Patna High Court
Dharmraj SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The writ petition is not maintainable because the petitioners have an alternative remedy under Section 31 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, and therefore the petition is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioners filed a public interest litigation seeking the closure of four rice mills in Rupsagar village, alleging operation without environmental clearances and causing hazardous air pollution. The respondents (the rice mills) submitted counter‑affidavits showing that they possessed valid Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate orders issued by the Bihar State Pollution Control Board under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and that appropriate pollution control measures were in place. The Court examined whether the petitioners had sufficient material evidence and whether a writ was the appropriate remedy. It held that an alternative statutory remedy exists under Section 31 of the Air Act, which requires aggrieved parties to appeal to the designated Appellate Authority. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition without adjudicating the merits of the environmental allegations. The decision emphasizes the need to exhaust specific statutory remedies before approaching the High Court under Article 226.
Issues considered
- Whether the operation of the rice mills without alleged environmental clearances violates the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and warrants a writ of mandamus or injunction.
- Whether the petitioners have sufficient material evidence and locus standi to maintain a public interest litigation on mere apprehensions of pollution.
- Whether the appropriate remedy for challenging the consent orders is an appeal under Section 31 of the Air Act rather than a writ under Article 226.
- Whether the State authorities have been negligent in enforcing environmental regulations.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- environmental law
- air pollution
- public interest litigation
- Air Act 1981
- Consent to Operate
- writ jurisdiction
- Section 31
- Bihar State Pollution Control Board
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14299 of 2025
======================================================
1. Dharmraj Singh S/O Angrahit Singh, R/O Village - Rupsagar, P.S -
Nawanagar, District Buxar.
2. Bhola Kumar, S/O Ramchandra Singh, R/O Village- Rupsagar, P.S -
Nawanagar, District - Buxar.
3. Raju Sharma, S/O Nandlal Sharma, R/O Village- Rupsagar, P.S -
Nawanagar, District Buxar.
4. Ramesh Sharma, S/O Chaturgun Sharma, R/O Village- Rupsagar, P.S -
Nawanagar, District - Buxar.
5. Bhart Sharma, S/O Birja Sharma, R/O Village- Rupsagar, P.S Nawanagar,
District-Buxar.
6. Sonu Kumar Singh, S/O Raj Kumar Singh, R/O Village- Rupsagar, P.S
Nawanagar, District Buxar.
7. Raj Kumar Singh, S/O Kuwar Singh, R/O Village- Rupsagar, P.S -
Nawanagar, District Buxar.
8. Sangita Devi, W/O Sonu Kumar Singh, R/O Village- Rupsagar, P.S
Nawanagar, District Buxar.
9. Ram Ayodhya Sharma, S/O Gupteshwar Sharma, R/O Village- Rupsagar, P.S
Nawanagar, District - Buxar.
10. Makardhvaj Sharma, S/O Bashist Sharma, R/O Village- Rupsagar, P.S
-Nawanagar, District - Buxar.
11. Barmeshwar Rai, S/o Laxman Rai, R/O Village- Rupsagar, P.S.-Nawanagar,
District - Buxar.
12. Sumant Rai, S/O Kedaranath Rai, R/O Village- Rupsagar, P.S - Nawanagar,
District Buxar.
13. Dhanji Rai, S/O Kedar Nath Rai, R/O Village Rupsagar, P.S Nawanagar,
District -Buxar.
14. Sarita Devi, W/O Dan Ji Ray, R/O Village- Rupsagar, P.S - Nawanagar,
District Buxar.
15. Dilip Kumar, S/O Late Shivji Singh, R/O Village- Rupsagar, P.S Nawanagar,
District Buxar.
16. Amit Kumar Singh, S/o Dinesh Kumar Singh, R/O Village- Rupsagar, P.S-
Nawanagar, District - Buxar.
17. Dinesh Singh, S/O Jagarnath Rai, R/O Village- Rupsagar, P.S - Nawanagar,
District Buxar.
18. Vibhla Devi, W/O Dinesh Singh, R/O Village- Rupsagar, P.S - Nawanagar,
District Buxar.
19. Lalita Devi, W/O Amit Singh, R/O Village- Rupsagar, P.S - Nawanagar,
Patna High Court CWJC No.14299 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
2/10
District Buxar.
20. Ramesh Chandra Singh, S/O Kedarnath Ray, R/O Village- Rupsagar, P.S-
Nawanagar, District Buxar.
21. Krishna Kant Singh, S/O Lallu Singh, R/O Village- Rupsagar, P.S -
Nawanagar, District Buxar.
22. Subhash Singh, S/O Devmuni Singh, R/O Village-Pathkauli, P.S- Semri,
District Rohtas.
23. Gopal Jee Kumar, S/O Sudarshan Ray, R/O Village- Rupsagar, P.S
Nawanagar, District Buxar.
24. Deepak Kumar, S/O Mukit Nath Singh, R/O Village- Dhawai, P.S Semri,
District -Rohtas.
25. Krishna Murari Mishra, S/O Hari nandan Mishra, R/O Village- Sripalpur,
P.S Punpun, District Patna.
26. Sanjeet Kumar, S/O Rajmohan Singh, R/O Village- Dhawai, P.S.-Semri,
District Rohtas.
27. Ravi Kumar, S/O Dadan Singh, R/O Village- Harkhamal dehari, P.S-
Jamsona, District Rohtas.
28. Manoj Kumar Singh, S/O Bijeshwari Prasad Singh, R/O Village- Bokaro
Steel City, P.S - Bokaro, District - Bokaro (Jharkhand).
29. Vinay Kumar, S/O Bala Prasad, R/O Village- Rupsagar, P.S Nawanagar,
District -Buxar.
30. Jitendra Kumar Singh, S/O Lakshman Singh, R/o Village-Rupsagar, P.S.-
Nawanagar, District-Buxar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar.
2. Bihar State Pollution Control Board through its Chairman, Patna Bihar.
3. The District Magistrate, Cum Collector, Buxar, Bihar.
4. The Principal Secretary, Department of Environment, Forest and Climate
Change, Government of Bihar.
5. The Principal Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Bihar.
6. Aradhya Bhog Private Limited, Rupsagar, Buxar, Bihar.
7. Santoshi Rice Mill, Vill.-Rupsagar, P.S. -Nawanagar, Buxar, Bihar.
8. Amba Rice Mill, Vill.-Rupsagar, P.S. -Nawanagar, Buxar, Bihar.
9. Gurudev Rice Mill, Vill.-Rupsagar, P.S. -Nawanagar, Buxar, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
Patna High Court CWJC No.14299 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
3/10
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashwat Sahil Singh, Advocate
Mr. Saurabh Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Swarnima, Advocate
For the State : Mr. P.K. Shahi, A.G.
Mr. Vikash Kumar, A.C. to A.G.
For the B.S.P.C.B. : Mr. Kumar Ravish, Advocate
Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Ayush Kumar, Advocate
For the Resp. Nos. 6 to 9: Mr. Ravi Raj, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 25-03-2026
The present writ petition, in the nature of Public
Interest Litigation, has been filed by the petitioners seeking the
following reliefs:-
"(i) For the issuance of an
appropriate writ(s), order(s), or direction(s)
commanding the State Authorities i.e., Respondent
Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, to take immediate and urgent
action against the operations of Respondent Nos.
6,7, 8, and 9, who are running rice mills within
residential areas of Rupsagar village, District
Buxar, Bihar without any pollution control devices,
environmental clearance or emission compliance
under the applicable environmental laws and
thereby causing hazardous air pollution through
the release of husk and dust particles into the
environment.
(ii) And further be pleased to direct
the Respondents to forthwith suspend or stop the
Patna High Court CWJC No.14299 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
4/10
operation of the said rice mills until such time that
they comply with the norms, orders, and
environmental safety measures prescribed under
the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1981, CPCB/SPCB guidelines, and all other
applicable environmental regulations.
(iii) For that the air pollution being
caused due to husk and dust emissions is directly in
contravention of the Air (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1981 and the operational
norms/guidelines issued by the Central and Bihar
State Pollution Control Boards regulating
emissions from agro-industrial units.
(iv) For that the writ jurisdiction of
this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution is the only efficacious and appropriate
remedy for enforcing the constitutional and
statutory rights of the citizens affected by this
continuous pollution.
(v) For that the action/inaction of the
Respondents, in failing to conduct inspections,
enforce standards, or control pollution, amounts to
gross negligence, procedural arbitrariness and
abdication of public duty and violates the binding
directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti v. Union of India,
W.P. (C) No. 375 of 2012."
2. From the averments made in the writ petition
Patna High Court CWJC No.14299 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
5/10
and the submissions advanced, it appears that the grievance of
the petitioners is that the rice mills, i.e., Respondent Nos. 6 to 9,
are operating without obtaining the requisite consent orders and,
therefore, their operations are unauthorized.
3. However, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of Respondent Nos. 6 to 9 has filed a counter affidavit, a copy
whereof has already been served upon the learned counsel for
the petitioners. In the said counter affidavit, it has been stated
that the petitioners have deliberately suppressed material facts,
particularly with regard to the grant of consent to operate by the
Bihar State Pollution Control Board, the existence of pollution
control measures, the actual location of the units, and the
demographic nature of the area.
4. The relevant paragraphs of the counter affidavit
are quoted hereinbelow:-
"6. That the petitioners have
deliberately suppressed material facts, particularly
regarding grant of Consent to Operate (CTO) by
the Bihar State Pollution Control Board (BSPCB),
existence of pollution control measures, actual
location and demographic nature of the area.
7. That the instant petition under
reply is not maintainable as it is based on vague
and unsubstantiated allegation without any expert
report and it seeks drastic relief of closure of
Patna High Court CWJC No.14299 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
6/10
lawful industries without any adjudicated violation
and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly
held that PIL jurisdiction cannot be invoked on
mere apprehensions or bald allegations without
cogent material evidence.
8. That the contents of the writ
petition are denied to the extent they allege illegal
operation or violation of environmental norms as
Respondent Nos. 6 to 9 have obtained valid
Consent to Establish (CTE) and Consent to
Operate (CTO) from the Bihar State Pollution
Control Board.
9. That it is most respectfully
submitted that Respondent No. 6, namely
Aaradhyabhog Fresh Product Pvt. Ltd., has duly
obtained the requisite Emission Consent Order
under Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, vide Letter No.
1840 dated 26.07.2024. and the Discharge
Consent Order under Sections 25/26 of the Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974,
vide Letter No. 1841 dated 26.07.2024, both issued
by the Bihar State Pollution Control Board. That
similarly, Respondent No. 7, namely Santoshi Rice
Mill, has been granted valid Consent to Operate
vide Letter No. 963 dated 12.05.2023 by the
competent authority. That further, Respondent Nos.
8 and 9, namely Amba Rice Mill and Gurudev Rice
Mill, have also been granted Consent to Operate
by the Bihar State Pollution Control Board vide
Patna High Court CWJC No.14299 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
7/10
Letter No. 2325 dated 14.11.2022 and Memo No.
1409 dated 18.08.2025 respectively. That in view of
the aforesaid statutory consents granted by the
competent authority, it is evident that the
answering respondents are operating strictly in
accordance with and within the parameters
prescribed under the provisions of the Air
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
and the Water (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1974, and there is no violation
whatsoever as alleged in the writ petition.
10. That the allegation that the
answering respondents are operating without
pollution control devices is wholly incorrect,
misconceived and is hereby categorically denied.
In this regard, it is most respectfully submitted that
adequate and proper infrastructure for handling
and storage of husk has been duly established prior
to commencement of operations in the ongoing
milling season. In particular, Respondent No. 6,
namely Aradhya Bhog Pvt. Ltd., and Respondent
No. 9, namely Gurudev Rice Mill, have already
installed permanent scientifically designed husk
storage facilities, ensuring effective containment of
husk and dust particles and preventing their
dispersion into the surrounding environment. It is
further submitted that all standard operational
protocols and environmental safeguards are being
strictly adhered to so as to minimize any emission."
Patna High Court CWJC No.14299 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
8/10
5. The consent orders have been brought on record
and annexed to the counter affidavit as Annexure–R/1 series.
Upon perusal thereof, it transpires that the competent authority
has granted consent to operate in favour of Respondent Nos. 6
to 9 for running the rice mills.
6. In such circumstances, if the petitioners are
aggrieved by the grant of the said consent orders, the
appropriate remedy lies under Section 31 of the Air (Prevention
and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as
“the 1981 Act”), which provides for an appeal before the
Appellate Authority constituted thereunder.
7. Accordingly, any challenge to the aforesaid
consent orders is required to be made before the said Appellate
Authority in terms of Section 31 of the 1981 Act. The relevant
provision, i.e., Section 31 of the 1981 Act, is quoted
hereinbelow:-
"31. Appeals.-(1) Any person
aggrieved by an order made by the State Board
under this Act may, within thirty day from the date
on which the order is communicated to him, prefer
an appeal to such authority (hereinafter referred to
as the Appellate Authority) as the State
Government may think fit to constitute:
Provided that the Appellate Authority
Patna High Court CWJC No.14299 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
9/10
may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the
said period of thirty days if such authority is
satisfied that the appellant was prevented by
sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.
(2) The Appellate Authority shall
consist of a single person or three persons as the
State Government may think fit to be appointed by
the State Government.
(3) The form and the manner in
which an appeal may be preferred under sub-
section (1), the fees payable for such appeal and
the procedure to be followed by the Appellate
Authority shall be such as may be prescribed.
(4) On receipt of an appeal preferred
under sub-section (1), the Appellate Authority
shall, after giving the appellant and the State
Board an opportunity of being heard, dispose of
the appeal as expeditiously as possible."
8. In view of the availability of an efficacious
alternative remedy, it is open to the petitioners to avail such
remedy in accordance with law.
9. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands
disposed of.
10. It is made clear that this Court has not
expressed any opinion on the merits of the present Public
Interest Litigation or on the correctness or legality of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.14299 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
10/10
consent orders granted in favour of Respondent Nos. 6 to 9 for
operating the rice mills.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
(Harish Kumar, J)
Neha/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 26.03.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…