The Jharkhand High Court has firmly rejected petitions from brick kiln owners who challenged environmental taxes. A bench comprising Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Arun Kumar Rai delivered this significant ruling. The court heard sixteen separate writ petitions from owners operating in East Singhbhum district.
Court Cites Global Environmental Crisis
In its January 15 order, the court highlighted a pressing global issue. The entire world faces serious environmental degradation due to what it called "indiscriminate development." Industrial activities, fossil fuel burning, and massive deforestation contribute directly to this deterioration. The bench referenced a Supreme Court verdict to underscore this point.
Specific Charges Under Scrutiny
The brick kiln owners specifically contested three types of charges imposed by the district administration. These included contributions to the District Mineral Foundation Trust (DMFT), management fees, and an environmental cess. The court examined each charge thoroughly before making its decision.
Soil Removal Has Adverse Environmental Impact
The court provided clear reasoning for its judgment. Soil serves as an integral raw material for brick manufacturing. Removing soil from the earth creates significant adverse environmental effects. This process leads to water pollution and air pollution. Since soil and the manufacturing process cannot be separated, the environmental impact remains unavoidable.
The bench emphasized that soil covering the earth's surface forms part of our environment. Various acts exist to preserve it from erosion and other damages. Because brick manufacturing uses soil and adversely affects the environment, compliance with statutory provisions becomes mandatory.
Purpose of DMFT Contributions
The court explained the fundamental purpose behind DMFT. This non-profit body operates in mining-affected districts to support people and areas impacted by mining operations. Mining lease holders fund it through contributions. The primary reason for creating DMFT involves establishing a fund to compensate for environmental losses caused by mining.
When natural resources get utilized, mine operators must pay something back to society. This principle underlies the DMFT fund's creation. Since soil removal for brick kilns involves using natural resources, the question of DMFT contributions naturally arises. Manufacturers must pay into the DMFT fund to fulfill the law's objectives.
Background of the Legal Challenge
The petitioners included Jharkhand Int Nirmata Sangh and fifteen other brick kiln owners from East Singhbhum district. They approached the high court challenging notices issued by the district mining officer. One notice from December 29, 2020, directed a brick kiln unit to deposit specific amounts: Rs 17,100 for DMFT, Rs 2,019 as management fee, and Rs 570 as environmental cess.
Owners opposed this notice in court. They argued that soil used for brick-making does not qualify as minerals. Therefore, it should not attract DMFT contributions or require environmental clearance under the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004. The high court heard arguments and reserved judgment on December 17, 2025.
Arguments Presented by Both Sides
Advocate Indrajit Sinha represented the petitioners. He submitted that removing soil for brick kilns does not cause environmental harm. Environmental clearance and consent under pollution laws apply only to operating brick kilns, not soil extraction. Brick kilns fall outside the definition of "mining operations," making DMFT contributions inapplicable.
Advocate Shray Mishra appeared for the state government opposing the plea. He argued that soil, brick-earth, and ordinary clay qualify as notified minor minerals under the Mines and Minerals Act, 1957. Soil extraction forms an integral part of brick manufacturing and carries environmental consequences including air, water, and land degradation. Under Rule 34(I) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, compliance with environmental laws and DMFT payment remains mandatory for permit holders.
Broader Implications of the Ruling
The court's decision carries wider significance. Mines and minerals represent natural resources, with the state acting as their custodian. Every citizen bears accountability and duty to maintain the environment for sustainable development. If one part of the globe becomes imbalanced without protective measures, adverse impacts could endanger people worldwide.
The statutory mandate requires maintaining environmental balance alongside development issues. The court stressed that allowing imbalance without following environmental protection laws would jeopardize the entire globe. This ruling reinforces the legal framework designed to preserve environmental equilibrium while addressing developmental needs.
