Premium

World faces environmental decline: Jharkhand High Court rejects pleas of brick kiln owners, backs green taxes

Brick kiln environmental tax: Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Arun Kumar Rai heard 16 petitions from East Singhbhum brick kiln owners challenging three specific charges- DMFT contributions, management fees, and environmental cess.

The Jharkhand High Court said that the reason for creating DMFT is to create a fund to compensate for the loss incurred to the environment due to the mining operations.Jharkhand High Court News: The Jharkhand High Court said that the reason for creating DMFT is to create a fund to compensate for the loss incurred to the environment due to the mining operations.(Image created using AI)

Jharkhand High Court News: Observing that the entire world is facing a serious problem of environmental degradation due to “indiscriminate development”, the Jharkhand High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by brick kiln owners challenging the imposition of environmental taxes.

A bench of Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Arun Kumar Rai was hearing a batch of 16 writ petitions filed by brick kiln owners opposing the levy of District Mineral Foundation Trust (DMFT) contribution, management fee and environmental cess imposed by the district administration of East Singhbhum.

“The entire world is facing a serious problem of environmental degradation due to indiscriminate development. Industrialization, burning of fossil fuels and massive deforestation are leading to degradation of the environment,” said the January 15 order referring to a Supreme Court verdict.

The DMFT, a non-profit body established in mining-affected districts to work for the welfare of people and areas impacted by mining, funded by contributions from mining lease holders.

The soil is an integral part as a raw material and, hence, removal of soil from the earth is having adverse impact on the environment and it also creates water pollution and air pollution, said Jharkhand High Court. The soil is an integral part as a raw material and, hence, removal of soil from the earth is having adverse impact on the environment, said the Jharkhand High Court. (Image enhanced using AI)

Findings

  • The soil is an integral part as a raw material and, hence, removal of soil from the earth is having adverse impact on the environment and it also creates water pollution and air pollution.
  • The manufacturing process of bricks where the soil is being used as a raw-material and both cannot be segregated hence, the adverse impact is there in the environment, therefore, requirement to deposit the amount in the DMFT fund cannot be denied.
  • The mines and minerals are natural resources and the State is the custodian in addition to that it is the accountability and duty of each and every citizen to maintain the environment so as to maintain the sustainable development.
  • If one part of the globe is being allowed to be imbalanced without taking protective measures as per the objects and intents of these Acts (laws in place to protect the environment), then, there would be adverse impact in the whole globe putting in danger to the people at large worldwide.
  • The statutory mandate is to maintain the environmental balance vis-a-vis the issue of development.
  • The soil over the surface of the earth is a part of our environment and to preserve it from so many things like erosion etc. various Acts have been formulated.
  • The soil being integral part for the manufacturing of brick kilns process, and the brick-kiln in process having adverse impact upon the environment as such the requirement as has been provided in the different statutory provisions under the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004.
  • The reason for creating DMFT is only for the purpose of creating a fund, so as to compensate for the loss incurred to the environment due to the mining operation.
  • The basic underlying object of creation for the purpose of DMFT fund is that if the natural resources are being utilized then the mines operators are obliged to pay something to the society.
  • The question of DMFT therefore also comes into play due to removal of soil from the earth and the soil being a part of the natural resources for the purpose of manufacturing the bricks kiln.
  • The manufacturers are liable to make payment in the DMFT fund to achieve the object and intent of the provisions of the law.

Background

  • The petitioners, including Jharkhand Int Nirmata Sangh and 15 other brick kiln owners operating in the East Singhbhum district, had approached the high court against notices issued by the district mining officer.
  • A notice was issued by the district administration on December 29, 2020 to a brick kiln unit to deposit Rs 17,100 towards DMFT, Rs 2,019 as management fee, and Rs 570 as environmental cess.
  • The brick kiln owners moved to the high court opposing the notice.
  • In their plea, they argued that soil used for brick-making does not fall within the category of minerals and should not attract DMFT contributions or require environmental clearance and consent to operate under the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004.
  • The high court heard the matter and reserved the judgment on December 17, 2025.

Arguments

  • Advocate Indrajit Sinha, appearing for the petitioners submitted that removal of soil for brick kilns does not cause environmental harm.
  • Environmental clearance and consent under pollution laws are required only for operating brick kilns, not for extraction of soil.
  • Brick kilns do not fall within the definition of “mining operations”, and hence DMFT contributions are not applicable.
  • Advocate Shray Mishra, appearing for the state government opposing the plea submitted that soil, brick-earth and ordinary clay are notified as minor minerals under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.
  • Extraction of soil is an integral part of brick manufacturing and has environmental consequences including air, water and land degradation.
  • Under Rule 34(I) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, compliance with environmental laws and payment of DMFT is mandatory for permit holders.

Vineet Upadhyay is an Assistant Editor with The Indian Express, where he leads specialized coverage of the Indian judicial system. Expertise Specialized Legal Authority: Vineet has spent the better part of his career analyzing the intricacies of the law. His expertise lies in "demystifying" judgments from the Supreme Court of India, various High Courts, and District Courts. His reporting covers a vast spectrum of legal issues, including: Constitutional & Civil Rights: Reporting on landmark rulings regarding privacy, equality, and state accountability. Criminal Justice & Enforcement: Detailed coverage of high-profile cases involving the Enforcement Directorate (ED), NIA, and POCSO matters. Consumer Rights & Environmental Law: Authoritative pieces on medical negligence compensation, environmental protection (such as the "living person" status of rivers), and labor rights. Over a Decade of Professional Experience: Prior to joining The Indian Express, he served as a Principal Correspondent/Legal Reporter for The Times of India and held significant roles at The New Indian Express. His tenure has seen him report from critical legal hubs, including Delhi and Uttarakhand. ... Read More

 

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement
Loading Taboola...
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement