NGT Dismisses Sandstone Miners' Appeals Against Environmental Compensation Imposed by Rajasthan PCB for TTZ-Area Violations
The NGT Central Zone Bench dismissed 23 appeals by Bharatpur sandstone miners challenging environmental compensation orders issued by the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board for breaches of EC conditions near the Taj Trapezium Zone.
The National Green Tribunal's Central Zone Bench at Bhopal dismissed 23 consolidated appeals filed by sandstone mining leaseholders operating in the Paharpur cluster, Bharatpur district, Rajasthan, on 8 May 2026. The appellants had challenged show cause notices and subsequent environmental compensation orders issued by the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (RSPCB) for non-compliance with environmental clearance conditions and environmental rules. The Bench, comprising Justice Sheo Kumar Singh (Judicial Member) and Sudhir Kumar Chaturvedi (Expert Member), held that the RSPCB had the statutory power to impose and recover environmental compensation under Section 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, that the CPCB-prescribed calculation methodology was valid, and that no cognisable breach of natural justice had occurred. The total compensation imposed across 27 mining leaseholders amounts to approximately ₹4.6 crore, none of which had been deposited at the time of the order.
The Mining Cluster and Its Regulatory History
The appeals arose from sandstone mining operations in the Bansi Pahadpur-A and Bansi Pahadpur-B blocks in Bharatpur district. These two blocks, admeasuring 221.75 hectares and 424.81 hectares respectively, had originally been notified as part of the Eco-Sensitive Zone of the Bandh-Baretha Wildlife Sanctuary. On 18 May 2021, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) de-notified them by gazette notification following requests from the Rajasthan state government. Auction notices for sandstone mining leases followed in October 2021, and an Environmental Clearance for the Paharpur Sandstone Cluster Mining Project was granted on 24 March 2022.
The de-notified area falls within the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ), a designated region subject to strict environmental controls under Supreme Court directions. The TTZ encompasses three World Heritage Sites — the Taj Mahal, Agra Fort, and Fatehpur Sikri. A Supreme Court order dated 17 November 2004 in Waseem Ahmed Saeed v. Union of India had prohibited blasting operations within 10 km of the Shrine of Darga Saleem Chisti, Fatehpur Sikri. The mining project, categorised as a Red Category project, involved blasting within 10 km of the TTZ.
An Original Application (O.A. No. 96/2023) had earlier been filed before the Tribunal raising concerns about the mining operations. In its order dated 1 September 2023 in that matter, the Tribunal directed that if mining leases were found to be in violation of environmental rules, EC conditions, and Supreme Court orders concerning the TTZ, necessary action must be initiated immediately. A joint committee inspection on 26 September 2023 identified specific deficiencies across the mining leases.
Deficiencies Found During Inspection
The joint committee's inspection report of 26 September 2023 recorded five categories of non-compliance. Plantation at the mining sites was found to be inadequate. Metalled approach roads to the mining sites had not been provided. Continuous Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Stations, required to be installed at site, were absent. Overburden was found actively dumped in an unscientific manner with no stabilisation activity. Water sprinkling for dust suppression was not being carried out with any permanent arrangement.
Air quality sampling data compiled by the committee showed that PM10 and PM2.5 parameters exceeded prescribed limits. The committee attributed this to dust emissions from vehicular movement on unmetalled approach roads and inadequate water sprinkling. A separate report from the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Bharatpur, communicated in July 2024, noted that approximately 30 instances of illegal mining had been reported between March and July 2024, with the Forest Department seizing machinery and imposing penalties.
The RSPCB's Enforcement Steps
Following the Tribunal's order of 1 September 2023, the RSPCB conducted inspections of the mining leases. Show cause notices were issued on 29 September 2023 to all mining leaseholders identifying the discrepancies. Only six leaseholders submitted replies, which the RSPCB found inadequate and incomplete.
After the Tribunal's further order of 21 March 2024 directing strict action including assessment and recovery of environmental compensation in cases of violations, the RSPCB issued 27 show cause notices on 5 April 2024 explicitly outlining the deficiencies. Verification of the mining leases was conducted in May 2024. None of the leaseholders furnished compliance within the stipulated time. The RSPCB issued a final order on 5 July 2024 directing deposition of environmental compensation. Reminders followed on 30 August 2024 and notices on 18 October 2024. Notices of intended revocation of Consent to Operate under the Air Act were issued to the 27 leaseholders on 20 December 2024. Only 11 leaseholders submitted replies to those revocation notices.
Arguments by the Appellants
Counsel for the appellants — Mr. Sandeep Singh Shekhawat, Mr. Yadvendra Yadav, and Mr. Lokendra Singh Kachhawa — advanced three principal contentions.
First, they argued that the RSPCB lacked jurisdiction to impose environmental compensation, relying on the Allahabad High Court's decision in Suez India Pvt. Ltd. v. Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (Writ (C) No. 4816/2024). They also relied on Kantha Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj Parivartan Trust v. State of Gujarat (2023) 13 SCC 525, contending that adjudicatory functions cannot be delegated and must be exercised by the Tribunal itself. A further ground was drawn from DPCC v. Lodhi Property Co. Ltd. (2026) 2 SCC 670, arguing that the power to impose environmental compensation is conditional and subject to strict procedural safeguards.
Second, the appellants contended that the procedure and guidelines had not been followed and that no adequate opportunity of hearing had been given. They relied on Mewar Mavels Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan (D.B. SW 398/2001, Rajasthan High Court) and the Supreme Court's decision in Triveni Engineering and Industries v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2026) 2 SCC 729, which concerned sampling procedures under the Water Act.
Third, the appellants argued that the RSPCB had not applied its mind while issuing the compensation orders.
On the merits of the underlying violations, some appellants submitted that they had already taken steps to develop greenbelt, had conducted ambient air quality monitoring through NABL/MoEF-approved laboratories, and had been carrying out water sprinkling twice daily. They also contended that overburden dumps at their sites were small and had been placed in accordance with the approved mining plan.
The RSPCB's Response
Counsel for the RSPCB, Mr. Rohit Sharma, submitted that show cause notices had been duly issued and served, that some appellants had in fact submitted replies which were considered, and that the final compensation order of 5 July 2024 was passed only after following due process in compliance with the Tribunal's order of 21 March 2024. He argued that the appellants' claim of receiving no prior notice was factually incorrect, pointing to notices issued on 6 June 2024 both by email and registered post.
On the natural justice argument, the RSPCB submitted that the sampling provisions under the Water Act relied upon by the appellants were not applicable to the present violations, which concerned inadequate plantation, unmetalled roads, absence of continuous air quality monitoring, unscientific overburden dumping, and inadequate water sprinkling — none of which involved water sampling procedures.
On jurisdiction, the RSPCB relied on the Supreme Court's order dated 4 August 2025 in DPCC v. Lodhi Property Co. Ltd. (Civil Appeal Nos. 757-760 of 2013), which examined the scope of Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and Section 31A of the Air Act, and held that State Boards are authorised to issue directions for restitutionary and compensatory damages as a remedial measure for environmental damage, distinct from punitive action under the penal chapters of those Acts.
How the Tribunal Reasoned
On natural justice, the Bench found that show cause notices had been issued and that some appellants had submitted replies which were duly considered. The Bench held that the appellants had not demonstrated any real prejudice caused by any procedural irregularity. Drawing on a line of Supreme Court decisions including Chairman, Board of Mining Examination v. Ramjee AIR 1977 SC 965, Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel AIR 1985 SC 1416, and State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma (1996) 3 SCC 364, the Bench held that the principle of natural justice is not a blanket rule of absolute application and that procedural violations do not automatically vitiate an order unless real prejudice is shown. The Bench observed that “opportunity of hearing means to provide the opportunity not to compel and force to attend the proceedings.”
On non-application of mind, the Bench relied on the Supreme Court's analysis in Rajeev Soori v. Delhi Development Authority (2021) SCC Online SC 7, holding that absence of elaborate reasons does not render an administrative order illegal where the decision-making body has applied its mind to the material before it and where no express statutory requirement for a reasoned order exists.
On jurisdiction and the power to impose environmental compensation, the Bench accepted the RSPCB's position based on the Supreme Court's 4 August 2025 ruling in DPCC v. Lodhi Property Co. Ltd. The Bench held that Section 31A of the Air Act and Section 33A of the Water Act empower State Boards to direct payment of restitutionary and compensatory damages as a remedial measure, and that this power is distinct from the punitive proceedings under Chapters VI and VII of the Air and Water Acts respectively. The Bench noted that after the 1988 amendments to both Acts, there is no conflict between these two sets of powers.
On the CPCB calculation methodology, the Bench found that the appellants had not pointed to any specific error in the calculation. The Bench noted that the methodology is based on an index of the nature and duration of violations, calculated from the date of inspection rather than the date of violation, and that this approach had been upheld by the Supreme Court in M/s Rhythm County v. Satish Sanjay Hegde (2026) INSC 102, Civil Appeal No. 7187 of 2022, decided on 30 January 2026. The Bench observed that the CPCB methodology had been framed after consultation with State Pollution Control Boards across all States and Union Territories and had been approved by the Tribunal in earlier proceedings.
The Bench also addressed the appellants' argument that the Tribunal's earlier order in O.A. No. 96/2023 — which had declined to quash the MoEF&CC notifications and the Environmental Clearance — meant that the RSPCB's enforcement proceedings were impermissible. The Bench rejected this, holding that the earlier order had in fact recorded violations of environmental rules and directed the concerned departments to ensure compliance with Supreme Court orders on TTZ matters, the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines 2016, and the Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining 2020. The RSPCB's enforcement action was therefore consistent with, not contrary to, that order.
The Bench applied the polluter pays principle, drawing on Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647, T.N. Godhavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (2025) 2 SCC 641, and M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (2006) 6 SCC 213. It held that the purpose of environmental compensation is restitution and remediation, not closure of units, and that the RSPCB had appropriately chosen the compensation route over the more drastic options of closure or disconnection of electricity.
Order
The Bench dismissed all 23 appeals along with the pending interlocutory applications. It directed that the environmental compensation amounts be deposited into the environmental fund and utilised for restoring the damaged environment through remedial actions in accordance with rules. The order covers Appeal Nos. 16 to 27/2024 (CZ), 29 to 36/2024 (CZ), 38 to 39/2024 (CZ), and 02/2025 (CZ). The order was reserved on 5 May 2026 and uploaded on 8 May 2026.