NGT Dismisses Sandstone Miners' Appeals Against Environmental Compensation Imposed by Rajasthan PCB for Taj Trapezium Zone Violations
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 dismissed 23 appeals filed by sandstone mining leaseholders operating in the Paharpur cluster, Bharatpur district, Rajasthan, against orders of the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (RSPCB). 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 and directed recovery of environmental compensation totalling approximately Rs 4.6 crore from 27 mining leaseholders. The Bench, comprising Justice Sheo Kumar Singh (Judicial Member) and Sudhir Kumar Chaturvedi (Expert Member), held that the RSPCB had the statutory power to impose such compensation, that the CPCB methodology used for calculation was valid, and that no violation of natural justice had been demonstrated by the appellants. The appeals were dismissed and the compensation directed to be deposited into the environmental fund.
The Mining Cluster and the Taj Trapezium Zone Context
The dispute 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 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) on 18 May 2021, following requests from the Rajasthan state government. Auction notices for sandstone mining leases were published in October 2021, and an Environmental Clearance was granted on 24 March 2022 for the Paharpur Sandstone Cluster Mining Project.
The area falls within the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ), which encompasses the Taj Mahal, Agra Fort, and Fatehpur Sikri — three World Heritage Sites. The Supreme Court's directions in TTZ matters, including restrictions on blasting within 10 km of the Shrine of Darga Saleem Chisti at Fatehpur Sikri, were directly relevant to the operations. An earlier NGT order in Appeal No. 48/2018 had noted that the project was a Red Category project involving blasting within 10 km of the TTZ and was not permissible under the Supreme Court's order of 16 December 2019.
Deficiencies Found by the Joint Inspection Committee
The immediate trigger for the RSPCB's action was a Joint Committee inspection report dated 26 September 2023. The committee found five categories of deficiency at the mining sites: inadequate plantation by the mining lessees; absence of a metalled approach road to the mining site; 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 compiled by the committee showed that PM10 and PM2.5 parameters exceeded prescribed limits, attributed to dust emissions from vehicular movement on unmetalled approach roads and insufficient water sprinkling. The Deputy Conservator of Forests, Bharatpur, separately reported approximately 30 instances of illegal mining between March and July 2024, with seizures of machinery and imposition of penalties.
Some appellants filed replies to the show cause notices. Their responses acknowledged the deficiencies in part — stating that greenbelt development was underway, that a metalled road was being planned within seven to eight months, that ambient air quality monitoring had been conducted through a NABL/MoEF-approved laboratory as an alternative to a continuous monitoring station, and that water sprinkling was being carried out twice daily. The RSPCB found these replies inadequate and incomplete.
The RSPCB's Enforcement Steps and the Compensation Demand
Following the Tribunal's order in O.A. No. 96/2023 (Yadram v. State of Rajasthan) dated 1 September 2023, the RSPCB conducted inspections of the mining leases. Show cause notices were issued on 29 September 2023 to all leaseholders. Only six submitted replies, which were found inadequate. A further Tribunal order in the same O.A. dated 21 March 2024 directed that in cases of violations, strict action must be taken including assessment and recovery of environmental compensation.
On 5 April 2024, the RSPCB issued 27 show cause notices to 27 leaseholders explicitly outlining the deficiencies. Verification was conducted in May 2024. None of the leaseholders furnished compliance within the stipulated time. The RSPCB issued a final order on 5 July 2024 directing deposition of environmental compensation. Reminders followed on 30 August 2024 and notices on 18 October 2024. As of the hearing, not a single payment had been made out of the total approximately Rs 4.6 crore imposed. Separately, on 20 December 2024, the RSPCB issued notices of intended revocation of Consent to Operate under the Air Act to the 27 leaseholders; only 11 submitted replies.
Appellants' Three Lines of Challenge
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 proceedings initiated by the RSPCB were contrary to the final order of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 96/2023, since that order had declined to quash the MoEF&CC notifications and the Environmental Clearance. The Bench rejected this, holding that the Tribunal's earlier directions had in fact identified environmental violations and directed compliance with Supreme Court orders on TTZ matters, plantation, and dust suppression — making the RSPCB's enforcement action consistent with, not contrary to, those directions.
Second, the appellants argued denial of natural justice, relying on Mewar Marvels 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 found this argument unpersuasive. It noted that the cases cited related to sampling procedures under the Water Act, which were inapplicable to the present violations concerning plantation, road conditions, monitoring stations, overburden management, and dust suppression. The Bench further held that show cause notices had been duly issued and served, some appellants had submitted replies which were considered, and those who chose not to respond could not shift the fault to the RSPCB. 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 requires a fair opportunity, not a compelled attendance, and that no real prejudice had been demonstrated.
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, Writ (C) No. 4816/2024, and the Supreme Court's decisions 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.
The Tribunal's Reasoning on Statutory Power and CPCB Methodology
The Bench held that the RSPCB 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 restitutionary and compensatory damages as a remedial measure for environmental damage. It drew extensively on the Supreme Court's analysis in DPCC v. Lodhi Property Co. Ltd. (Civil Appeal Nos. 757-760 of 2013, decided 4 August 2025), which distinguished between restitutionary and compensatory directions under Sections 33A and 31A on the one hand, and punitive action under Chapters VII and VI of the Water and Air Acts on the other. The two are separate and not in conflict.
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, Civil Appeal No. 7187 of 2022, decided 30 January 2026, which held that the CPCB formula-based methodology is permissible and that its adoption does not depart from judicial function. The Bench noted that the appellants had not identified any specific error in the calculation — no incorrect number of days, no challenge to the index of violation — and that the RSPCB had calculated compensation from the date of inspection rather than the date of violation, which was if anything more favourable to the appellants.
The Bench also addressed the argument of non-application of mind, drawing on Rajeev Soori v. Delhi Development Authority: (2021) SCC Online SC 7, and held that the absence of elaborate reasons in an administrative order does not render it illegal unless other circumstances also point to irrationality. The scientific report of the Joint Committee and the CPCB-approved parameters provided the factual and technical foundation for the RSPCB's orders.
On the broader principle, the Bench observed that challenging the power of the authority does not give a unit the right to continue violating environmental rules, and that the Polluter Pays Principle and the Precautionary Principle, as laid down by the Supreme Court, must be read in light of the right under Article 21 and the State's duty under Article 48A to protect and improve the environment.
Outcome
The Bench dismissed 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. The environmental compensation amounts directed by the RSPCB are to be deposited into the environmental fund and utilised for restoring the damaged environment through remedial actions in accordance with rules. The order was reserved on 5 May 2026 and uploaded on 8 May 2026.