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 challenging 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.
The National Green Tribunal's Central Zone Bench at Bhopal, comprising Justice Sheo Kumar Singh (Judicial Member) and Sudhir Kumar Chaturvedi (Expert Member), dismissed 23 appeals filed by sandstone mining leaseholders operating in the Paharpur cluster, Bharatpur district, Rajasthan. The miners had challenged show cause notices and subsequent orders of the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (RSPCB) imposing environmental compensation and initiating proceedings for 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 and Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, that the CPCB-approved methodology for calculating environmental compensation was valid, and that no actionable denial of natural justice had been demonstrated by the appellants. The total compensation imposed on 27 mining leaseholders stood at approximately Rs 4.6 crore, none of which had been deposited.
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 de-notified them following requests from the Rajasthan state government. An Environmental Clearance for the Paharpur Sandstone Cluster Mining Project was granted on 24 March 2022.
The mining area falls within the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ), a designated region encompassing the Taj Mahal, Agra Fort, and Fatehpur Sikri — all World Heritage Sites. The Supreme Court's directions in TTZ matters, including restrictions on blasting within 10 km of certain shrines and requirements that only non-polluting, eco-friendly industries operate in the zone, formed a critical regulatory backdrop.
An Original Application (O.A. No. 96/2023 (CZ)) had earlier been filed before the Tribunal raising concerns about the mining operations. In that proceeding, the Tribunal had declined to quash the de-notification or the Environmental Clearance on limitation grounds, but issued detailed directions requiring compliance with Supreme Court orders on TTZ, adherence to the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines 2016 and the Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining 2020, improved plantation, metalled roads, ambient air quality monitoring, and regular water sprinkling.
What the Joint Committee Found
A Joint Committee inspection on 26 September 2023 identified five categories of deficiency across the mining leases: 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 arrangements for dust suppression.
Air quality sampling data showed that PM10 and PM2.5 levels exceeded prescribed limits. The committee attributed this to dust from vehicular movement on unmetalled approach roads and insufficient water sprinkling. A separate report from the Deputy Conservator of Forests, 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.
Following the Tribunal's order dated 21 March 2024 in O.A. No. 96/2023 directing strict action including assessment and recovery of environmental compensation in cases of violation, the RSPCB issued 27 show cause notices on 5 April 2024 explicitly listing the deficiencies. 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 passed on 5 July 2024. Reminders followed on 30 August 2024 and 18 October 2024. As of the hearing, not a single payment had been made.
On 20 December 2024, the RSPCB also issued notices of intended revocation of Consent to Operate under the Air Act to the 27 leaseholders. Only 11 submitted replies to those notices.
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 proceedings were contrary to the final order of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 96/2023, since that order had declined to quash the Environmental Clearance and the de-notification notifications. The Bench rejected this, observing that the Tribunal's earlier directions had in fact identified environmental violations and directed compliance — the RSPCB's action was in furtherance of, not contrary to, those directions.
Second, the appellants argued denial of natural justice, contending that no adequate opportunity of hearing had been given before the compensation was imposed. They relied on Mewar Mavels 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. The Bench noted that those cases concerned sampling procedures under the Water Act, which were not applicable here since the violations related to plantation, roads, air quality monitoring, overburden management, and water sprinkling — not effluent sampling.
Third, the appellants challenged the RSPCB's jurisdiction to impose environmental compensation, relying on the Allahabad High Court's decision in Suez India Pvt. Ltd. v. Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board, the Supreme Court's decision in 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 argued that adjudicatory functions could not be delegated and that the power to impose compensation was subject to strict procedural safeguards.
The RSPCB's Position
Counsel for the RSPCB, Mr. Rohit Sharma, submitted that show cause notices had been issued on 29 September 2023 following the inspection, and that only six leaseholders had submitted replies, which were found inadequate. A further round of 27 show cause notices was issued on 5 April 2024. Prior notices were also sent on 6 June 2024 by email and registered post before the final compensation order of 5 July 2024. The Board argued that where a party chooses not to respond to a show cause notice, the failure cannot be attributed to the authority.
On jurisdiction, the RSPCB relied on the Supreme Court's order in DPCC v. Lodhi Property Co. Ltd. (Civil Appeal Nos. 757-760 of 2013, decided 4 August 2025), which the Bench examined at length. That decision drew a clear distinction between restitutionary and compensatory directions under Section 33A of the Water Act and Section 31A of the Air Act on the one hand, and punitive action under Chapters VII and VI of those Acts on the other. The former, the Supreme Court held, are not punitive in nature and fall within the broad statutory mandate of the Boards.
How the Tribunal Reasoned
On natural justice, the Bench surveyed a line of Supreme Court decisions from Chairman, Board of Mining Examination v. Ramjee AIR 1977 SC 965 through State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma (1996) 3 SCC 364 and P.D. Agrawal v. State Bank of India (2006) 8 SCC 776. The consistent principle drawn from these decisions was that a procedural irregularity does not automatically vitiate an order unless real prejudice is demonstrated. The Bench found that show cause notices had been issued and received, some appellants had in fact replied, and none of the appellants had shown what specific prejudice they suffered or identified any error in the calculation of the compensation amount.
On the jurisdiction question, the Bench accepted the RSPCB's position as confirmed by the Supreme Court in DPCC v. Lodhi Property Co. Ltd.: the power under Section 31A of the Air Act and Section 33A of the Water Act to issue directions — including directions for payment of restitutionary and compensatory damages — is distinct from the power to impose penalties through criminal prosecution. The Bench held that the RSPCB had three options available: closure of the unit, disconnection of electricity, or recovery of environmental compensation. It observed that the first two options would cause national, social, and economic loss, and that the compensation route was the appropriate and proportionate response.
On the CPCB methodology for calculating environmental compensation, the Bench relied on the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Rhythm County v. Satish Sanjay Hegde (2026) INSC 102, decided 30 January 2026, which held that the CPCB formula is a permissible basis for determining environmental compensation. The Bench noted that the appellants had not identified any specific error in the calculation — no challenge to the number of days of violation used, no alternative methodology proposed, and no allegation of bias in the computation.
The Bench also applied the polluter pays principle as articulated in Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647 and subsequent decisions, holding that the principle does not permit a violator to pollute and then escape liability by challenging the authority's power. It further drew on T.N. Godhavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (2025) 2 SCC 641 for the proposition that restoration of a damaged ecosystem is a separate obligation from prosecution of offenders.
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 applicable rules.
The appeals disposed of were Appeal Nos. 16 to 27/2024 (CZ), 29 to 36/2024 (CZ), 38 and 39/2024 (CZ), and 02/2025 (CZ). The order was reserved on 5 May 2026 and uploaded on 8 May 2026.