NGT Dismisses Sandstone Miners' Appeals Against Environmental Compensation Imposed by Rajasthan PCB for Violations in Taj Trapezium Zone
The NGT Central Zone Bench dismissed 23 appeals by Bharatpur sandstone miners, upholding environmental compensation of approximately Rs 4.6 crore imposed by the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board for non-compliance with environmental conditions in the Taj Trapezium Zone.
Twenty-three sandstone mining operators in Bharatpur district, Rajasthan, challenged show cause notices and environmental compensation orders issued by the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (RSPCB) for breaches of environmental conditions attached to their mining leases. The National Green Tribunal's Central Zone Bench at Bhopal, comprising Justice Sheo Kumar Singh (Judicial Member) and Sudhir Kumar Chaturvedi (Expert Member), heard all appeals together on the ground that they raised common questions of law and fact. By a judgment dated 8 May 2026, the Bench dismissed every appeal. It held that the RSPCB had the statutory power to impose environmental compensation under Section 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, that the principles of natural justice had been observed, and that the CPCB-prescribed methodology for calculating environmental damage was valid and had not been specifically challenged by any appellant.
The Mining Cluster and Its Regulatory History
The appeals arose from sandstone mining operations in the Paharpur cluster, Bharatpur district, conducted under approximately 42 leases granted for 50 years. The cluster falls within the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ) — the area encompassing the Taj Mahal, Agra Fort, and Fatehpur Sikri, all World Heritage Sites. Two blocks, Bansi Pahadpur-A (221.75 hectares) and Bansi Pahadpur-B (424.81 hectares), had been de-notified from the Eco-Sensitive Zone of the Bandh-Baretha Wildlife Sanctuary by a MoEF&CC Gazette Notification dated 18 May 2021, following requests from the Rajasthan state government. An Environmental Clearance for the Paharpur Sandstone Mining Project was granted on 24 March 2022.
The TTZ carries a specific legal overlay. The Supreme Court, in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987 AIR 1086), directed that atmospheric pollution in the TTZ must be eliminated. A later Supreme Court order dated 16 December 2019 in W.P.(C) No. 13381 of 1984 clarified that only small, micro, and macro level industries that are both non-polluting and eco-friendly may be set up within the TTZ, and that an embargo on clearances for heavy industry continues until a final decision on the vision document is taken.
An original application, O.A. No. 96/2023 (CZ), had already been filed before the Tribunal raising concerns about the cluster. 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 five categories of deficiency across the leases: inadequate plantation, absence of a metalled approach road, no Continuous Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Station (CAAQMS), overburden dumped in an unscientific manner, and inadequate water sprinkling for dust suppression. Air quality sampling confirmed that PM10 and PM2.5 levels exceeded prescribed limits, attributed to vehicular movement on unmettalled roads and insufficient dust suppression.
The RSPCB's Enforcement Steps
Acting on the Tribunal's directions, the RSPCB issued show cause notices on 29 September 2023 to all mining leaseholders. Only six submitted replies, which the Board found inadequate. The Tribunal, in a further order dated 21 March 2024 in O.A. No. 96/2023, directed that in cases of violations, strict action must be taken including assessment and recovery of environmental compensation. On 5 April 2024, the RSPCB issued 27 fresh show cause notices explicitly listing the deficiencies. Verification in May 2024 found that none of the leaseholders had furnished compliance within the stipulated time. On 5 July 2024, the RSPCB issued a final order directing 27 mining leaseholders to deposit environmental compensation. Reminders followed on 30 August 2024 and notices on 18 October 2024. The total compensation imposed on the 27 leaseholders amounted to approximately Rs 4.6 crore. Not a single payment had been made by the time the appeals were heard.
Separately, on 20 December 2024, the RSPCB issued notices of intended revocation of Consent to Operate under the Air Act to the same 27 leaseholders. Only 11 submitted replies to those notices.
The Deputy Conservator of Forests, Bharatpur, also reported to the Tribunal that between March and July 2024, approximately 30 instances of illegal mining had been detected, leading to seizure of machinery and imposition of penalties by the Forest Department.
What the Appellants Argued
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 had no jurisdiction to impose environmental compensation. They relied on a judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Suez India Pvt. Ltd. v. Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (Writ (C) No. 4816/2024), which they said held that a State PCB has no power to impose penalty or compensation. They also cited Kantha Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj Parivartan Trust v. State of Gujarat ((2023) 13 SCC 525) for the proposition that adjudicatory functions cannot be delegated and must be exercised by the Tribunal itself, and DPCC v. Lodhi Property Co. Ltd. ((2026) 2 SCC 670) for the argument that the power to impose environmental compensation is conditional and subject to strict procedural safeguards.
Second, they contended that the principles of natural justice had been violated because no adequate opportunity of hearing was given before the compensation was assessed. They relied on Mewar Mavels Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan (D.B. SW 398/2001, Rajasthan High Court) and Triveni Engineering and Industries v. State of Uttar Pradesh ((2026) 2 SCC 729), both of which concerned sampling procedures under the Water Act.
Third, they argued that the RSPCB had not applied its mind while issuing the orders, and that the scientific calculation of environmental damage was flawed.
On the merits, some appellants had filed replies to the show cause notices asserting that greenbelt development was underway, that the mining lease was close to an existing metalled road, that the lease area was too small to justify a CAAQMS, that overburden had been created by earlier operators, and that water sprinkling was being carried out twice daily.
The RSPCB's Defence
Counsel for the RSPCB, Mr. Rohit Sharma, submitted that the entire enforcement chain flowed from the Tribunal's own directions in O.A. No. 96/2023. Show cause notices had been issued, replies had been considered where submitted, and the final compensation order of 5 July 2024 was passed only after due process. The Board argued that the cases cited by the appellants on sampling procedures under the Water Act were inapplicable because the violations here concerned plantation, road conditions, CAAQMS installation, overburden management, and dust suppression — none of which involved water sampling. On natural justice, the Board argued that opportunity of hearing means providing the opportunity, not compelling attendance; if appellants chose not to respond, the fault lay with them. Nothing had been shown to demonstrate actual prejudice.
The Tribunal's Reasoning
The Bench addressed each ground in turn.
On jurisdiction: The Tribunal held that Section 31A of the Air Act and Section 33A of the Water Act, as amended in 1988, confer broad power on State Boards to issue directions in writing, including directions for payment of restitutionary and compensatory damages. It drew on the Supreme Court's detailed analysis in DPCC v. Lodhi Property Co. Ltd. (Civil Appeal Nos. 757-760 of 2013, decided 4 August 2025), which the Bench quoted at length. That judgment distinguished between restitutionary and compensatory directions under Sections 33A and 31A on the one hand, and punitive action under Chapters VII and VI of the Water and Air Acts on the other. The two are not in conflict; both can operate simultaneously. The Bench held that the RSPCB had adopted the better of the available options — compensation and remediation — rather than closure or disconnection of electricity, which would have caused national, social, and economic loss.
On natural justice: The Bench found that show cause notices had been issued and that some appellants had in fact submitted replies which were considered. It held that the cases on Water Act sampling procedures cited by the appellants were not applicable to the present violations. Reviewing 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 natural justice is not a blanket rule of uniform application. Where there is no proof of actual prejudice, and where the decision is based on a scientific report that has not been specifically challenged, a technical infraction does not vitiate the order. The Bench observed: “opportunity of hearing means to provide the opportunity not to compel and force to attend the proceedings.”
On the calculation methodology: The Bench noted that the CPCB had constituted a Technical Expert Committee to frame guidelines for calculating environmental compensation, and those guidelines had been approved and published. The appellants had not identified any specific error in the calculation, had not suggested a better methodology, and had not alleged bias. The Bench relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in M/s Rhythm County v. Satish Sanjay Hegde (Civil Appeal No. 7187 of 2022, decided 30 January 2026, (2026) INSC 102), which held that the CPCB formula methodology is permissible and that its use in adjudicatory functions for restitution and corrective interventions is appropriate. The Bench also noted that the RSPCB had calculated compensation from the date of inspection rather than the date of violation, which it found to be a conservative approach.
On the appellants' broader argument that the RSPCB's proceedings were inconsistent with the Tribunal's earlier order in O.A. No. 96/2023: The Bench rejected this. It held that the earlier order had itself directed compliance with Supreme Court orders on TTZ matters, improvement of plantation and dust suppression, and strict action for non-compliance. The RSPCB's enforcement was a direct consequence of those directions, not contrary to them.
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).