NGT Dismisses 23 Sandstone Mining Appeals, Upholds Rajasthan PCB's Environmental Compensation Demand of ₹4.6 Crore

The NGT Central Zone Bench dismissed appeals by 23 sandstone mining leaseholders in Bharatpur, Rajasthan, upholding environmental compensation imposed by the Rajasthan State PCB for violations near the Taj Trapezium Zone.

The National Green Tribunal's Central Zone Bench at Bhopal dismissed 23 appeals filed by sandstone mining leaseholders operating in the Bansi Pahadpur cluster in Bharatpur district, Rajasthan, on 8 May 2026. The appellants had challenged show cause notices and environmental compensation orders issued by the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (RSPCB) for non-compliance with environmental conditions. The Bench, comprising Justice Sheo Kumar Singh and Expert Member Sudhir Kumar Chaturvedi, held that the RSPCB had the statutory power to impose and recover environmental compensation under Section 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, and that the compensation had been calculated in accordance with the CPCB methodology approved by the Supreme Court. The total compensation demanded from 27 leaseholders — of which these 23 appeals form part — amounts to approximately ₹4.6 crore, and not a single payment had been made at the time of the order.

The Mining Cluster and Its Regulatory History

The dispute centres on sandstone mining leases 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, were originally part of the eco-sensitive zone of the Bandh-Baretha Wildlife Sanctuary. They were de-notified by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) through a gazette notification dated 18 May 2021, following requests from the Rajasthan state government.

Auction notices for sandstone mining leases were published in October 2021. An Environmental Clearance (EC) was granted on 24 March 2022 for the Paharpur Sandstone Cluster Mining Project. Approximately 42 leases, each for 50 years, were granted in contiguous mining blocks. The de-notified area falls within the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ), which encompasses three UNESCO World Heritage Sites — the Taj Mahal, Agra Fort, and Fatehpur Sikri.

An original application, O.A. No. 96/2023 (CZ), was filed before the Tribunal raising concerns about dust pollution, violation of EC conditions, and the legality of mining within the TTZ. The Tribunal, in its order dated 1 September 2023 in that matter, 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.

What the Joint Committee Found

Pursuant to the Tribunal's directions, an inspection was conducted. A Joint Committee report dated 26 September 2023 identified the following deficiencies across the mining sites: inadequate plantation by the mining lessees; absence of a metalled approach road to the mining sites; 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 parameters exceeded prescribed limits. The Deputy Conservator of Forests, Bharatpur, separately reported that between March and July 2024, approximately 30 instances of illegal mining had been detected, with machinery seized and penalties imposed by the Forest Department.

Show cause notices were issued to all mining leaseholders on 29 September 2023. Only six leaseholders submitted replies, which were found inadequate. Following a further Tribunal direction on 21 March 2024 that strict action including assessment and recovery of environmental compensation must be taken in cases of violations, the RSPCB issued 27 show cause notices on 5 April 2024. Verification in May 2024 found that none of the leaseholders had complied within the stipulated time. The RSPCB issued a final order on 5 July 2024 directing deposit of environmental compensation. 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.

Arguments by the Appellants

The appellants raised three principal contentions before the Tribunal.

First, they argued that the proceedings initiated by the RSPCB were contrary to the final order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 96/2023, since that order had declined to quash the MoEF&CC notifications and the EC. The Bench rejected this, holding that the Tribunal's earlier directions had expressly identified environmental violations and directed compliance with Supreme Court orders on TTZ matters, Sand Mining Management Guidelines 2016, and Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining 2020. The RSPCB's action was therefore consistent with, not contrary to, those directions.

Second, the appellants contended that the principles of natural justice had not been observed — that no adequate opportunity of hearing was given before the compensation was imposed. The Bench found this unpersuasive. It noted that show cause notices had been issued and served, that some appellants had submitted replies which were duly considered, and that proper service had been effected on all. 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 does not operate as a blanket rule and that the test is whether real prejudice has been caused. The appellants had not demonstrated any such prejudice, nor had they shown any error in the calculation of the compensation amount.

Third, the appellants challenged the RSPCB's jurisdiction to impose environmental compensation, relying on decisions of the Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court. They argued that adjudicatory functions of this nature could not be delegated to the State PCB and that the power to impose environmental compensation was conditional on strict procedural safeguards.

The Statutory Power Question: Sections 33A and 31A

The Bench addressed the jurisdiction question at length, drawing primarily on the Supreme Court's decision in DPCC v. Lodhi Property Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal Nos. 757-760 of 2013, decided on 4 August 2025, which the Bench quoted in detail.

The Bench held that there is a clear distinction between restitutionary and compensatory directions issued under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and Section 31A of the Air Act on the one hand, and punitive action by way of fine or imprisonment under the penal chapters of those Acts on the other. The former is remedial in character; the latter is punitive and requires a separate procedure. The RSPCB's compensation orders were remedial, not punitive, and fell squarely within the Board's statutory mandate.

The Bench further held that the CPCB methodology for calculating environmental compensation — based on the index of violation and the number of days of violation rather than a percentage of project cost — had been approved by the Supreme Court in M/s Rhythm County v. Satish Sanjay Hegde & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 7187 of 2022, decided on 30 January 2026. The appellants had not pointed to any specific error in the calculation, nor had they offered an alternative methodology. The Bench noted that the RSPCB had calculated compensation from the date of inspection rather than the date of violation, which it found to be a reasonable approach.

On the polluter pays principle, the Bench referred to 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 M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (2006) 6 SCC 213, to hold that a person causing pollution must pay damages for restoration of the environment and ecology. The principle does not permit a violator to pollute and pay as a substitute for compliance.

The TTZ Dimension

The Bench also addressed the broader TTZ context. It noted that the Supreme Court, in its order dated 16 December 2019 in W.P. (C) No. 13381 of 1984 (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India), had clarified that only small, micro, and macro level industries that are both non-polluting and eco-friendly, and which have necessary clearances and concurrence of the Central Empowerment Committee and NEERI, can be set up within the notified industrial area in the TTZ. An embargo on clearances for heavy industry was also maintained.

The Tribunal had earlier, in Appeal No. 48/2018, observed that the project in question was a Red Category project involving blasting within 10 kilometres of the TTZ, which was not permissible, and had directed MoEF&CC to pass an appropriate order. The Bench in the present proceedings held that the appellants were required to follow the Sand Mining Management Guidelines 2016 and the Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining 2020, in addition to the conditions of the EC, and that the RSPCB's action was directed at enforcing precisely those obligations.

The Bench also noted that the appellants' challenge to the MoEF&CC notifications of 26 December 2018 and 18 May 2021, and to the EC dated 24 March 2022, had already been rejected in O.A. No. 96/2023 as time-barred and not maintainable before the Tribunal. Those reliefs were not available in the present appeals either.

Order

The Bench dismissed all 23 appeals along with the pending interlocutory applications. It held that the RSPCB had the power to impose environmental compensation, that the CPCB methodology used was legally sound, that no violation of natural justice had been established, and that the appellants had not demonstrated any error in the calculation of the compensation amounts.

The Bench directed that the environmental compensation already assessed be deposited into the environmental fund and utilised for restoring the damaged environment through remedial actions in accordance with rules. It observed that the better option — as against closure of units or disconnection of electricity — was to compensate and remediate the damage caused, and that the RSPCB had correctly adopted that approach.

The order covers Appeal Nos. 16 to 27/2024 (CZ), 29 to 36/2024 (CZ), 38/2024 (CZ), 39/2024 (CZ), and 02/2025 (CZ).