Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:27541-DB

Page 1 of 15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P. (PIL) No. 3483 of 2024

Ram Kishore, aged about 29 years, son of Brij Kumar, resident of

Mandir, P.O. & P.S. Bihta, Ghoratap, Patna, Town- Patna, District –

Patna (Bihar), currently residing at Hirak Nagar, Ranchi Road, Marar,

P.O. & P.S. Ramgarh Cantt. Dist:- Ramgarh, Jharkhand.

... … … … Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, having its

office at 1

st

Floor, Project Building, Dhurwa, PO & PS – Dhurwa,

Ranchi- 834004.

2. Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, through its Chairman,

having its office at Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board.

H.E.C., Dhurwa, PO & PS – Dhurwa, Ranchi-834004 (Jharkhand).

3. The Forest Department, Jharkhand through its Additional Chief

Secretary, having its office at Environment & Forests Department,

Government of Jharkhand, Secretariat, Nepal House, PO & PS -

Doranda, Doranda, Ranchi 834001.

4. Department of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, through

its Deputy Director General of Forests (C), having its office at

Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Integrated

Regional Office, 2nd Floor, Headquarter-Jharkhand State Housing

Board, Harmu Chowk, PO& PS-Argora, Ranchi, Jharkhand -

834002, Ranchi.

5. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh having its office at DC Office,

PO&PS- Chhatamandu, Ramgarh - 825101.

6. Bihar Foundry and Casting Limited, through its Managing Director,

having its office at Ramgarh Industrial Area, P.O&P.S.- Marar,

Dist.-Ramgarh, Jharkhand 829117

7. Dayal Steel Limited, through its Managing Director, having its

office at Village- Chaha, Post- Jamira, Chitarpur, P.S.- Ramgarh,

Jharkhand, 825101.

… … … ... Respondents

---------

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

---------

For the Petitioner: Mr Shivam Utkarsh Sahay, Advocate

Ms Komal Tiwary, Advocate,

Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:27541-DB

Page 2 of 15

For the State: Mr Sahbaj Akhtar, A.C. to A.A.G.-III

For the JSPCB: Ms Richa Sanchita, Advocate

Ms Risheeta Singh, Advocate

For Resp. No.6: Mr Ankit Vishal, Advocate

Mr Indrajit Sinha, Advocate

---------

Reserved on: 27.08.2026 Pronounced on: 14/09/2026

Per M. S. Sonak, C.J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner, by filing the instant writ petition in the nature of a

Public Interest Litigation, seeks issuance of appropriate

writ(s)/direction(s) to the respondent authorities to take effective

and stringent measures to stop air pollution allegedly caused by

industries situated at Ramgarh, Jharkhand.

3. The petitioner submits that these industries emit toxic and

poisonous smoke, dust, and gases from their factory chimneys

throughout the day, thereby engulfing the surrounding areas of

Ramgarh and causing serious environmental pollution.

4. Accordingly, the petitioner has prayed that the respondent

authorities be directed to ensure the immediate cessation of such

emission of toxic and poisonous dust and gases by the industries

operating in Ramgarh.

5. At first blush, the grievance raised in the present petition may

appear to be confined to the territorial limits of the district of

Ramgarh. However, environmental degradation does not recognise

such territorial boundaries.

6. Once pollution escapes its source, its consequences travel far

beyond where it originates. A polluted river does not pause at a

Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:27541-DB

Page 3 of 15

district boundary before carrying the burden imposed upon it

upstream. The River “Damodar”, which rises in the Chotanagpur

Plateau and flows through Ramgarh before passing through

Bokaro and Dhanbad and, eventually, into West Bengal, sustains

along its course communities who may have had no part

whatsoever in whatever enters its waters upstream. Thus, a failure

of environmental enforcement which begins as a local concern

does not necessarily remain local in its consequences.

7. Environmental harm routinely transcends its geographical roots,

forcing vulnerable populations to bear the brunt of actions to

which they hardly contributed. This transboundary asymmetry is

equally relevant when addressing localised industrial pollution and

river degradation. If left unchecked, environmental damage never

remains confined to its original territorial limits or to those

responsible for its creation. What begins as a site-specific

ecological injury will inevitably compound over time, spreading

harm far beyond its point of origin.

8. It is against this backdrop that the present petition requires

examination. The petitioner, by filing the instant Public Interest

Litigation, seeks directions in respect of the alleged air and water

pollution attributable to industrial activities carried on by, inter

alia, Bihar Foundry and Casting Limited (respondent No. 6) and

Dayal Steel Limited (respondent No. 7), both situated at Ramgarh.

9. Inasmuch as the core grievance raised by the petitioner concerns

the alleged environmental pollution arising from the activities of

Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:27541-DB

Page 4 of 15

the aforesaid industrial units, the issue cannot be viewed merely as

a dispute between the petitioner and the industries concerned. If

the allegations have substance, they would directly affect the

quality of air and water, the region's ecological equilibrium, and

people's right to live in a clean and healthy environment.

10. It is precisely this larger public dimension, and the potential

consequences extending beyond the immediate parties, which

persuaded this Court to take the matter seriously and entertain the

present Public Interest Litigation.

11. Ramgarh is an industrial town in the state of Jharkhand where

residential areas, schools, public institutions, and a jail exist

alongside heavy manufacturing units. This proximity inevitably

creates environmental friction and gives rise to the genuine

concerns brought before this Court.

12. However, industrial presence near inhabited spaces does not lessen

an operator's strict obligation to comply with the Air (Prevention

and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the Water (Prevention and

Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Environment (Protection) Act,

1986, and their consent conditions. Conversely, the presence of

sensitive establishments like schools neither confers immunity on

industry nor automatically proves a statutory breach whenever

local health issues arise.

13. Although the State filed its initial counter-affidavit after

considerable delay, its subsequent responses and the remedial

Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:27541-DB

Page 5 of 15

measures undertaken by the regulatory bodies have been largely

positive and constructive.

14. The State’s first detailed response, i.e., an affidavit dated

28.08.2024, characterised the petition’s allegations as motivated

and fabricated, asserting that the industries were fully compliant

with environmental norms. Rather than addressing the merits of

the pollution claims, the State chose to question the legality of

establishing VIVA International School near the industrial zone. It

further initiated an inquiry into the revenue records of the land on

which the school operated through a committee constituted by the

District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh.

However, upon this Court’s timely intervention, the State

withdrew those evasive averments and dissolved the inquiry

committee.

15. Recognising the flaw in its initial approach, the State acted with

promptitude in the subsequent phases of this litigation. It

constituted a three-member committee to assess the environmental

impact of industrial pollution on the areas adjoining VIVA

International School and directed the committee to submit a

comprehensive report.

16. Despite these initial steps, concrete executive action remained

lacking. Consequently, by order dated 10.12.2025, this Court

observed that the State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) had been

ineffective in monitoring air, water, and statutory compliance.

Emphasising the need for a robust enforcement protocol, this Court

Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:27541-DB

Page 6 of 15

directed the Member Secretary of the Board to file a composite

affidavit detailing its proposed framework for implementing

environmental statutes and rules.

17. Pursuant to these directions, the SPCB submitted a series of

affidavits detailing both localised measures and statewide

regulatory initiatives. Through counter-affidavits dated 31.07.2025

and 01.08.2025, and supplementary counter-affidavits dated

05.12.2025, 05.01.2026 and 27.04.2026, the Board placed on

record its regulatory architecture.

18. On the ambient air quality issue, the Board outlined its existing

monitoring framework, noting a significant concentration of

monitoring stations across the Hazaribagh and Ramgarh regions. It

further detailed ongoing procurements for advanced particulate

samplers and integration into a real-time monitoring portal.

19. Regarding water safety near VIVA International School, the Board

commissioned testing across drinking water sources within a ten-

kilometre radius through an NABL-accredited laboratory. It also

launched inter-departmental efforts to develop standard operating

procedures (SOPs) to protect public health.

20. In its affidavit dated 27.04.2026, the Board expanded on its

systemic enforcement protocols, outlining mechanisms for

hazardous and biomedical waste management, plastic waste

regulation, and noise pollution control.

21. Finally, by a supplementary counter-affidavit dated 18.08.2026,

the Board submitted a comprehensive water analysis report. The

Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:27541-DB

Page 7 of 15

report, conducted by M/s Shiva Enviro Lab & Research Centre

Private Limited on samples collected near VIVA International

School on 05.01.2026, revealed that while parameters such as

fluoride, total dissolved solids (TDS), and nitrate were slightly

above prescribed limits, the water samples generally conformed to

acceptable scientific standards on most key parameters.

22. Consequently, the record further reveals that, on 12.08.2026, the

Board issued formal requisitions to the Executive Engineer, Public

Health Engineering Department (PHED), Ramgarh, directing

immediate remedial action to ensure safe drinking water in the

affected locality.

23. In addition, the counter-affidavit dated 01.08.2025 filed by the

respondent SPCB prima facie demonstrates that both private

industrial units possess the requisite statutory permissions and are

operating in accordance with the established environmental legal

and regulatory architecture.

24. Per contra, the petitioner, through several supplementary

affidavits, contends that the mitigation measures adopted by the

industrial units are merely temporary and fleeting, asserting that

effective containment of environmental pollution requires robust,

additional judicial directions to the respondent authorities.

25. Considering the rival submissions made and materials presented by

both sides, we proceed to examine the issues raised in this case.

Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:27541-DB

Page 8 of 15

26. Before turning to the merits, it is useful to revisit, briefly, the

settled constitutional and statutory frame within which

environmental claims of this nature fall to be examined.

27. The right to a clean and healthy environment is an integral facet of

the right to life under Article 21, reinforced by Articles 47, 48,

48A, and 51A(g), which cast corresponding duties on both the

State and the citizens. This constitutional bedrock operates

alongside the statutory machinery under the Air Act, 1981, the

Water Act, 1974, and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

While the constitutional right provides the foundation, these

enactments supply the regulatory mechanism.

28. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Subhash Kumar v. State

of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 420, established that Article 21

encompasses the right to pollution-free water and air, a principle of

immediate relevance given the proximity of residential areas, a

school, and a jail to heavy industry in Ramgarh.

29. Furthermore, in the dictum of Municipal Council, Ratlam v.

Vardhichand, AIR 1980 SC 1622, Hon’ble Apex Court laid down

the foundational rule that a primary, non-delegable obligation

resides on the shoulders of executive and statutory authorities to

protect public health. The Hon’ble Court emphatically ruled that

regulators cannot run away from or shirk these mandatory statutory

duties by pleading administrative inconvenience, lack of resources,

or financial stringency.

Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:27541-DB

Page 9 of 15

30. In addition to this, it is a settled position of law that environmental

governance requires a calibrated harmonisation between industrial

development and ecological integrity. In this regard, reliance can

be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court

in People United for Better Living in Calcutta v. State of West

Bengal, AIR 1993 Cal 215, which ruled that development and

ecology must co-exist as complementary concepts, requiring

regulators to prevent environmental degradation without

needlessly halting industrial growth.

31. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.D. Jayal v. Union of

India, (2004) 9 SCC 362, held that sustainable development is a

means to achieve the right to life, emphasizing that environmental

conditions are not a one-time clearance or temporary amnesty, but

require ongoing operational compliance throughout a project's

lifecycle.

32. This imperative to balance economic progress with environmental

preservation is further reinforced by the dictum of Vellore

Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647,

where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the precautionary

principle and the polluter-pays principle are part of the law of the

land. Precaution does not require closure of an industry on mere

allegation; it requires the regulator to act before harm becomes

irreversible, and the operator to bear the cost of prevention and

remediation where harm is established.

Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:27541-DB

Page 10 of 15

33. Against the touchstone of these judicial precedents and the

statutory architecture in place, the materials on record must be

examined.

34. The counter-affidavit dated 01.08.2025 filed by the respondent

JSPCB largely dispels the notion that respondent nos. 6 and 7 are

operating in contravention of environmental laws. The annexures

demonstrate that both industrial units possess valid and subsisting

Consents to Operate (CTO).

35. The appended inspection and analytical test reports confirm that

scientific parameters relating to air emissions are duly met. The

Continuous Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Station (CAAQMS)

data for the period 22.07.2025 to 31.07.2025 indicates that ambient

particulate matter remains well within prescribed statutory limits.

36. On the issue of water quality, however, the report dated

18.08.2026 shows that fluoride, total dissolved solids and nitrate

levels near VIVA International School were marginally above

prescribed limits, though the samples otherwise conformed to

acceptable standards. That report does not, on its own, permit a

finding as to whether the marginal exceedance is attributable to

industrial discharge or to geogenic and municipal factors, a

distinction which the record does not presently allow this Court to

draw.

37. This Court is, accordingly, largely satisfied with the state of

compliance reported by the respondents on air quality, for the time

being. On water quality, the marginal exceedance noticed above

Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:27541-DB

Page 11 of 15

warrants closer verification rather than any adverse finding at this

stage. In either respect, we remain conscious that industrial

establishments demand constant vigil, supervision and proactive

monitoring.

38. The statutory apparatus comprising the environmental Acts and

Rules discussed hereinbefore is robust enough to prevent pollution

from assuming serious proportions, provided enforcement

authorities act with promptitude and in the true spirit of these

mandates.

39. Environmental parameters in Jharkhand presently remain within a

manageable range, and only sustained regulatory promptitude can

keep industrial hubs such as Ramgarh from the environmental

decline witnessed elsewhere.

40. Having examined the legal framework, the material on record, and

the constitutional mandate, the inquiry must now turn to practical

enforcement.

41. The need is to strike a balance between the continued operation of

industries and the imperative of protecting the environment.

Ultimately, the principles embodied in the law must translate into

effective administrative action and safeguards for the public.

42. Before parting, it is pertinent to state that the materials on record

presently available do not establish any continuing statutory

violation on the part of the respondent industries. However, the

earlier course of these proceedings has brought to light deficiencies

in the effectiveness of regulatory monitoring and enforcement.

Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:27541-DB

Page 12 of 15

43. The directions that follow are, therefore, not intended to create any

additional regulatory regime, but only to ensure that the statutory

monitoring mechanism remains functional, regular and effective,

and that any future instance of non-compliance is promptly

detected and dealt with in accordance with law.

44. Having regard to the foregoing, this petition is disposed of with the

following directions, which are intended to operationalize duties

already existing under the Air Act, the Water Act, the Environment

(Protection) Act, and the consents issued thereunder, rather than to

create a parallel code:

I. The Regional Officer, JSPCB, Hazaribagh, shall inspect

respondent nos. 6 and 7 twice in every calendar year, at

least one inspection at each unit being without prior

notice, covering stack emissions, effluent (if any), and the

functioning of pollution-control and continuous

monitoring equipment.

II. The Regional Officer shall place a report of each

inspection before the Member Secretary, JSPCB, within

two weeks of the inspection. Failure to conduct either

inspection each year shall be explained by the Regional

Officer, in writing, to the Member Secretary, who shall

report the default to this Court in the compliance affidavit

directed in clause (IX).

III. Continuous emission monitoring data of respondent no. 6,

and of respondent no. 7 wherever such systems are

Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:27541-DB

Page 13 of 15

installed, shall remain connected to the Board’s server.

Any exceedance sustained for more than forty-eight hours

shall trigger a show-cause notice from the Board to the

concerned unit within seven days of detection, to be

answered within a further period of fifteen days, failing

which the Board shall proceed to such action, including

such action as may be permissible under the applicable

environmental statutes.

IV. Within three months from the date of this order, the Board

shall cause fresh sampling, through an accredited

laboratory, of the water sources earlier tested near VIVA

International School and of any identified discharge point

of respondent nos. 6 and 7, with samples drawn upstream

and downstream of the industrial area wherever the River

Damodar is involved.

V. The Board shall furnish the report to the Deputy

Commissioner, Ramgarh, within one month of collection.

If the report attributes contamination to industrial

discharge, the Board shall initiate proceedings, including

assessment of environmental compensation, within one

month of the report; if the parameters are consistent with

municipal sources, the Board shall forward the report to

the Drinking Water and Sanitation Department for action

under the schemes it administers.

Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:27541-DB

Page 14 of 15

VI. The Board shall, within two months, compile a

consolidated file for each of respondent nos. 6 and 7

containing the Environmental Clearance (if applicable),

Consent to Establish, Consent to Operate, and the last

four inspection reports, and shall record, in respect of

each document, whether it is current, expired, or pending

renewal.

VII. Where any document is found expired or pending renewal

beyond the permissible period, the Board shall take such

action as the applicable statute provides, and shall report

the position, including the fact that no deficiency was

found, if that be the case, in the compliance affidavit

under clause (IX).

VIII. The Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, shall extend

logistical assistance to the Board's inspection teams on

request and shall forward any complaint of industrial

pollution received from residents, the school, or the jail

administration to the Regional Officer, JSPCB, within

three working days of receipt.

IX. The Member Secretary, JSPCB, shall file a compliance

affidavit before this Court within four months from today,

setting out the status of compliance with clauses (I) to

(VIII), including particulars of any default and the

reasons therefor.

Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:27541-DB

Page 15 of 15

X. A copy of the compliance affidavit filed under clause (IX),

and of the reports referred to in clauses (II) and (V), shall

be furnished to the petitioner, within one week of filing.

45. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to bring any non-compliance

with clauses (I) to (VIII), or any fresh instance of the pollution

complained of, to the notice of this Court by way of an

interlocutory application in the present proceedings, without the

necessity of instituting a fresh writ petition.

46. It is clarified that the above directions are issued strictly to

reinforce statutory compliance and shall not preclude the

competent authorities from taking any additional coercive

measures, including the criminal prosecution of defaulting

industries or individuals and those responsible for conniving with

or facilitating non-compliant operations, in accordance with the

law.

47. Let a copy of this judgment be forwarded forthwith to all the

respondent authorities.

48. This petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending I.A.s, if

any, will not survive and are disposed of. No costs.

(M. S. Sonak, C.J.)

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

September 14, 2026

A.F.R.

Manoj/Cp.2

Uploaded on 14.09.2026