NGT Dismisses Sandstone Miners' Appeals Against Environmental Compensation Imposed by Rajasthan PCB
The NGT Central Zone Bench dismissed 23 appeals by Bharatpur sandstone miners challenging environmental compensation totalling approximately Rs 4.6 crore imposed by the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board for violations of environmental clearance conditions.
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 of approximately Rs 4.6 crore imposed by the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board. The appellants — including M/s Kapil Agrawal, M/s Deepraj Singh, M/s Devdashrath Royalties Pvt. Ltd., and others — had challenged show cause notices and subsequent compensation orders issued 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), found no merit in the appellants' arguments on natural justice, jurisdiction, or the calculation methodology used by the Board.
The Dispute Before the Tribunal
The appeals arose from a cluster of approximately 42 sandstone mining leases in the Paharpur area of Bharatpur district, Rajasthan. The mining operations fall within the Taj Trapezium Zone and are in proximity to the de-notified portions of the Bandh-Baretha Wildlife Sanctuary. A joint committee inspection conducted on 26 September 2023 identified five categories of deficiency across the 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 without stabilisation activity, and inadequate water sprinkling for dust suppression.
Air quality data compiled by the committee showed that PM10 and PM2.5 levels exceeded prescribed limits, attributed to dust from vehicular movement on unmetalled roads and insufficient water sprinkling. The Rajasthan State PCB issued show cause notices on 29 September 2023 to all mining leaseholders. Only six submitted replies, which the Board found inadequate. A further round of 27 show cause notices was issued on 5 April 2024. Following verification in May 2024, and after none of the leaseholders deposited compensation within the stipulated period, the Board issued a final order on 5 July 2024 directing deposition of environmental compensation. Reminders followed on 30 August 2024 and 18 October 2024. As of the hearing, not a single payment had been made out of the total Rs 4.6 crore assessed.
The Board also issued notices on 20 December 2024 for intended revocation of Consent to Operate under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Only 11 of the 27 leaseholders submitted replies to those notices.
Background in OA No. 96/2023
The present appeals were preceded by Original Application No. 96/2023 (CZ) filed before the Tribunal, in which the same mining cluster was challenged on broader grounds — including the de-notification of portions of the Bandh-Baretha Wildlife Sanctuary, the grant of environmental clearance dated 24 March 2022 for the Paharpur Sandstone Cluster Mining Project, and alleged violations of Supreme Court orders concerning the Taj Trapezium Zone.
In that proceeding, the Tribunal had noted that the Supreme Court, in its order dated 16 December 2019 in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (W.P.(C) No. 13381 of 1984), had clarified that only non-polluting and eco-friendly industries with necessary clearances could be set up within the TTZ. The Tribunal had directed that Supreme Court orders on TTZ matters be strictly complied with, that plantation be improved using the Miyawaki technique, that ambient air quality be monitored at deteriorated locations, that permanent water sprinklers and wheel-washing facilities be installed, and that roads in the cluster be metalled. The prayers for quashing the de-notification notifications and the environmental clearance were rejected as time-barred and not maintainable.
The appellants in the present batch argued that since the Tribunal had declined to quash the notifications and the environmental clearance in OA No. 96/2023, the State PCB's subsequent enforcement proceedings were contrary to the Tribunal's final order. The Bench rejected this reading, holding that the directions in OA No. 96/2023 had in fact recorded violations of environmental rules and issued remedial directions to the concerned departments — the appellants were therefore required to follow the Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016, and the Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020, in addition to their environmental clearance conditions.
Arguments on Natural Justice and Opportunity of Hearing
The appellants' counsel argued that the procedure and guidelines had not been followed and that no adequate opportunity of hearing had been 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 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.
The Board's counsel responded that those decisions related to water sampling procedures and were not applicable to the present violations, which concerned plantation, road condition, air quality monitoring infrastructure, overburden management, and dust suppression — none of which involved sample analysis. The Board had issued show cause notices, some appellants had received them and submitted replies that were duly considered, and if others chose not to respond, that was their own failure. The Board could only provide the opportunity; it could not compel attendance.
The Bench agreed. It found that at least one notice of the same nature had been received by all appellants and that some had submitted replies which were considered. The Bench drew 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 — to hold that natural justice is not a blanket rule of absolute application and that a complaint of procedural violation must be examined from the standpoint of actual prejudice. The appellants had not demonstrated what prejudice had been caused to them. The Bench observed that “principles of natural justice are but the means to achieve the end of justice” and cannot be used to defeat that end.
On the argument of non-application of mind, the Bench referred to Rajeev Soori v. Delhi Development Authority: (2021) SCC Online SC 7, which held that the absence of elaborate reasons does not by itself establish non-application of mind, particularly where the decision is based on a scientific or expert report. The appellants had not pointed to any specific error in the Board's calculation.
Jurisdiction of the State PCB to Impose Environmental Compensation
The appellants raised a separate challenge to the Board's jurisdiction, relying on three decisions. First, Suez India Pvt. Ltd. v. Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (Writ (C) No. 4816/2024, Allahabad High Court), which they said held that the State PCB had no jurisdiction to impose penalty or compensation. Second, 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. Third, 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.
The Bench addressed this at length by reference to the Supreme Court's own order in DPCC v. Lodhi Property Co. Ltd. (Civil Appeal Nos. 757–760 of 2013, decided 4 August 2025). That decision, the Bench noted, had itself clarified the legal position: the State Pollution Control Board is authorised under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and Section 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, to issue directions for payment of restitutionary and compensatory damages as a remedial measure for environmental damage or as an ex-ante measure towards potential environmental damage. This is distinct from punitive action — fines or imprisonment — which can only be taken through the procedure prescribed in Chapters VII and VI of the Water and Air Acts respectively. The two powers do not conflict.
The Bench held that the Board had acted within its statutory mandate. The compensation had been calculated using the CPCB methodology, which the Supreme Court had approved in M/s Rhythm County v. Satish Sanjay Hegde & Ors.: (2026) INSC 102, Civil Appeal No. 7187 of 2022, decided 30 January 2026. That decision held that “the methodology for determination of the environmental compensation on the basis of CPCB formula is permissible.” The Bench found the calculation to be based on the index of violation and the number of days of violation from the date of inspection, not from the date of the violation itself — a methodology it considered appropriate in the circumstances.
Polluter Pays Principle and the Broader Legal Framework
The Bench surveyed the polluter pays principle across a range of decisions, including Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India: (1996) 5 SCC 647; M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath: (2006) 6 SCC 213; T.N. Godhavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India: (2025) 2 SCC 641; and Research Foundation for Science (18) v. Union of India: (2005) 13 SCC 186. It held that the principle does not permit a violator to pollute and then simply pay — the obligation is to restitute the damaged environment. Actual degradation is not a necessary condition for the principle to apply; potential risk to the environment is sufficient, as held in Deepak Nitrite Ltd. v. State of Gujarat: (2004) 6 SCC 402.
The Bench also noted that the appellants had not challenged the CPCB methodology itself, nor had they pointed to any specific error in the calculation of the number of days or the index applied. In the absence of such a challenge, the Bench declined to interfere with the quantum assessed.
On the broader question of the Board's options, the Bench observed that the Board could have directed closure of the units or disconnection of electricity supply under Sections 33A and 31A. It chose instead to impose environmental compensation — an option the Bench described as preferable from the standpoint of national interest, social interest, and the interest of the units themselves. The purpose of environmental law, the Bench held, is to protect the environment, not to close units.
Order
The Bench dismissed all 23 appeals along with the pending interlocutory applications. It directed that the environmental compensation deposited be credited to the environmental fund and utilised for restoring the damaged environment through remedial actions in accordance with rules. The appeals covered are Appeal Nos. 16 to 27/2024 (CZ), 29 to 36/2024 (CZ), 38 to 39/2024 (CZ), and 02/2025 (CZ).