NGT Dismisses Bharatpur Sandstone Miners' Appeals Against Environmental Compensation Totalling ₹4.6 Crore

The NGT Central Zone Bench dismissed 23 appeals by sandstone mining leaseholders in Bharatpur, upholding environmental compensation imposed by the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board under the Air Act.

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, including M/s Kapil Agrawal, M/s Deepraj Singh, M/s Devdashrath Royalties Pvt. Ltd., Anil Kanti Prasad Poddar, and others, had challenged show cause notices and subsequent compensation demands arising from a joint committee inspection in September 2023. The Bench, comprising Justice Sheo Kumar Singh (Judicial Member) and Sudhir Kumar Chaturvedi (Expert Member), found no merit in the appellants' challenges to the RSPCB's jurisdiction, the adequacy of natural justice, or the methodology used to calculate the compensation. The total environmental compensation imposed across 27 mining leaseholders 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 appeals arose from sandstone mining operations in the Paharpur cluster, Bharatpur district, conducted under approximately 42 leases granted for 50 years in contiguous blocks. The area, covering Bansi Pahadpur-A (221.75 hectares) and Bansi Pahadpur-B (424.81 hectares), had been de-notified from the Eco-Sensitive Zone of the Bandh-Baretha Wildlife Sanctuary by MoEF&CC notifications dated 1 April 2021 and 18 May 2021, following requests from the Rajasthan state government. An Environmental Clearance for the Paharpur Sandstone Mining Project was granted on 24 March 2022.

The cluster falls within the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ), a designated area subject to specific restrictions under Supreme Court orders and MoEF&CC directions. An earlier NGT order in Appeal No. 48/2018, passed on 3 February 2021, had noted that the project involved blasting within 10 km of the TTZ and directed MoEF&CC to pass an appropriate order within two months, with the EC not to be given effect in the interim.

A separate original application, O.A. No. 96/2023 (CZ), was filed before the Tribunal raising concerns about large-scale dust pollution, proximity to the remaining sanctuary area, and non-compliance with EC conditions. On 1 September 2023, the Tribunal directed that if mining leases were found in violation of environmental rules, EC conditions, or Supreme Court orders concerning the TTZ, necessary action must be initiated immediately. A joint committee inspection followed.

Deficiencies Found During Inspection

The joint committee inspection of 26 September 2023 identified five categories of non-compliance across the mining leases:

• Inadequate plantation by the mining lessees at site;
• Absence of a metalled approach road to the mining site;
• No Continuous Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Station installed, as required to analyse air quality;
• Overburden dumped in an unscientific manner, with no stabilisation activity observed;
• 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, attributed to dust from vehicular movement on unmetalled approach roads and insufficient water sprinkling. The Deputy Conservator of Forest, Bharatpur, separately reported approximately 30 instances of illegal mining between March and July 2024, with seizures and penalties imposed 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. A further 27 show cause notices were issued on 5 April 2024. Following verification in May 2024, and after none of the leaseholders furnished compliance 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; only 11 leaseholders replied.

Appellants' Case: Natural Justice, Jurisdiction, and Calculation

Counsel for the appellants advanced three principal arguments. First, they contended that the RSPCB had not followed proper procedure and had denied them an adequate opportunity of hearing before imposing compensation. 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.

Second, the appellants argued that the RSPCB lacked jurisdiction to impose environmental compensation, relying on the Allahabad High Court's decision in Suez India Pvt. Ltd. v. Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (Writ (C) No. 4816/2024), the Supreme Court's ruling in Kantha Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj Parivartan Trust v. State of Gujarat (2023) 13 SCC 525 (arguing that adjudicatory functions cannot be delegated), and DPCC v. Lodhi Property Co. Ltd. (2026) 2 SCC 670 (arguing that the power to impose compensation is conditional and subject to strict procedural safeguards).

Third, the appellants contended that the RSPCB had not applied its mind while issuing the compensation orders, and that the scientific calculation of environmental damage was flawed.

On the merits of the underlying proceedings, appellants also argued that since the NGT had declined to quash the MoEF&CC notifications and the Environmental Clearance in O.A. No. 96/2023, the RSPCB's subsequent enforcement action was inconsistent with the Tribunal's final order.

RSPCB's Response

Counsel for the RSPCB, Mr. Rohit Sharma, submitted that the enforcement action was taken in direct compliance with the Tribunal's orders in O.A. No. 96/2023. The Tribunal's order of 21 March 2024 in that matter had specifically directed that in cases of violations, strict action must be taken including assessment and recovery of environmental compensation.

On natural justice, the RSPCB submitted that show cause notices had been duly served both by email and registered post, that some appellants had in fact submitted replies which were considered, and that those who chose not to respond could not later claim denial of opportunity. The RSPCB argued that providing an opportunity is distinct from compelling attendance, and that no prejudice had been demonstrated.

On jurisdiction, the RSPCB relied on 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, as amended in 1988, which empower State Boards to issue directions, including directions for payment of restitutionary and compensatory damages, in furtherance of their statutory mandate.

On the calculation methodology, the RSPCB stated that the environmental compensation had been assessed according to parameters laid down by the CPCB, calculated from the date of inspection rather than the date of violation.

The Tribunal's Reasoning

The Bench addressed each challenge in turn.

On natural justice: The Tribunal found that show cause notices had been issued and that some appellants had submitted replies which were duly considered. It held that the appellants had not demonstrated any actual prejudice. Drawing 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, the Bench held that natural justice principles are not cast in a rigid mould and that a mere procedural irregularity, absent proof of prejudice, does not vitiate an order. The Bench observed that the appellants had not shown what prejudice had been caused to them.

On jurisdiction and the power to impose environmental compensation: The Tribunal relied extensively 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 examined Sections 33A and 31A of the Water and Air Acts. That decision drew a clear distinction between restitutionary and compensatory directions on the one hand, and punitive action under Chapters VII and VI of the Water and Air Acts on the other. The Bench held that the RSPCB's compensation orders were remedial in nature, not punitive, and fell squarely within the Board's statutory powers. It further noted that the Supreme Court in M/s Rhythm County v. Satish Sanjay Hegde (2026) INSC 102 (decided 30 January 2026) had held that the CPCB methodology for determining environmental compensation is permissible.

On the calculation methodology: The Tribunal found that the compensation had been calculated on the basis of the index of violation and the number of days of violation, starting from the date of inspection. It noted that the appellants had not pointed to any specific error in the calculation, nor offered any alternative methodology. The Bench held that expert scientific calculations are not subject to review unless an irregularity is specifically demonstrated.

On the argument that RSPCB action contradicted the Tribunal's earlier order: The Bench rejected this contention. It held that the directions issued in O.A. No. 96/2023 had identified violations of environmental rules 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 enforcement action was consistent with, not contrary to, those directions.

The Bench also addressed the broader policy context. It observed that the Polluter Pays Principle, as recognised in Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647 and subsequent decisions, does not permit a violator to pollute and pay as a matter of choice. It noted that the RSPCB had chosen the least disruptive of its available options, compensation and remediation, rather than closure or disconnection of electricity, which would have caused greater social and economic harm.

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 rules. The order covers Appeal Nos. 16 to 27, 29 to 36, 38, 39 of 2024 (CZ) and Appeal No. 02/2025 (CZ). The order was reserved on 5 May 2026 and uploaded on 8 May 2026.