Facts
The petitioner challenged the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board’s rejection of his application for Consent to Operate (“CTO”) for stone-mining operations, communicated through Annexure-9.
Source reference: paras. 3; p. 2The petitioner had submitted an application dated 05.05.2025 and a representation dated 31.01.2026 addressing, inter alia, the distance of the mining activity from the demarcated boundary of a protected forest.
Source reference: paras. 7–8; pp. 3–4The JSPCB issued an electronic show-cause notice on 24.02.2026, requiring a reply within 30 days, but the petitioner did not submit a formal reply within that period.
Source reference: para. 4; p. 2The application was ultimately rejected with the observation: “Industry not replying within 30 days so clarification automatically re-submit and reject application”.
Source reference: para. 6; p. 3The State also raised separate issues concerning the petitioner’s proposed removal or transportation of stone chips allegedly extracted during the validity of an earlier CTO.
Source reference: paras. 15–18; pp. 5–6Issues
1. Whether the JSPCB’s rejection of the petitioner’s CTO application solely on the ground of non-submission of a formal reply within 30 days was liable to be quashed, particularly when the petitioner’s earlier application and representation were already available to the Board?
Source reference: paras. 7–12; pp. 3–42. Whether the petitioner should be granted an additional opportunity to reply to the show-cause notice and have his CTO application reconsidered on its own merits?
Source reference: paras. 10–14; pp. 4–53. Whether the order relating to CTO also determined the petitioner’s entitlement to remove or transport the stone chips allegedly extracted during the earlier CTO period?
Source reference: paras. 15–19; pp. 5–6Law Applied
The Court applied the principles of procedural fairness and the rule of audi alteram partem, holding that an applicant should receive a meaningful opportunity to respond before an adverse administrative decision is finalised.
Source reference: paras. 10–19; pp. 4–6It further applied the principle that a statutory or administrative authority must consider relevant material available on its record and decide an application in accordance with law and on its own merits.
Source reference: paras. 10–19; pp. 4–6The Court also recognised that the scope of judicial review in the present proceedings was confined to the validity of the CTO rejection and that disputed factual questions concerning the extraction, ownership, royalty payment, and transportation of minerals were to remain open for determination by the competent authorities.
Source reference: paras. 10–19; pp. 4–6The judgment did not identify or apply any specific statutory provision governing CTOs, nor did it decide the merits of the environmental-distance requirement; it merely directed reconsideration in light of the applicable law, including the relevant order in W.P. (PIL) No. 3950 of 2024 and its subsequent modification.
Source reference: paras. 5, 8, 10, 19; pp. 2–6Reasoning
Although the petitioner had failed to submit a formal reply within the prescribed 30 days, the Court noted that his earlier application dated 05.05.2025 and representation dated 31.01.2026, including submissions on the protected-forest distance issue, were already available with the JSPCB.
Source reference: paras. 7–10; pp. 3–4The Court did not fault the Board’s computer system for treating those documents as unrelated to the subsequently issued show-cause notice; however, considering the petitioner’s prior submissions and the legal significance of the subsequent modification of the PIL order, it held that the interests of justice warranted one additional opportunity.
Source reference: paras. 9–11; p. 4Accordingly, the mechanical rejection recorded in Annexure-9 could not stand, and the Board was required to reconsider the CTO application after receiving a proper reply and supporting material.
Source reference: paras. 10–14; pp. 4–5The Court expressly separated this issue from the proposed removal or transportation of minerals, observing that such matters involved disputed facts and had not been adjudicated.
Source reference: paras. 15–18; pp. 5–6Holding
The Court quashed and set aside Annexure-9, which had rejected the petitioner’s CTO application.
It directed the JSPCB to reconsider the petitioner’s application dated 05.05.2025 together with his representation dated 31.01.2026, in accordance with law and on its own merits.
Source reference: paras. 12, 19; pp. 4, 6The petitioner was permitted to file a reply to the show-cause notice dated 24.02.2026 within two weeks, and the JSPCB was directed to accept and consider a physical reply, along with supporting documents or evidence.
Source reference: para. 13; p. 4The Board was required to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, within two months from receipt of the reply.
Source reference: para. 14; p. 5The Court clarified that it had not decided the petitioner’s entitlement to remove or transport the stone chips, and all contentions on that issue remained open.
Source reference: paras. 17–19; pp. 5–6The writ petition was disposed of, the Rule was made absolute to that limited extent, and no costs were awarded.
Source reference: paras. 19–20; p. 6Original Court PDF
PRAKASH CHANDRA YADAVvsSTATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, MINES AND GEOLOGY
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
![Respondents must treat the Original Application as a representation and issue a reasoned order within six weeks.. Varun Sadhotra vs FINANCE DEPARTMENT. CAT - ['Jammu']. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/respondents-must-treat-the-original-application-as-a-representation-and-issue-a-reasoned-o-e238799243a747c58eebd7c9e94d6781.webp)