Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 1760

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
MR. PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CJ, MR. SUDHIR AGARWAL, J, DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, ACJ, DR. AFROZ AHMAD, ACJ
JUNED AYUBI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
M.A. NO. 121/2023 IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 692/2022 | M.A. NO. 31/2024 IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 442/2022

Advocates:
Mr. Ajit Sharma, Mr. Kanchan Kumar Singh, Mr. Sanjay Ghosh, Mr. Rohan Mandal, Mr. Pulkit Agarwal
Ms. Anjali Rajput, Dr. Aman Rab, Mrs. Payal Bhatia Mohanty, Mr. Divyanshu Kumar Srivastava, Mr. Mukesh Verma, Ms. Vatsala Tripathi

Mining operations are deemed illegal without valid Environmental Clearances, and compliance with ecological regulations is essential, especially in sensitive areas straddling state borders.

Headnote:(A) Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986 - Section 11 - EIA Notification, 2006 - Mining operations - Transfer of EC to sub-contractors was deemed illegal as it was not granted by the authority which initially issued it; thus, mining operations on disputed lands were terminated due to violation of statutory restrictions and the designation of the area as ecologically sensitive. (Paras 11, 125-130)

(B) Natural Justice - Principle of - The Tribunal's failure to serve notice to involved parties before passing a closure order was highlighted, however, the focus remained on the legality of existing permits and contracts. (Paras 28-30)

(C) Illegal Mining - Defined - Continuous extraction without appropriate ecological clearance and in areas outside the intended use as mandated by Environmental Regulations contradicts established guidelines, especially in ecologically sensitive zones. (Paras 10, 12, 130)

Facts of the case:
The applicants filed multiple Miscellaneous Applications seeking modification of earlier Tribunal judgments that directed the closure of mining operations due to environmental law violations and procedural discrepancies regarding Memoranda of Understanding and Environmental Clearances issued for mining in ecologically sensitive areas straddling state boundaries. The Tribunal noted various judicial precedents emphasizing careful adherence to environmental regulations in mining operations. (Paras 1-10)

Findings of Court:
Tribunal upheld environmental protection laws and statutory compliance, emphasizing that mining operations must be contingent on valid Environmental Clearances, which must be properly transferred, and reiterated the principle that the enforcement of mining activities must respect inter-state borders and ecological sanctity. (Paras 30, 130-148)

Issues: The court addressed whether the mining operations conducted by subcontractors were legal without proper Environmental Clearances and whether due process was respected in the interim judgments affecting the contractors. (Paras 28-30)

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that mining operations without valid, transferrable Environmental Clearances were unlawful, leading to the annulment of contracts and the need for ecological redress, reinforcing the notion that compliance with environmental laws is paramount. (Paras 126-130)

Result: Mining operations were ordered to cease; previously imposed penalties for environmental violations were upheld. (Paras 11, 148)

Table of Content
1. introduction of applicants and respondents (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. facts of original applications related to mining (Para 6 , 8 , 15)
3. judicial observations on environmental concerns (Para 11 , 12 , 34)
4. legal reasoning and findings on mining lease (Para 31 , 32 , 39)
5. final conclusions and implications for the parties (Para 130 , 148)

ORDER

BY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Miscellaneous Application No.121/2023 in Original Application No.692/2022:

1. This Miscellaneous Application (hereinafter referred to as ‘MA’) has been filed by Mukesh Joshi (hereinafter referred to as ‘MA applicant-I’ with a prayer that the judgment dated 30.01.2023 passed in Original Application (hereinafter referred to as ‘OA’) No.692/2022, be modified to the extent that mining operations be resumed and Committee be directed not to take any coercive action against MA applicant applicant-I i.e., Mukesh Joshi and should not impose any penalty in view of the findings that no violation has been committed by MA applicant-I.

Miscellaneous Application No.31/2024 in Original Application No.442/2022:

2. MA 31/2024 in OA 442/2022 has been filed by Vinod Negi i.e., MA applicant-II with a prayer that the judgment dated 30.01.2023 passed in OA 442/2022, be modified to the extent that mining operations be resumed and Committee be directed not to take any coercive action against MA applicant-II i.e., Vinod Negi and should not impose any penalty in view of the findings that no violation has been committed by MA applicant.

3. The prayers made in both MAs are similar with a difference only of OA numbers in as much as MA 121/2023 is in respect of OA 692/2022 while MA 31/2024 is in respect of OA 442/2022

4. We may also place on record at this stage that the judgment dated 30.01.2023 is common having been passed collectively disposing of both OAs i.e., 442/2022 and 692/2022 by the same order.

5. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to have a bird eye view of the facts giving rise to the present MAs.

OA No.442/2022:

6. OA 442/2022 was registered suo-moto in view of law laid by Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Ankita Sinha , (2022) 13 SCC 401 on a letter petition dated 31.03.2022 sent by Juned Ayubi, son of Tareeq Ayubi, B-204, Hill View Apartment, Sahastradhara Road, (Near Gangotri Marble), Danda Lakhaur, Dehradun, State of Uttarakhand on behalf of Save Doon Valley Association with a prayer that the mining leases allotted to Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam, Rajpur Road (hereinafter referred to as ‘GMVN’) and environmental consents be cancelled, mining activities should be stopped and environmental compensation of Rs. 99 Crores be imposed for violation of environmental laws.

7. The complainant Juned Ayubi has stated in the letter petition that a Letter of Intent dated 23.01.2013 was issued by State Government to GMVN for 83 lots which included lot no.21/3, area 10.350 hectares of River Yamuna. Subsequently, lot no.21/3 was modified on 10.04.2016 as per inspection report/survey dated 14.09.2012 and instead of 10.350 hectares of lot no.21/3, it was made as to 68.364 hectares.

8. Besides, as per joint inspection Report, following area was found minable for sand, bajri and boulders:

Sr.No. Village		Khasra no.	Total area	Area fit for mining
1	D hakrani	(a) 1 (partial)	15.8440 hectares	9.304 hectares
		(b) Khasra no. 2 (ka)	95.195 hectares	50 hectares
		(c) 618	5.322 hectares	3.170 hectares
2	Mandi Gangbhewa	1	17.905 hectares	5.890 hectares

9. In 2013, proceedings for obtaining Environmental Clearance (hereinafter referred to as ‘EC’) under Environment Impact Assessment Notification dated 14.09.2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘EIA 2006’) were initiated and applications were submitted whereupon the area of lot no.21/3 of village Dhakrani, khasra no. 971 was marked in State of Himachal Pradesh and the matter proceeded further. On 03.03.2015, mining plan with several conditions was sanctioned in lot no.21/3, Dhakrani, khasra no. 1, 2ka and 6

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 1760

Mining operations are deemed illegal without valid Environmental Clearances, and compliance with ecological regulations is essential, especially in sensitive areas straddling state borders.

Cases Referred (3)