Patna High Court
Raushan Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 7 March, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9149 of 2024
======================================================
1. Raushan Kumar S/o Late Anil Prasad, resident of Village- Dev Gaon Police
Station Khijersarai, District- Gaya
2. Akshay Kumar, S/o Raghav Sharan Mehta, resident of Village- Dev Gaon
Police Station Khijersarai, District- Gaya.
3. Pintu Kumar, S/o Krishna Deo Prasad, resident of Village- Dev Gaon Police
Station Khijersarai, District- Gaya.
4. Shyam Deo Prasad @ Chandramani Prasad , S/o Late Shiv Brat Prasad,
resident of village- Lodipur, Police Station- Khijersarai, District- Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Mines Government
of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya.
3. The District Magistrate, Gaya.
4. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Gaya.
5. The District Mines Officer, Gaya.
6. The Programme Officer, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment
Guarantee Act, 2005, Khijersarai, Gaya.
7. M/s Siya Ram Construction, through its partner namely Amit Kumar,
Mohalla- Lakhi Bagh, Police Station-Manpur, District- Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. P.K.Shahi, Advocate General
For the Mining Dept. : Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Advocate
Ms. Kalpana, Advocate
For the Respondent No.7: Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Kanupriya, Advocate
Mr. Abhishek Anand, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 07-03-2025
This petition in public interest has been filed for
preventing the authorities from felling approximately
Patna High Court CWJC No.9149 of 2024 dt.07-03-2025
2/4
18,000 trees which had been planted over the geo-
coordinates of the sand ghats falling in “environment
clearance” area in the district of Gaya.
2. The respondent No.7 had been given the
licence to excavate sand, which was necessary for
controlling the flow of river. However, the site position
made it difficult for the contractor to commence with this
work because by the time the license was granted,
18,000 trees which had earlier been planted had fully
grown and without the felling those trees, perhaps no
work could have commenced for excavating the sand.
3. From the petition, it appears that initially the
Mines Department which had given the licence had
questioned the District Administration about planting of
such trees without the permission of the Mining
Department, notwithstanding the fact that such plantation
was made in the environment clearance area necessarily
requiring the permission of the Mines Department.
4. It further appears from the writ petition as
Patna High Court CWJC No.9149 of 2024 dt.07-03-2025
3/4
also from various orders of this Court that the District
Magistrate had agreed for removing the blockage because
of the trees for the sand to be excavated.
5. However petitioners, the public spirited
citizens, came before this Court and obtained a stay
order.
6. Today, Ms. Kanupriya, the Advocate for the
respondent No.7 submits that looking at the size of the
trees and the advantages of trees near the bank of river,
the respondent No.7 does not insist for clearance of the
area for operating under the lease/licence for excavating
sand.
7. All that respondent No.7 would now be
interested in, is the permission to surrender the lease and
have the amount refunded. Necessary application in that
regard has been filed before the Mines Department which,
as the learned Advocate for the Mines Department has
stated before this Court, shall be considered and
necessary orders would be passed in accordance with law.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9149 of 2024 dt.07-03-2025
4/4
8. Since no excavation process ever began, it is
expected that Mines Department shall not put respondent
No.7 to any disadvantage by withholding any amount
which ought to be refunded as per the law, to respondent
No.7.
9. There would be no requirement of felling
those trees under any circumstance whatsoever.
10. The writ petition stands disposed off.
(Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ)
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Saurabh/Rajesh
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 12.03.2025
Transmission Date NA