /solid wastes at the said Plot.
4
(2026: JHHC:27257-DB)
18. The petition is disposed of in the above terms without any order for
costs.
(M.S. Sonak, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
September 10, 2026
NAFR
Ranjeet / R.Kr.
Uploaded on 15.09.2026
5