NGT Dismisses 23 Sandstone Miners' Appeals, Upholds Environmental Compensation Imposed by Rajasthan PCB for Violations in Bharatpur Cluster
The NGT Central Zone Bench dismissed appeals by 23 sandstone mining leaseholders in Bharatpur, Rajasthan, upholding environmental compensation totalling approximately Rs 4.6 crores imposed by the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board for non-compliance with environmental conditions.
The National Green Tribunal's Central Zone Bench at Bhopal, comprising Justice Sheo Kumar Singh (Judicial Member) and Sudhir Kumar Chaturvedi (Expert Member), on 8 May 2026 dismissed 23 connected appeals filed by sandstone mining leaseholders operating in the Paharpur cluster, Bharatpur district, Rajasthan. The appellants had challenged show cause notices and subsequent orders of the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (RSPCB) assessing environmental compensation and initiating revocation of their Consent to Operate under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The Bench held that the RSPCB had the statutory power to impose such compensation under Section 31A of the Air Act, that the CPCB-approved methodology for calculating environmental damage was valid, and that no prejudice had been demonstrated by the appellants to sustain a natural justice challenge. The total environmental compensation imposed on 27 mining leaseholders across the cluster amounts to approximately Rs 4.6 crores, and not a single payment had been made as of the date of the order.
The Dispute Before the Tribunal
The appeals arose from a joint committee inspection conducted on 26 September 2023 of sandstone mining leases in the Bansi Pahadpur-A and Bansi Pahadpur-B blocks, Bharatpur district. The inspection identified five categories of deficiency: inadequate plantation at the mining site; absence of a metalled approach road; failure to install a Continuous Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Station; overburden dumped in an unscientific manner with no stabilisation activity; and inadequate water sprinkling for dust suppression.
On the basis of these findings, the RSPCB issued show cause notices on 29 September 2023 to all mining leaseholders. Only six leaseholders submitted replies, which were found inadequate. Following a further Tribunal direction in OA No. 96/2023 on 21 March 2024 that strict action must be taken in cases of violation, the RSPCB issued 27 show cause notices on 5 April 2024 explicitly outlining the deficiencies. Verification of the leases was conducted in May 2024. None of the leaseholders furnished compliance within the stipulated time. A final order was passed on 5 July 2024 directing deposition of environmental compensation. Reminders followed on 30 August 2024 and notices on 18 October 2024. No payment was made. On 20 December 2024, the RSPCB issued notices of intended revocation of Consent to Operate to the 27 leaseholders under the Air Act. Only 11 submitted replies to those notices.
The appellants — including M/s Jai Girraj Stones, M/s Kapil Agrawal, M/s Deepraj Singh, M/s Devdashrath Royalties Pvt. Ltd., Anil Kanti Prasad Poddar, M/s Shiv Shankar Stones Suppliers, M/s Krishna Associates, Pankaj Tiwari, M/s Faujdar Constructions Pvt. Ltd., M/s R.B. Distributors Pvt. Ltd., M/s K.K. Gupta Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Jagat Choudhary, Madhukar Malviya, and M/s Sunlight Minerals — challenged these actions before the Tribunal.
The Broader Environmental Context: TTZ and OA No. 96/2023
The Paharpur sandstone cluster sits within the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ). The Bansi Pahadpur-A block (221.75 hectares) and Bansi Pahadpur-B block (424.81 hectares) were de-notified from the eco-sensitive zone of the Bandh-Baretha Wildlife Sanctuary by MoEF&CC notifications in April and May 2021. An Environmental Clearance for the Paharpur Sandstone Mining Project was granted on 24 March 2022.
An original application, OA No. 96/2023 (Yadram v. State of Rajasthan), had been filed before the Tribunal challenging the de-notification and the EC on grounds including proximity to the TTZ, the absence of a reference to the Taj Trapezium Zone Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority, and the Supreme Court's directions in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India prohibiting blasting within 10 km of the Shrine of Darga Saleem Chisti, Fatehpur Sikri. Air quality data compiled by the committee showed PM10 and PM2.5 levels exceeding prescribed limits, attributed to vehicular movement on unmetalled roads and inadequate water sprinkling.
In that OA, the Tribunal had declined to quash the de-notification notifications of 26 December 2018 and 18 May 2021 as time-barred, and had similarly declined to set aside the EC dated 24 March 2022 as beyond limitation. However, it issued detailed directions: strict compliance with Supreme Court orders on TTZ matters; improvement of plantation using the Miyawaki Plantation Technique with barbed wire fencing; mandatory six-monthly compliance reports; periodic ambient air quality monitoring by the State PCB; installation of permanent water sprinklers and wheel-washing facilities; and metalling of the road network to prevent fugitive emissions.
The appellants argued before the Bench that since the Tribunal had declined to quash the notifications and the EC, the RSPCB's subsequent proceedings were contrary to the Tribunal's final order. The Bench rejected this. It held that the directions in OA No. 96/2023 had themselves identified environmental violations and directed remedial action, and the RSPCB's enforcement steps were consistent with, not contrary to, those directions.
Natural Justice: Whether Opportunity of Hearing Was Denied
The appellants' counsel — Mr. Sandeep Singh Shekhawat, Mr. Yadvendra Yadav, and Mr. Lokendra Singh Kachhawa — argued that the procedure and guidelines had not been followed and that the appellants had not been given an adequate opportunity of hearing. They relied on Mewar Mavels Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan (Rajasthan High Court, D.B. SW 398/2001) and the Supreme Court's decision in Triveni Engineering and Industries v. State of Uttar Pradesh: (2026) 2 SCC 729, both of which concerned sampling procedures under the Water Act.
The RSPCB's counsel, Mr. Rohit Sharma, countered that the violations in question — inadequate plantation, bad road condition, absence of a Continuous Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Station, unscientific overburden dumping, and inadequate water sprinkling — had nothing to do with water sampling procedures. Show cause notices had been issued, some appellants had received and replied to them, and those replies were considered. The Board had issued notices both by email and registered post on 6 June 2024 before passing the final order on 5 July 2024.
The Bench agreed with the RSPCB. It found that at least one notice of the same nature had been received by all appellants, and some had submitted replies that were duly considered. The Bench drew on a line of Supreme Court authority — 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 — to hold that natural justice is not a rigid formula and that the test is one of actual prejudice. The Bench observed that the appellants had not demonstrated what prejudice had been caused to them, and that the decisions of the RSPCB were based on a scientific report whose findings had not been specifically challenged.
The Bench also addressed the argument of non-application of mind, relying on Rajeev Soori v. Delhi Development Authority: (2021) SCC Online SC 7, to hold that absence of elaborate reasons does not render an administrative decision illegal where the decision is based on expert findings and the appellants have not pointed to any specific error in the reasoning.
Jurisdiction of the RSPCB to Impose Environmental Compensation
The appellants raised three distinct jurisdictional challenges. First, relying on Suez India Pvt. Ltd. v. Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (Allahabad High Court, Writ (C) No. 4816/2024), they argued that a State PCB has no jurisdiction to impose penalty or compensation. Second, relying on Kantha Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj Parivartan Trust v. State of Gujarat: (2023) 13 SCC 525, they argued that adjudicatory functions cannot be delegated and must be exercised by the Tribunal itself. Third, relying on DPCC v. Lodhi Property Co. Ltd.: (2026) 2 SCC 670, they argued that the power to impose environmental compensation is conditional and subject to strict procedural safeguards.
The Bench examined the Supreme Court's decision in DPCC v. Lodhi Property Co. Ltd. (Civil Appeal Nos. 757-760 of 2013, decided 4 August 2025) at length. That decision had addressed the core question of whether State Boards can, under Section 33A of the Water Act and Section 31A of the Air Act, impose and collect restitutionary and compensatory damages or require bank guarantees as an ex-ante measure towards potential environmental damage.
The Supreme Court in DPCC v. Lodhi Property Co. Ltd. had drawn a clear distinction between restitutionary and compensatory directions on the one hand, and punitive action under Chapters VII and VI of the Water and Air Acts on the other. It held that the Polluter Pays Principle is triggered not only when a prescribed threshold is exceeded and environmental damage results, but also when no threshold is exceeded yet damage results, and even when only a potential risk is anticipated. It confirmed that the powers of State Boards under Sections 33A and 31A are identical to the power of the Central Government under Section 5 of the Environment Protection Act to direct payment of amounts for remedial measures.
The Bench applied these principles to hold that the RSPCB was fully empowered to assess and recover environmental compensation from the appellants. It further held that such compensation is separate from and in addition to any penalty that may be imposed through the adjudicatory officer route under the respective Acts. The Bench also relied on the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Rhythm County v. Satish Sanjay Hegde: (2026) INSC 102 (Civil Appeal No. 7187 of 2022, decided 30 January 2026), which had held that the CPCB formula for determining environmental compensation is a permissible methodology and that its application in adjudicatory proceedings constitutes a valid exercise of the fact-finding and restitutionary function.
Validity of the CPCB Methodology for Calculating Compensation
The appellants did not specifically challenge any figure in the RSPCB's calculation. The Bench noted this gap. It observed that the CPCB methodology had been framed by a Technical Expert Committee constituted on the Tribunal's own directions, had been placed before the Tribunal, approved, and published after consultation with State PCBs and all States and Union Territories. The Bench held that the methodology cannot be challenged unless the person challenging it provides a better alternative or demonstrates bias or illegality in the specific calculation.
The Bench also noted that the RSPCB had calculated compensation from the date of inspection — when violations were found — rather than from the date of the violation itself, which the RSPCB had argued should be the starting point. The Bench found the RSPCB's approach reasonable and consistent with the index-based, violation-day methodology of the CPCB formula.
On the broader principle, the Bench drew on Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India: (1996) 5 SCC 647; Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board v. C. Kenchappa: (2006) 6 SCC 371; and T.N. Godhavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India: (2025) 2 SCC 641, to hold that the Tribunal is required to carry out preventive and protective measures and to hold authorities accountable for failing to uphold environmental interests. The Bench observed that challenging the power of the authority does not give a unit the right to continue violating environmental rules.
Order
The Bench dismissed all 23 appeals along with the pending interlocutory applications. It held that the appeals had no merit. It directed that the amounts of environmental damage compensation 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, 29 to 36, 38, 39 of 2024 (CZ) and Appeal No. 02 of 2025 (CZ). The order was reserved on 5 May 2026 and uploaded on 8 May 2026.