Patna High Court
Jai Shiv Shakti Enterprises,versusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court quashed the SEAC agenda items and the environmental clearances, directing a fresh appraisal with at least 15 days’ notice to the petitioners.
Summary
The petitioners, a group of sand‑ghat operators in Rajasthan, were awarded mining rights by the Bihar Department of Mines and Geology and applied for environmental clearance under the EIA Notification No. 1533/2006. They alleged that the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) held its appraisal meeting on 03‑08‑2024 without giving the statutorily required 15‑day notice, thereby denying them a chance to be heard. The SEAC’s recommendation was accepted by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), which issued environmental clearances on 17‑01‑2025. The petitioners sought quashing of the SEAC agenda, the clearances, and related orders, arguing violation of natural justice and mandatory procedural requirements. The respondents contended that the matter could be remedied before the National Green Tribunal and that the notice requirement was not mandatory. The High Court held that the 15‑day notice under Appendix‑V of the EIA Notification is a mandatory condition, its breach vitiated the SEAC’s recommendation, and consequently the environmental clearances were illegal. The court quashed the SEAC agenda items, set aside the clearances, directed fresh appraisal with proper notice, and restrained any coercive action against the petitioners.
Issues considered
- The adequacy of the 15‑day notice requirement under Appendix‑V of EIA Notification No. 1533/2006 and its mandatory nature.
- Whether the violation of the notice requirement vitiates the SEAC’s recommendation and the subsequent environmental clearance.
- Whether the petitioners can approach the High Court despite the availability of an alternative remedy before the National Green Tribunal.
- Whether the environmental clearance should be quashed on grounds of breach of natural justice.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- environmental clearance
- EIA Notification 2006
- natural justice
- 15‑day notice
- SEAC
- SEIAA
- writ petition
- quashing
- National Green Tribunal
- mining
- sand ghats
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5104 of 2025
======================================================
Star Stone Crusher, a proprietorship firm having its place of business at C 24,
Narayan Vihar Basti, Ambedkar Colony, District- Bikaner, Rajasthan-334001
through one of its Partner Budh Ram Sharma male aged about 37 years son of
Kana Ram, Resident of Village- Khoda, Ward No.06, P.S- Rawatsar, District-
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan- 335524.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Bihar, Patna through
its member Secretary.
4. The State Expert Appraisal Committee, Bihar Patna through its Member
Secretary.
5. The District Collector, Madhubani.
6. The Mines Development Officer, Madhubani. (Cluster number 7).
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5112 of 2025
======================================================
Maa Parwati Enterprises a partnership firm having its place of business at C-
24, Narayan Vihar Basti, Ambedkar Colony, District-Bikaner, Rajasthan-
334001 through authorized signatory Netram male aged about 34 years, S/o
Tiloka Ram resident of Ward No. 5, Khoda, P.S. Rawatsar, District-
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan-335524.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Bihar, Patna through
its Member Secretary.
4. The State Expert Appraisal Committee, Bihar Patna through its Member
Secretary.
5. The District Collector, Madhubani.
6. The Mines Development Officer, Madhubani (Cluster number 3).
Patna High Court CWJC No.5104 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
2/26
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5118 of 2025
======================================================
Jai Shiv Shakti Enterprises, a Proprietorship firm having its Place of Business
at Village-Khoda, Tehsil-Rawatsar, District-Hanumangarh, Rajasthan through
its Proprietor Budh Ram Sharma Male aged about 37 Years Son of Kana Ram
Resident of Village- Khoda Ward No. 06, P.S.- Rawatsar, District-
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan-335524.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology,
Government of Bihar, Panta.
3. The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Bihar, Patna through
its Member Secretary.
4. The State Expert Appraisal Committee, Bihar Patna through its Member
Secretary.
5. The District Collector, Madhubani.
6. The Mines Development Officer, Madhubani. (Cluster number 2).
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5147 of 2025
======================================================
Maa Parwati Enterprises, a Partnership firm having its Place of Business at C
24, Narayan Vihar nasti, Ambedkar Colony, District-Bikaner, Rajasthan-
334001, through Authorized Signatory Netram Male aged about 34 Years
S/op Tiloka Ram, Resident of Ward No. 5 Khoda, P.S. Rawastar, District-
Hanumangarh Rajastahan-335524.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Bihar, Patna through
its Member Secretary.
4. The State Expert Appraisal Committee, Bihar, Patna through its Member
Secretary.
5. The District Collector, Madhubani.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5104 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
3/26
6. The MInes Development Officer, Madhubani.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5328 of 2025
======================================================
Shiva Associates, a Proprietorship Firm having its Place of Business at 3B,
22-23 Sukhadiya Nagar, Sri Ganganagar Rajasthan-335001 through
Authorised Signatory Dalip Singh Male aged about 37 Years Son of Late Ram
Singh Resident of Village - Deenwa- Ladkhani, P.S. Fatehpur, District- Sikar,
Rajasthan-332303.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and
Geology, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Bihar, Patna through
its Member Secretary.
4. The State Expert Appraisal Committee, Bihar Patna through its Member
Secretary.
5. The District Collector, Banka.
6. The Mines Development Officer, Banka.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5746 of 2025
======================================================
Shiva Associates a Proprietorship Firm having its place of Business at 3B, 22-
23 Sukhadiya Nagar, Sri Ganganagar Rajasthan- 335001 through autorised
signatory Dalip Singh male aged about 37 years Son of Late Ram Singh
resident of village- Deenwa- Ladkhani, P.S. Fatehpur, District- Sikar,
Rajasthan- 332303.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and
Geology, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Bihar, Patna through
its member Secretary.
4. The State Expert Appraisal Committee, Bihar Patna through its member
Secretary.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5104 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
4/26
5. The District Collector, Banka.
6. The Mines Development Officer, Banka (Cheer Unit No. 2).
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5104 of 2025)
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gautam Kumar Kejriwal, Advocate
Mr. Aditya Raman, Advocate
Mr. Alok Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Mukund Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Akash Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Preety Choudhary, Advocate
For the Respondents : S.C.-23
For the Mines Deptt. : Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Spl. P.P.
Mr. Brij Bihari Tiwari, Advocate
Ms. Shruti Singh, Advocate
For the SEIAA : Mr. Kumar Ravish, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5112 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gautam Kumar Kejriwal, Advocate
Mr. Aditya Raman, Advocate
Mr. Alok Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Mukund Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Akash Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Preety Choudhary, Advocate
For the Respondents : S.C.-24
For the Mines Deptt. : Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Spl. P.P.
Mr. Brij Bihari Tiwari, Advocate
Ms. Shruti Singh, Advocate
For the SEIAA : Mr. Kumar Ravish, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5118 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gautam Kumar Kejriwal, Advocate
Mr. Aditya Raman, Advocate
Mr. Alok Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Mukund Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Akash Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Preety Choudhary, Advocate
For the Respondents : S.C.-22
For the Mines Deptt. : Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Spl. P.P.
Mr. Brij Bihari Tiwari, Advocate
Ms. Shruti Singh, Advocate
For the SEIAA : Mr. Kumar Ravish, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5147 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gautam Kumar Kejriwal, Advocate
Mr. Aditya Raman, Advocate
Mr. Alok Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Mukund Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Akash Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Preety Choudhary, Advocate
For the Respondents : S.C.-25
For the Mines Deptt. : Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Spl. P.P.
Mr. Brij Bihari Tiwari, Advocate
Patna High Court CWJC No.5104 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
5/26
Ms. Shruti Singh, Advocate
For the SEIAA : Mr. Kumar Ravish, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5328 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gautam Kumar Kejriwal, Advocate
Mr. Aditya Raman, Advocate
Mr. Alok Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Mukund Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Akash Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Preety Choudhary, Advocate
For the Respondents : G.P.-2
For the Mines Deptt. : Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Spl. P.P.
Mr. Brij Bihari Tiwari, Advocate
Ms. Shruti Singh, Advocate
For the SEIAA : Mr. Kumar Ravish, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5746 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gautam Kumar Kejriwal, Advocate
Mr. Aditya Raman, Advocate
Mr. Alok Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Mukund Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Akash Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Preety Choudhary, Advocate
For the Respondents : G.A.-13
For the Mines Deptt. : Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Spl. P.P.
Mr. Brij Bihari Tiwari, Advocate
Ms. Shruti Singh, Advocate
For the SEIAA : Mr. Kumar Ravish, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 20-01-2026
Since all these writ petitions are involving same
and similar issue with respect to other clusters of sand ghats in
Madhubani and Banka Districts, they have been heard together
and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. As the facts of these writ petitions are same
and similar, for the convenience, the facts of C.W.J.C. No.5104
of 2025 are being taken as a leading case.
3. By way of these writ petitions, the
petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-
“a). For issuance of a writ in the nature of
Patna High Court CWJC No.5104 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
6/26
certiorari for quashing of the agenda
item number 6 minutes of meeting dated
03.08.2024 of the State Expert
Appraisal Committee (hereinafter
referred to as “SEAC” for short) which
is a part of the State Environment
Impact Assessment Authority
(hereinafter referred to as the competent
authority for short) whereby the
proposal for grant of environmental
clearance to the sand ghats of the
petitioner has been recommended in
gross violation of appendix - V read
with a paragraph 7 of the EIA
Notification number 1533 dated
14.09.2006 as no 15 clear days' notice
was given to the petitioner and thereby
the petitioner has been denied
opportunity of his participation and
necessary deliberation before such a
recommendation;
b) For further issuance of a writ or order
or a direction in the nature of certiorari
for quashing of the environmental
clearance issued by the respondent
competent authority vide letter dated
17.01.2025 along with the relevant
decision in the minutes of meeting dated
07.01.2025 as the same is in teeth of
appendix - V read with a paragraph 7 of
the EIA Notification number 1533 dated
14.09.2006;
Patna High Court CWJC No.5104 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
7/26
c) For further issuance of a writ or order
or a direction in the nature of certiorari
for quashing of the letter bearing memo
number 61/M Madhubani dated
24.01.2025 issued by the respondent
Mines Development Officer, Madhubani
seeking necessary steps to be taken by
the petitioner for obtaining clearances
in the nature of CTE and CТО from the
Bihar State Pollution Control Board
with respect to the sand ghats settled in
favour of the petitioner in light of the
environmental clearance dated
17.01.2025 issued by the competent
authority;
d) For further issuance of a writ or order
or a further direction upon the
respondent state expert appraisal
committee to reconsider the project of
the petitioner from the stage of
"appraisal" and award an adequate
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner
by issuing prior notice in accordance
with appendix V of the ΕΙΑ notification
number 1533 dated 14.09.2006;
e) For further restraining the respondents
especially the respondent Department of
Mines and Geology and its authorities
from taking any coercive action against
the petitioner due to non-compliance
and non-observance of the necessary
formalities for obtaining other
Patna High Court CWJC No.5104 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
8/26
clearances for mining activities with
respect to the sand ghats settled in
favour of the petitioner as a result of
grant of environmental clearance by the
competent authority;”
4. It is the case of the petitioners that the
Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar, had
published a tender for settlement of sand ghats in the clusters of
Madhubani and Banka districts, in which the petitioners had
participated and being the highest bidders were awarded the
settlement of respective sand ghats for a period of five years.
Subsequently, Letter of Acceptance was issued to the petitioners
and thereafter, the petitioners have submitted their respective
mining plans before the competent authority. As per the terms
and conditions of the tender notice, the petitioners have
submitted applications before the State Environment Impact
Assessment Authority, Bihar (SEIAA) for grant of
environmental clearance with respect to the sand ghats, the
mining rights of which were awarded after the conclusion of the
auction process. The petitioners have submitted applications for
grant of environmental clearance for which the procedure has
been prescribed in the EIA notification no.1533 dated
14.09.2006 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest,
Government of India, New Delhi.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5104 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
9/26
5. According to the petitioners, as per the
procedure prescribed in the aforesaid notification for grant of
environmental clearance, a sub-committee of SEIAA which is
known as "State-Level Expert Appraisal Committee" (SEAC)
had to complete the fourth stage procedure of appraisal as
prescribed in the notification and the procedure for appraisal is
specifically prescribed in Appendix-V to the notification
consisting of paragraph no.5 which provides that “the applicant
shall be informed at least 15 (fifteen) days prior to the
scheduled date of the EAC/SEAC meeting for considering the
project proposal”.
6. According to the petitioners, the aforesaid
sub-committee i.e. the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee
published its decision on 02.08.2024 wherein it was decided that
the appraisal meeting shall be conducted on the very next day
i.e. 03.08.2024. This according to the petitioners, was blatant
disregard of aforesaid paragraph no.5 of Appendix-V. According
to the petitioners, the petitioners being the project proponents
have duly recorded their protest via e-mail dated 02.08.2024
itself requesting for grant of at least 48 hours time to enable
them to attend such meeting. Despite the same, the respondents
authorities went ahead and conducted the meeting on
Patna High Court CWJC No.5104 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
10/26
03.08.2024 recording the absence of the petitioners or their
representatives and proceeded to recommend the case of each of
the petitioners for grant of environmental clearance with respect
to their respective settled sand ghats.
7. It is also the case of the petitioners that the
aforesaid recommendation of SEAC was accepted by the
SEIAA in its meeting dated 07.01.2025 and consequently, the
competent authority i.e. SEIAA issued the impugned
environmental clearances vide letter dated 17.01.2025 which is
under challenge.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the minutes of meeting dated 03.08.2024 conducted
by the SEAC being ex-parte is vitiated since the petitioners
being project proponents have been denied the opportunity of
attending the aforesaid meeting and put forth their contentions
before the said sub committee.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that though in paragraph no.5 of the Appendix-V of the
notification, it has clearly been stated that prior notice of at least
15 days must be given to the applicant for considering the
project proposal, however, in the present case, just a day prior to
the meeting the petitioners were informed that the meeting for
Patna High Court CWJC No.5104 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
11/26
considering the project proposals would be held. Therefore, it is
the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that if the
petitioners would have been afforded adequate opportunity of
representation before the SEAC, as per appendix V of the
aforesaid notification, then they would have drawn their
attention to the relevant issues such as, the letter dated
16.01.2024 issued by the Department of Mines and Geology,
which has been addressed to the Collectors of various districts
in the State and the letter dated 29.12.2023 issued by the
Department of Water Resources, Government of Bihar, wherein
a report relating to as many as 134 silt areas was forwarded
which included those sand ghats also which were given to the
present petitioners in settlement.
10. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the aforesaid letters/reports was well within the
knowledge of the respondents but, the same was not considered
by the SEIAA and therefore, the said issue had gone unnoticed
and could not be taken cognizance while the cases of these
petitioners for grant of environmental clearance was being
considered by the aforesaid sub-committee. Consequently, the
petitioners have been issued environmental clearance on the
basis of facts and figures which were available in the notice
Patna High Court CWJC No.5104 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
12/26
inviting tender and other documents in the records but not
keeping in view the ground reality which radically differed from
the records.
11. It is, therefore, the submission of learned
counsel for the petitioners that the impugned recommendations
of SEAC is violative of the aforesaid notification and
accordingly the decision of the competent authority namely,
SEIAA accepting the recommendations of SEAC and grant of
environmental clearance are all illegal and liable to be quashed
and set aside.
12. In support of the submissions, the learned
counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments:-
i. State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Ambay
Cements & Anr. reported as (2005) 1 SCC
368;
ii. Central Coalfields Limited & Anr. vs.
SLLSML (Joint Venture Consortium) &
Ors. reported as (2016) 8 SCC 622;
iii. Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission
Corporation Limited & Anr. vs. C.G. Power
& Industrial Solutions Limited & Ors.
reported as (2021) 6 SCC 15;
Patna High Court CWJC No.5104 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
13/26
iv. C.B. Gautam vs. Union of India & Ors.
reported as (1993) 1 SCC 78.
13. The respondent nos. 3 and 4 have filed their
para-wise counter affidavit, in which they have explained the
process of consideration and issuance of environmental
clearance.
14. Adverting to the counter affidavit, learned
counsel for the respondent nos.3 and 4 has submitted that once
the environmental clearance is granted in favour of the
petitioners, the remedy lies before the National Green Tribunal
under Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. It is
submitted that the petitioner has assailed the decision of the
SEAC, however, the aforesaid sub-committee is only an
appraisal body and once the environmental clearnace has been
duly issued by the SEIAA the decision of the subordinate body
i.e. the SEAC merges with the final decision of SEIAA. In the
present case, there is no challenge to the condition incorporated
in the environmental clearance by the petitioners. Therefore, it is
submitted that since the alternative remedy lies before the
National Green Tribunal, the petitioners ought to have moved
before the Tribunal.
15. It is the submission of the respondent nos. 3
Patna High Court CWJC No.5104 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
14/26
and 4 that the petitioners have misread the conditions of EIA
notification dated 14.09.2006, in which the very purpose of 15
days’ notice was to seek clarification from the project proponent
and the said notice was not required to be issued in the instant
case as the applications of the petitioners were to be considered
on the basis of materials available on record and no clarification
was required.
16. It has also been submitted that since the
petitioners themselves had applied for the environment
clearance, therefore, there was no reason to challenge the
proceedings and the final environmental clearance issued by the
respondent authorities which was issued in favour of the
petitioners. Further, the project was considered and appraised
positively i.e. in favour of the petitioners and the appraisal was
made in accordance with law. Since, the processing of the
applications of the petitioners for grant of environmental
clearance has resulted in issuance of environmental clearance in
their favour, the same cannot be said to be prejudicial to the
petitioners when they were themselves the applicants thereof.
17. Adverting to the counter affidavit, it is
submitted by learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4
that the Hon’ble Supreme Court was monitoring the issue of
Patna High Court CWJC No.5104 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
15/26
grant of environmental clearance in the entire State of Bihar,
therefore, there was no reason for the respondent authorities to
defer consideration as it was in the favour of the petitioners.
18. It has also been submitted that in the present
case, the entire applications along with the EIA reports, public
consultations/ hearing documents and other necessary
requirements were complete, further, the terms of reference
related to compliance were also duly submitted and the valid
and enforceable district survey reports (DSR) supporting mining
activity was also on record.
19. It has also been submitted that after receiving
multiple applications / legal notices, the SEIAA considered the
same and it was decided on 07.01.2025 that even if the project
proponent is absent during the meeting the SEAC/SEIAA can
take necessary steps in the matter. The appraisal was carried out
as per the EIA notification and no prejudice can be said to have
been caused to the petitioners since ultimately, the
environmental clearance was issued in favour of the petitioners.
Further, the petitioners are trying to linger their own
applications in order to avoid mining. The mining activity was
to commence in the year 2022 but instead of carrying out
mining, the highest bidders are litigating the matter.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5104 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
16/26
20. Adverting to clause 5 of the Appendix V of
the EIA notification, it has been submitted that mere mention of
prior notice and information to the project proponent in the said
clause will not vitiate an otherwise positive recommendation in
favour of the project proponent for grant of environmental
clearance and mere used of the word “shall” will not make it
mandatory in absence of any consequence being provided in this
regard.
21. In this case, the respondent nos. 5 and 6 have
also filed their counter affidavit wherein they have stated that
the petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the SEAC and
SEIAA, for which, the competent authorities are respondent
nos. 3 and 4. The respondent nos. 5 and 6 have brought on
record the backgrounds facts leading upto the settlement of sand
ghats. It has also been submitted that since the formalities of
settlement of sand ghats have already been completed, the
petitioners may be directed to take necessary steps in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the tender
documents and in principle approval and other relevant
notifications and rules.
22. I have considered the submissions of the
parties and perused the materials on record.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5104 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
17/26
23. At the outset, it would be appropriate to deal
with the contention of learned counsel for the respondents
regarding existence of alternative remedy before the National
Green Tribunal.
24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
U.P. Transport Power Corporation Limited (supra) has held
that mere availability of an alternative remedy does not prohibit
the High Court from entertaining a writ petition in an
appropriate case, particularly, where there is a failure of
principles of natural justice.
25. In these writ petitions, a limited question has
come for consideration before this Court regarding challenge to
the issuance of environmental clearance issued in favour of the
petitioners on the ground of contravention of clause-5 of
Appendix- V of the EIA notification dated 14.09.2006.
26. Admittedly, the present petitioners are the
settlees of sand ghats in various sand clusters of Madhubani and
Banka districts.
27. It will be relevant to quote aforesaid clause-5
of Appendix – V appended to the aforesaid notification dated
14.09.2006, which reads as under:-
“5. The applicant shall be informed at least
15 (fifteen) days prior to the scheduled
Patna High Court CWJC No.5104 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
18/26
date of the EAC/SEAC meeting for
considering the project proposal.”
28. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
C.B. Gautam (supra) has held as under:-
“28. It must, however, be borne in mind that
courts have generally read into the
provisions of the relevant sections a
requirement of giving a reasonable
opportunity of being heard before an order
is made which would have adverse civil
consequences for the parties affected. This
would be particularly so in a case where the
validity of the section would be open to a
serious challenge for want of such an
opportunity.
29. It is true that the time frame within which the
order for ∼compulsory purchase has to be
made is a fairly tight one but in our view the
urgency is not such as would preclude a
reasonable opportunity of being heard or to
show cause being given to the parties likely
to be adversely affected by an order of
purchase under Section 269-UD(1). The
enquiry pursuant to the explanation given by
the intending purchaser or the intending
seller might be a somewhat limited one or a
summary one but we decline to accept the
submission that the time-limit provided is so
short as to preclude an enquiry or show
cause altogether.”
29. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ambay Cements (supra) has held as under:-
“25. In our view, the failure to comply with the
requirements renders the writ petition filed by
the respondent liable to be dismissed. While
mandatory rule must be strictly observed,
Patna High Court CWJC No.5104 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
19/26
substantial compliance might suffice in the case
of a directory rule.
26. Whenever the statute prescribes that a
particular act is to be done in a particular
manner and also lays down that failure to
comply with the said requirement leads to severe
consequences, such requirement would be
mandatory. It is the cardinal rule of
interpretation that where a statute provides that
a particular thing should be done, it should be
done in the manner prescribed and not in any
other way. It is also settled rule of interpretation
that where a statute is penal in character, it must
be strictly construed and followed. Since the
requirement, in the instant case, of obtaining
prior permission is mandatory, therefore, non-
compliance with the same must result in
cancelling the concession made in favour of the
grantee, the respondent herein.”
30. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Central Coalfields Ltd. (supra) has held as under:-
“33. In Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International
Airport Authority of India [Ramana Dayaram
Shetty v. International Airport Authority of
India, (1979) 3 SCC 489] this Court held that
the words used in a document are not
superfluous or redundant but must be given
some meaning and weightage : (SCC p. 500,
para 7)
“7. … It is a well-settled rule of
Patna High Court CWJC No.5104 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
20/26
interpretation applicable alike to
documents as to statutes that, save for
compelling necessity, the Court should
not be prompt to ascribe superfluity to
the language of a document “and should
be rather at the outset inclined to
suppose every word intended to have
some effect or be of some use”. To reject
words as insensible should be the last
resort of judicial interpretation, for it is
an elementary rule based on common
sense that no author of a formal
document intended to be acted upon by
the others should be presumed to use
words without a meaning. The court
must, as far as possible, avoid a
construction which would render the
words used by the author of the document
meaningless and futile or reduce to
silence any part of the document and
make it altogether inapplicable.
34. In Ramana Dayaram Shetty case [Ramana
Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport
Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489] , the
expression “registered IInd Class hotelier” was
recognised as being inapt and perhaps
ungrammatical; nevertheless common sense was
not offended in describing a person running a
registered IInd grade hotel as a registered IInd
class hotelier. Despite this construction in its
favour, Respondent 4 in that case were held to
be factually ineligible to participate in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5104 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
21/26
bidding process.
35. It was further held that if others (such as the
appellant in Ramana Dayaram Shetty case
[Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International
Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489] )
were aware that non-fulfilment of the eligibility
condition of being a registered IInd class
hotelier would not be a bar for consideration,
they too would have submitted a tender, but
were prevented from doing so due to the
eligibility condition, which was relaxed in the
case of Respondent 4. This resulted in unequal
treatment in favour of Respondent 4 —
treatment that was constitutionally
impermissible. Expounding on this, it was held :
(SCC p. 504, para 10)
“10. … It is indeed unthinkable that in a
democracy governed by the rule of law
the executive Government or any of its
officers should possess arbitrary power
over the interests of the individual. Every
action of the executive Government must
be informed with reason and should be
free from arbitrariness. That is the very
essence of the rule of law and its bare
minimal requirement. And to the
application of this principle it makes no
difference whether the exercise of the
power involves affectation of some right
or denial of some privilege.”(emphasis
supplied)
xxxxxxxx
Patna High Court CWJC No.5104 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
22/26
38. In G.J. Fernandez v. State of Karnataka [G.J.
Fernandez v. State of Karnataka, (1990) 2 SCC
488] both the principles laid down in Ramana
Dayaram Shetty [Ramana Dayaram Shetty v.
International Airport Authority of India, (1979)
3 SCC 489] were reaffirmed. It was reaffirmed
that the party issuing the tender (the employer)
“has the right to punctiliously and rigidly”
enforce the terms of the tender. If a party
approaches a court for an order restraining the
employer from strict enforcement of the terms of
the tender, the court would decline to do so. It
was also reaffirmed that the employer could
deviate from the terms and conditions of the
tender if the “changes affected all intending
applicants alike and were not objectionable”.
Therefore, deviation from the terms and
conditions is permissible so long as the level
playing field is maintained and it does not result
in any arbitrariness or discrimination in
Ramana Dayaram Shetty [Ramana Dayaram
Shetty v. International Airport Authority of
India, (1979) 3 SCC 489] sense.
xxxxx
52. There is a wholesome principle that the courts
have been following for a very long time and
which was articulated in Nazir Ahmad v. King
Emperor [Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor, AIR
1936 PC 253 (2) : (1935-36) 63 IA 372 : 1936
SCC OnLine PC 41] , namely : (SCC OnLine
PC)
“… where a power is given to do a certain
Patna High Court CWJC No.5104 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
23/26
thing in a certain way the thing must be
done in that way or not at all. Other
methods of performance are necessarily
forbidden.”
There is no valid reason to give up this salutary
principle or not to apply it mutatis mutandis to
bid documents. This principle deserves to be
applied in contractual disputes, particularly in
commercial contracts or bids leading up to
commercial contracts, where there is stiff
competition. It must follow from the application
of the principle laid down in Nazir Ahmad
[Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor, AIR 1936 PC
253 (2) : (1935-36) 63 IA 372 : 1936 SCC
OnLine PC 41] that if the employer prescribes a
particular format of the bank guarantee to be
furnished, then a bidder ought to submit the
bank guarantee in that particular format only
and not in any other format. However, as
mentioned above, there is no inflexibility in this
regard and an employer could deviate from the
terms of the bid document but only within the
parameters mentioned above.”
31. From the afore-quoted judgments, as
indicated above, it is clear that when a thing has to be done in a
particular manner that should be done in that manner alone. In
the present case, clause-5 of the Appendix- V appended to the
notification dated 14.09.2006 clearly indicates that 15 days prior
notice should have been given to the project proponents for
Patna High Court CWJC No.5104 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
24/26
holding of the meeting of the EAC/SEAC for considering the
project proposal, but, the notice was given to the project
proponents i.e. the petitioners merely a day prior to holding of
the said meeting, which is totally in contravention of the
aforesaid clause and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the afore-quoted judgments.
32. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioners
should have been heard by the SIEAA at the time of
consideration of grant of environmental clearance because the
petitioners could have produced the relevant materials including
the letters dated 29.12.2023 and 16.01.2024 in support of their
claim i.e. mining not being possible at the sites which were
advertised by the State. Further, this Court is also of the
considered opinion that the condition prescribed in the
notification for granting at least 15 days notice to the project
proponents is a mandatory condition. It is noted that when the
petitioners wanted at least 48 hours time in order to enable them
to appear and participate in the meeting for producing relevant
materials then the same ought to have been allowed by the
respondents and refusal of the same indicates towards
arbitrariness on the part of the respondents and therefore, such
recommendations are vitiated and unsustainable.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5104 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
25/26
33. Accordingly, the agenda of the meeting dated
03.08.2024 of the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee
(SEAC) which had recommended the issuance of environmental
clearance to the SEIAA is vitiated. The respective agenda items
are hereby quashed and set aside in the following manner:-
C.W.J.C. Nos. Agenda Item number of the
44th Meeting of the SEAC,
Bihar dated 03.08.2024
1. C.W.J.C. No. 5104 of 2025 Agenda Item No. 06
2. C.W.J.C. No. 5118 of 2025 Agenda Item No. 04
3. C.W.J.C. No. 5112 of 2025 Agenda Item No. 05
4. C.W.J.C. No. 5147 of 2025 Agenda Item No. 10
5. C.W.J.C. No. 5746 of 2025 Agenda Item No. 12
6. C.W.J.C. No. 5328 of 2025 Agenda Item No. 10
34. As a consequence of quashing the agenda
items, the recommendations made for the Environmental
Clearances does not stand and accordingly, the Environmental
Clearance issued by the competent authority vide letters dated
17.01.2025 with respect to the present writ petitioners are also
quashed and set aide.
35. The respondent authorities are directed to
reconsider the respective project proposals of the petitioners
from the stage of appraisal in accordance with clause- 5 of
Appendix- V appended to the EIA notification dated 14.09.2006
by giving at least 15 days prior notice to the project proponents
Patna High Court CWJC No.5104 of 2025 dt.20-01-2026
26/26
before holding the meeting.
36. Since this Court has directed for
reconsideration of the project proposals of the petitioners afresh
after affording a reasonable opportunity, the respondents are
restrained from taking any coercive steps against these
petitioners till the conclusion of reconsideration of the cases of
the petitioners.
37. With the aforesaid observations and
directions, these writ petitions are allowed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
pawan/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE 20.11.2025
Uploading Date 20.01.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…