NGT Dismisses Sandstone Miners' Appeals Against Rajasthan PCB Environmental Compensation Orders

The NGT Central Zone Bench dismissed 23 appeals by Bharatpur sandstone miners challenging environmental compensation imposed by the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board for air quality and plantation violations.

The National Green Tribunal's Central Zone Bench at Bhopal dismissed 23 appeals filed by sandstone mining leaseholders operating in the Bharatpur district of Rajasthan, upholding environmental compensation orders issued by the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (RSPCB). The appellants had challenged show cause notices and subsequent compensation demands arising from a joint committee inspection in September 2023, which found multiple violations of environmental conditions attached to their mining leases. The total environmental compensation imposed on 27 mining leaseholders amounts to approximately Rs 4.6 crore, and not a single payment had been made before the Tribunal delivered its order. The Bench, comprising Justice Sheo Kumar Singh (Judicial Member) and Sudhir Kumar Chaturvedi (Expert Member), found no merit in the appellants' arguments on natural justice, jurisdiction, or the calculation methodology used by the RSPCB.

The Mining Cluster and Its Regulatory History

The appeals concern sandstone mining leases in the Paharpur cluster, Bharatpur district, Rajasthan. The cluster sits within the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ) — a designated area subject to strict environmental controls flowing from Supreme Court directions in the M.C. Mehta v. Union of India line of cases. Two blocks, Bansi Pahadpur-A (221.75 hectares) and Bansi Pahadpur-B (424.81 hectares), were de-notified from the Eco-Sensitive Zone of the Bandh-Baretha Wildlife Sanctuary by MoEF&CC notifications in May 2021, following requests from the Rajasthan government. An Environmental Clearance for the Paharpur Sandstone Cluster Mining Project was granted on 24 March 2022.

An original application, O.A. No. 96/2023 (CZ), was filed before the Tribunal raising concerns about dust pollution, proximity to the remaining sanctuary area, and compliance with TTZ conditions. In its order dated 1 September 2023 in that application, 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 followed on 26 September 2023.

What the Inspection Found

The joint committee's report of 26 September 2023 identified five categories of deficiency across the mining leases: inadequate plantation by the mining lessees; absence of a metalled approach road to the mining site; failure to install a Continuous Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Station; overburden dumped in an unscientific manner with no stabilisation activity; and inadequate water sprinkling arrangements for dust suppression.

Air quality sampling data compiled by the committee showed that PM10 and PM2.5 levels exceeded prescribed limits. The Tribunal noted that fugitive dust emissions were linked to vehicular movement on unmetalled approach roads and to the absence of proper water sprinkling. A separate report from the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Bharatpur, communicated in July 2024, recorded approximately 30 instances of illegal mining between March and July 2024, with seizures of machinery and imposition of penalties by the Forest Department.

Show cause notices were issued to the appellants on 29 September 2023. Only six leaseholders submitted replies, which the RSPCB found inadequate. Following the Tribunal's further direction in O.A. 96/2023 on 21 March 2024 that strict action including environmental compensation must be taken in cases of violation, the RSPCB issued 27 show cause notices on 5 April 2024. Verification in May 2024 found that none of the leaseholders had furnished compliance within the stipulated time. A final order directing deposit of environmental compensation was issued on 5 July 2024. Reminders followed on 30 August 2024 and 18 October 2024. Notices for intended revocation of Consent to Operate under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 were issued on 20 December 2024.

The Appellants' Case

The appellants, represented by Mr. Sandeep Singh Shekhawat, Mr. Yadvendra Yadav, and Mr. Lokendra Singh Kachhawa, advanced three principal arguments.

First, they contended that the RSPCB had not followed proper procedure and had denied them an opportunity of hearing, amounting to a violation of natural justice. They relied on Mewar Marvels Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan 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.

Second, they argued that the RSPCB lacked jurisdiction to impose environmental compensation, relying on Suez India Pvt. Ltd. v. Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (Allahabad High Court), Kantha Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj Parivartan Trust v. State of Gujarat: (2023) 13 SCC 525, and DPCC v. Lodhi Property Co. Ltd.: (2026) 2 SCC 670. They contended that adjudicatory functions cannot be delegated to the Board and that the power to impose compensation is conditional on strict procedural safeguards.

Third, they submitted that the Tribunal's earlier order in O.A. 96/2023 had declined to quash the MoEF&CC notifications and the Environmental Clearance, and that the RSPCB's proceedings were therefore inconsistent with that final order.

The RSPCB's Response

Mr. Rohit Sharma, appearing for the RSPCB, submitted that the Board had acted in direct compliance with the Tribunal's directions in O.A. 96/2023. Show cause notices had been duly served, both by email and registered post, on 6 June 2024. Some appellants had received and replied to the notices; their replies were considered. The Board argued that providing an opportunity of hearing means making the opportunity available, not compelling attendance. Where a party chooses not to respond, the fault lies with the party, not the authority.

On jurisdiction, the RSPCB relied on the Supreme Court's decision in DPCC v. Lodhi Property Co. Ltd.: (2026) 2 SCC 670, decided on 4 August 2025, which examined Sections 33A and 31A of the Water and Air Acts respectively. The Board submitted that these provisions, inserted by the 1988 amendments, confer broad power on State Boards to issue directions — including directions for payment of restitutionary and compensatory damages — as a remedial measure distinct from punitive action under Chapters VII and VI of the respective Acts.

On the calculation methodology, the RSPCB stated that environmental compensation had been assessed using parameters laid down by the CPCB, calculated from the date of inspection rather than the date of violation. The total compensation imposed on 27 leaseholders was approximately Rs 4.6 crore, and no payment had been made.

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 Tribunal 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 requires a fair opportunity, not a compelled attendance. The test is whether real prejudice has been caused. The appellants had not demonstrated any specific prejudice.

The Bench also rejected the argument that the sampling procedure cases under the Water Act applied here. The violations in question — inadequate plantation, unmetalled roads, absence of air quality monitoring, unscientific overburden dumping, and insufficient water sprinkling — were not matters of sample analysis but of observable non-compliance with environmental conditions.

On jurisdiction, the Tribunal accepted the RSPCB's position as confirmed by the Supreme Court in DPCC v. Lodhi Property Co. Ltd.: (2026) 2 SCC 670. Sections 33A and 31A of the Water and Air Acts empower State Boards to direct payment of restitutionary and compensatory damages as a remedial measure. This is distinct from punitive action, which requires the procedure prescribed in Chapters VII and VI of the respective Acts. The two powers operate independently and there is no conflict between them.

On the calculation methodology, the Tribunal found that the CPCB formula had been approved and applied in multiple cases, including 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 appellants had not identified any specific error in the calculation, nor had they proposed an alternative methodology. The Bench noted that the present methodology calculates compensation on the basis of the index and duration of violation, calculated from the date of inspection, which it found to be a reasonable approach.

The Tribunal also addressed the appellants' argument that the RSPCB's proceedings contradicted the earlier order in O.A. 96/2023. The Bench held that the earlier order had directed compliance with Supreme Court TTZ directions and Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016, and had issued specific directions on plantation, dust suppression, and air quality monitoring. The RSPCB's action for non-compliance with those very directions was entirely consistent with, and indeed required by, the Tribunal's earlier order. The fact that the Tribunal had declined to quash the notifications and EC did not immunise the appellants from compliance obligations.

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 Deepak Nitrite Ltd. v. State of Gujarat: (2004) 6 SCC 402. It observed that the principle does not permit a violator to pollute and pay as a matter of choice; rather, compensation is a remedial obligation directed at restoring the damaged environment.

Order

The Bench dismissed all 23 appeals along with the pending interlocutory applications. The appeals covered Appeal Nos. 16 to 27/2024 (CZ), 29 to 36/2024 (CZ), 38 to 39/2024 (CZ), and 02/2025 (CZ).

The Tribunal 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. A copy of the order was directed to be placed on the records of the connected matters.