No continuing PIL supervision is warranted; affected residents may pursue environmental grievances before competent authorities.

The petitioner, a social activist and former Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Chhatauna, filed a Public Interest Litigation concerning mining operations conducted by Respondent Nos. 7 and 8, the Steel Authority of India Limited/Bhilai Steel Plant and Hirri Dolomite Mines.

The State had granted mining leases over approximately 318.22 acres of Government land situated in Chhatauna, Badsora and Pendridih in 1959 for extraction of dolomite for use in the Bhilai Steel Plant; the lease was subsequently extended and stated to remain operative from 2020 to 2029.

The petitioner alleged illegal or excessive mining, dust pollution, deterioration of roads and public places, and failure to provide civic amenities under applicable CSR norms, including drinking water, sanitation, roads, electricity and health facilities.

During the proceedings, the Court appointed an Advocate as Court Commissioner to inspect the mines and adjoining villages and report on environmental safeguards, public amenities and compliance with conditions relevant to the mining lease.

The Court Commissioner inspected the mining area and the villages on 7 February 2026.

Whether the mining operations of Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 involved illegal mining or mining beyond the land legally allotted or recorded in their favour?

Whether the mining, crushing and transportation activities caused environmental and local civic problems requiring continuing judicial supervision or directions concerning dust control, roads, drainage, lighting and related safeguards?

Whether Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 were required to provide or maintain civic amenities in the adjoining villages under applicable CSR obligations?

The Court applied the principles governing judicial review in a Public Interest Litigation concerning mining activity, environmental safeguards and public amenities.

It considered the legality of mining with reference to the applicable mining lease, revenue records and statutory regulatory framework, and assessed environmental concerns on the basis of the inspection report and material placed on record.

The Court also recognised that grievances concerning dust pollution, transportation, blasting, roads, drainage and other local difficulties may be raised before the competent local, revenue, mining, environmental or other statutory authorities, which must consider them in accordance with law after verifying the factual position.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was expressly relied upon in the judgment.

The Court examined the Court Commissioner’s factual findings alongside the documents produced by Respondent Nos. 7 and 8.

Although the mining and crushing operations, transportation of dolomite and handling of residue had the potential to generate dust and therefore required effective monitoring and suppression measures, the report did not establish a basis for continuing supervision by the Court.

The allegation of illegal mining was also not substantiated, as Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 produced records showing land standing in their name and specifically denied mining on Khasra No. 599.

With respect to CSR amenities, the Court noted that the village roads were in satisfactory condition and that deterioration of certain earlier CSR assets was attributed to passage of time and lack of maintenance after handover to local authorities.

In these circumstances, the Court concluded that no further adjudication or ongoing monitoring in the PIL was warranted, while preserving the intervenors’ right to pursue individual grievances before competent authorities.

It did not grant relief concerning the alleged illegal mining or direct additional CSR or infrastructural measures.

However, the intervenors were granted liberty to approach the competent local/revenue, mining, environmental or other statutory authorities regarding dust pollution, transportation over the kutcha road, road and drainage maintenance, street lighting, blasting and other local grievances.

Those authorities were directed to consider such representations or complaints in accordance with law after verifying the factual position, with the Court expressly stating that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of those individual grievances.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.