Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Mad) 4562

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
Mathavakannan - Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu - Respondent
W.P.Nos.33079, 33086, 33083, 33080, 33943, 33947, 33949, 33952, 35105, 35107, 35340, 35353, 35346, 35856, 35866, 36476, 37777, 37788, 37782, 38738, 38742, 38970, 39063, 39068, 39100, 39125, 39179, 39180, 39233 of 2024 & 423, 765, 942, 956, 2089, 2099, 2475, 2478, 3101, 3113, 3112, 3116, 3107, 3274, 3278, 3297, 3353, 3364, 3373, 3369, 3377, 3379, 3788, 4238, 3796, 3705, 3795, 3793, 4339, 4340, 4775, 5409, 5414, 5457, 5634, 6008, 9104, 9123, 9117, 9113, 9148, 9154, 9572, 9807, 11756, 12839, 14290 of 2025 and W.M.P.Nos.35834, 35840, 35842, 35836, 36757, 36762, 36771, 36764, 38032, 38034, 38232, 38220, 38228, 38728, 38717, 39329, 40852, 40862, 40854, 41946, 41949, 42206, 42315, 42321, 42348, 42372, 42434, 42432, 42493 of 2024 & 491, 931, 1147, 1162, 2467, 2458, 2785, 2789, 3423, 3409, 3420, 3416, 3402, 3631, 3637, 3658, 3728, 3739, 3737, 3735, 3744, 3743, 3748, 3742, 4213, 4739, 4738, 4089, 4211, 4208, 4206, 4856, 4857, 5294, 5959, 5960, 5963, 5962, 6014, 6011, 6219, 6221, 6611, 10223, 10219, 10231, 10225, 10251, 10250, 10261, 10260, 10735, 10995, 13301, 14383, 16087, 16086, 16085 of 2025
Decided on : 05-06-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.A.L.Somayaji Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Ramakrishna Reddy
Mr.V.Sanjeevi, Ms.C.Uma, Mr.Lajapathi Roy Senior Counsel for Ms.T.Seeni Syed Amma, Mr.V.Elangovan, Mr.V.Sengutuvel Senior Counsel for Mr.P.S.Prabhu, Mr.Rahul Balaji, Mr.K.R.Nishanth, Mr.Vikram Veeraswamy, Mr.P.Tamilavel, Mr.J.Saravanavel, Mr.K.Balakrishnan, Mr.M.Santhanaraman
For the Respondents:Mr.P.S.Raman Advocate General assisted by Mr.Stalin Abhimanyu, Mr.Venkataswamy Babu

Mining without Environmental Clearance constitutes unlawful extraction, mandating 100% recovery of the mineral's market value as compensation under Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act.

Headnote:(A) Environment Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 3(2)(v), 5(3)(d) - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Section 21(5) - Requirement of Environmental Clearance (EC) for mining operations - Writ petitions challenged orders demanding payment of 100% compensation for minerals extracted without EC during the period 15.01.2016 to 10.01.2017 - Petitioners argued no prior EC requirement existed for minor minerals under 5 hectares and that mining was conducted under valid licenses - Several extensions of time for obtaining EC granted by State - Supreme Court established that all mining activities require EC, asserting no ex-post facto legalisation of mining without EC - Petitioners required to pay compensation at 100% for unlawful extraction due to non-compliance with EC requirements. (Paras 10, 12, 13, 14)

(B) Principles of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel - State's prior leniency in enforcing EC requirements does not absolve the petitioners from paying compensation for illegal mining activities. (Paras 11, 12)

(C) Requirement for judicial review - Courts will not overturn administrative decisions if the legal position is clear, regardless of delay in processing applications by authorities. (Paras 12, 13)

Facts of the case:
Writ petitions arose from actions of State demanding compensation from licensees who quarried minerals without obtaining necessary Environmental Clearances between 15.01.2016 to 10.01.2017, despite an earlier Supreme Court ruling that necessitated clearance even for areas below 5 hectares.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the imposition of compensation per the statutory requirements of Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act, confirming that the imposition cannot be conditional upon the processing of EC applications by the State.

Issues: The main issues involved the legality of mining without EC, the applicability of compensation under section 21, and the impact of the authoritative Supreme Court mandates regarding environmental law compliance.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the continued operation of mines without the required EC constitutes unlawful activity attracting mandatory compensation, reaffirming that applicants could not claim entitlement on the basis of the State's past leniency.

Result: Writ petitions dismissed; obligations to pay 100% compensation confirmed.

ORDER :

A. The Writ Petitions:-

All these Writ Petitions are connected and, as such, are taken up and disposed of by this common order.

1.1. In all these Writ Petitions, the core issue involves the action of the respondents in passing individual orders that direct the Writ Petitioners, who are the licensees operating quarries without Environmental Clearance (in short, 'EC'), for the period from 15.01.2016 to 10.01.2017, thereby requiring them to pay 100% of the value of the mineral for the relevant period.

1.2. All of these writ petitioners have been mining either major or minor minerals at the relevant time, and all have obtained licenses for areas of less than 5 hectares.

B. The Facts:-

2. The case in brief of the Petitioners is that they were quarrying minor minerals, and originally, there was no necessity for the persons engaged in this activity to obtain prior Environmental Clearance (in short 'EC'). Neither the Environment Protection Act,1986 nor the Rules framed thereunder, including the notifications issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (in short 'MoEF'), Government of India, mandated the obtaining of EC. However, on 27.2.2012, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India delivered a judgment in Deepak Kumar and Others Vs. State of Haryana , (2012) 4 SCC 629 According to the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even in respect of quarrying of minor minerals, both areas of less than 5 hectares and more than 5 hectares need prior EC. However, it was specified that such EC is necessary at the time of renewal. Subsequently, on 18.05.2012, the MoEF issued a circular in compliance with the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

2.1. Pursuant thereto, the State of Tamil Nadu introduced Rules 41 and 42 to the TAMIL NADU MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES , 1959, through an amendment made by G.O.(Ms) No. 79, Industries Department, dated 06.04.2015. Rule 42 (iii) and (iv) were introduced, directing the holders of licenses to quarry minor minerals, including granites, to submit applications for EC within 180 days from the date the said rules came into force. Failure to submit such an application entitled the District Collector to cancel the lease. The said rule came into effect from the date of publication of the amendment in the Gazette, i.e., 22.04.2015. Subsequently, by an amendment dated 29.05.2015, the period of 180 days was amended to 270 days, effective from 27.01.2016. Further, the period was extended to 390 days from 13.05.2016, then to 450 days and from 14.07.2016, to 630 days. Thus, the 630-day period granted by the State of Tamil Nadu for quarry operators to submit applications for EC lasted until 10.01.2017. From 10.01.2017, all quarrying operations were halted, and no one has quarried without the EC.

2.2. In the meantime, on 15.01.2016, the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, amended sub-rule 3 of Rule 5 of the Environment Protection Rules, 1986, by introducing Rule 3A concerning the formation of the District Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, while prescribing Form - VIII, application for mining of minor minerals under Category B2 for less than or equal to 5 hectares. On 18.04.2017, the National Green Tribunal, New Delhi, dismissed M.A. No. 260 of 2017 in O.A. No. 123 of 2014 filed by the State of Tamil Nadu, seeking an extension of time to implement the directions contained in the Tribunal’s Judgment dated 13.01.2015, by one year or any other reasonable period.

2.3. Under these circumstances, in September 2019, the State of Tamil Nadu began issuing demand notices to those who had not submitted their applications for EC. Subsequently, notices were also issued to those who submitted applications by the cut-off date, which were pending consideration by the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority of Tamil Nadu. Previously, when the respondents issued orders in some cases, the learned Single Judges upheld those orders. However, in other matters, the orders were q