NGT Dismisses 23 Sandstone Mining Appeals, Upholds Rajasthan PCB's Environmental Compensation Orders

The NGT Central Zone Bench dismissed appeals by 23 Bharatpur sandstone miners challenging RSPCB show-cause notices and environmental compensation totalling approximately ₹4.6 crores for EC condition violations.

The National Green Tribunal's Central Zone Bench at Bhopal dismissed 23 consolidated appeals filed by sandstone mining leaseholders in Bharatpur district, Rajasthan, against orders of the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board. The RSPCB had issued show-cause notices for revocation of Consent to Operate under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, and had assessed environmental compensation for non-compliance with environmental conditions. The Bench, comprising Justice Sheo Kumar Singh and Expert Member Sudhir Kumar Chaturvedi, found no merit in the appellants' challenges to the Board's jurisdiction, the adequacy of natural justice, or the methodology used to calculate the compensation. The total environmental compensation imposed on 27 mining leaseholders across the cluster amounts to approximately ₹4.6 crores, and not a single payment had been made at the time of the hearing.

The Mining Cluster and the Violations Found

The appeals arose from sandstone mining operations in the Bansi Pahadpur blocks (A and B) in Bharatpur district. The area falls within the Taj Trapezium Zone, a region subject to strict environmental controls under Supreme Court directions and MoEF&CC notifications. Approximately 42 leases, each granted for 50 years, operate in contiguous mining blocks with a combined capacity of around 4 crore tonnes per annum of sandstone.

A Joint Committee inspection 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 with no stabilisation activity; and inadequate water sprinkling for dust suppression. Air quality sampling confirmed that PM10 and PM2.5 levels exceeded prescribed limits, attributed to vehicular movement and the absence of metalled roads and proper dust control.

The Forest Department separately reported approximately 30 instances of illegal mining between March and July 2024, with seizures of machinery and imposition of penalties by the Forest Department.

The RSPCB's Enforcement Sequence

The enforcement action followed a sequence triggered by the Tribunal's own earlier proceedings. In Original Application No. 96/2023 (CZ), the Tribunal had on 1 September 2023 directed that if mining leases were found in violation of environmental rules, EC conditions, or Supreme Court orders concerning the Taj Trapezium Zone, necessary action must be initiated immediately. Following the Joint Committee inspection, show-cause notices were issued on 29 September 2023 to all leaseholders. Only six submitted replies, which the RSPCB found inadequate.

After the Tribunal's further order dated 21 March 2024 directing strict action including assessment and recovery of environmental compensation, the RSPCB issued 27 fresh 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 passed 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 Act were issued on 20 December 2024; only 11 leaseholders responded.

What the Appellants Argued

The appellants raised three principal grounds before the Tribunal.

First, they contended that the RSPCB proceedings were contrary to the Tribunal's earlier final order in OA No. 96/2023, in which the prayer for quashing the MoEF&CC notifications and the Environmental Clearance dated 24 March 2022 had been rejected. The appellants argued that since the EC and notifications stood, the Board's enforcement action was impermissible.

Second, they argued denial of natural justice, contending that the procedure and guidelines had not been followed and that no adequate opportunity of hearing was given. 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, both concerning sampling procedures under the Water Act.

Third, they 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, arguing that adjudicatory functions cannot be delegated and that the power to impose compensation is subject to strict procedural safeguards.

How the Tribunal Reasoned

On the first ground, the Bench held that the earlier order in OA No. 96/2023 had not exonerated the appellants from compliance with environmental conditions. The directions in that order had expressly identified violations and required the concerned departments to ensure compliance with Supreme Court orders in Taj Trapezium Zone matters, the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines 2016, and the Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining 2020. The contention that the RSPCB's action was contrary to the Tribunal's order was found to have no merit.

On natural justice, the Bench noted that the cases cited by the appellants related to sampling procedures under the Water Act, which were not applicable here. The violations in question — inadequate plantation, unmetalled roads, absence of air quality monitoring, unscientific overburden dumping, and inadequate water sprinkling — were matters of physical inspection, not water sampling. The Bench found it an admitted fact 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 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 does not operate as a blanket rule and that the test is one of real prejudice. The appellants had not demonstrated what prejudice had been caused to them.

On the non-application of mind argument, the Bench relied on Rajeev Soori v. Delhi Development Authority (2021) SCC Online SC 7 to hold that absence of elaborate reasons does not render an administrative order illegal where there is no express statutory requirement for reasons and where the decision is based on a scientific report. The appellants had not identified any specific error in the calculation of the environmental compensation.

On jurisdiction, the Bench examined the Supreme Court's decision in DPCC v. Lodhi Property Co. Ltd. (2026) 2 SCC 670 in detail. That decision, it noted, had clarified that there is a distinction between a direction for payment of restitutionary and compensatory damages as a remedial measure under Section 33A of the Water Act and Section 31A of the Air Act on the one hand, and punitive action by way of fine or imprisonment under Chapter VII of the Water Act and Chapter VI of the Air Act on the other. The State PCB's power to issue directions under Sections 33A and 31A, inserted by the 1988 amendments, is broad and includes the power to direct payment of environmental compensation as a restitutionary measure. This is separate from and in addition to any punitive proceedings before an adjudicating officer.

The Bench also relied on the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Rhythm County v. Satish Sanjay Hegde (2026) INSC 102, decided on 30 January 2026, which held that the CPCB formula for determination of environmental compensation is permissible and that its adoption does not depart from the judicial function. The Bench found that the RSPCB had calculated the compensation from the date of inspection — when violations were found — rather than from the date of the violation itself, and that the appellants had not shown any error in the number of days used in the calculation.

The Bench observed that the three options available to the RSPCB — closure of the unit, disconnection of electricity, or recovery of environmental damages — had to be weighed against the purpose of environmental law. Closure or disconnection would cause national, social, and economic loss. Recovery of compensation to remediate the damage caused was the appropriate course, and the RSPCB had correctly adopted it.

Directions on Use of Compensation

While dismissing the appeals, the Bench directed that the amount of environmental damage compensation be deposited into the environmental fund and utilised for restoring the damaged environment through remedial actions in accordance with rules.

Order

All 23 appeals — Appeal Nos. 16 to 27/2024 (CZ), 29 to 36/2024 (CZ), 38 to 39/2024 (CZ), and 02/2025 (CZ) — along with all pending interlocutory applications, were dismissed on 8 May 2026. The environmental compensation assessed by the RSPCB in its final order dated 5 July 2024 stands. The Bench directed that a copy of the order be placed on all connected records.