P&H HC Condemns Illegal Aravalli Mining, Seeks CS Affidavit

Introduction

In a scathing rebuke of unchecked environmental exploitation, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has flagged rampant illegal mining in the ecologically sensitive Aravalli Hills, describing the scene as a "blatant loot and plunder of natural resources." A division bench comprising Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor, in the case of M/S Dharampal Stone Crusher and Others v. The State of Haryana and Others (CWP-26496-2025), expressed profound dismay over violations of environmental norms and mining plans at a site in Village Pichopa Kalan, District Charkhi Dadri, Haryana. The petitioners, local residents including the operator of a stone crusher unit claiming surface rights over the affected land, alleged indiscriminate mining beyond the approved lease area, leading to severe ecological damage and safety hazards. The court, acting on a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, appointed an Advocate Commissioner for on-site inspection, reviewed drone survey reports, and issued sweeping directions, including a personal affidavit from the Chief Secretary of Haryana and the sealing of the mining area. This intervention underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding public interest amid apparent state inaction, with far-reaching implications for mining regulation in protected zones.

The judgment, delivered on January 31, 2026, goes beyond the private disputes between petitioners and the mining lessee, M/s Jai Dada Dohla Stone Mines, to address broader concerns of ecological preservation, official connivance, and accountability. Contemporary news reports highlighted the court's observation that what was visible "with the naked eye" pointed to large-scale plunder, amplifying the urgency of the matter in the context of the Aravalli range's vulnerability to degradation.

Case Background

The dispute centers on land in Khasra Nos. 109 and 110 of Village Pichopa Kalan, recorded in revenue records as gair mumkin pahar (hillocks) and part of the Aravalli range, a critical ecological buffer in northern India. The petitioners, residents of the village and including Petitioner No. 1, M/s Dharampal Stone Crusher, assert surface rights over this land. In March 2016, mining rights for stone and associated minor minerals over Plot No. 3 (approximately 11 hectares) were auctioned and granted to private respondent No. 9, M/s Jai Dada Dohla Stone Mines, via a Letter of Intent dated April 11, 2016, for a 10-year period.

The petitioners approached the High Court in 2025, claiming that state authorities permitted illegal mining far beyond the leased area, resulting in the complete disappearance of hillocks, formation of deep pits (up to 47 meters), shaven trenches, steep cliffs, and severe environmental degradation. They alleged violations of the Environment Clearance (EC) Certificate issued on May 23, 2017, under the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006, and the Haryana Mines and Minerals Concession Rules, 2012. Additional grievances included denial of royalty, rent, and compensation exceeding ₹9 crores, safety hazards from unstable slopes and ground fissures, and accidents reported in January and July 2025. Photographs annexed to the petition depicted massive destruction, while villagers had protested the activities, as noted in newspaper reports.

The case timeline reflects mounting judicial impatience with state delays. Entertained in September 2025, initial status reports from the Mining Officer, Charkhi Dadri, were deemed inadequate, noting closed operations but failing to address core allegations. Repeated adjournments prompted the court to appoint Advocate Kanwal Goyal as Commissioner on December 3, 2025, for site inspection, accompanied by officials and drone mapping. The inspection on December 6, 2025, confirmed the petitioners' claims, revealing missing boundary pillars, absence of buffer zones, ongoing stone crushing, and virtually no plantation despite EC mandates for 600 trees annually. News coverage from the period emphasized the Advocate Commissioner's "disturbing and bewildering" findings, including a deep water-filled pit over 1.07 hectares and unmettled roads used by trucks, underscoring the site's transformation into an environmental hazard.

A particularly alarming revelation was the disappearance of a metalled road constructed by the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (HSAMB) at public expense (₹67.02 lakhs in 2012, plus ₹23 lakhs strengthening in 2021), spanning 5.36 km from Pichopa to Sishwala. RTI responses and official correspondence confirmed its existence, yet the Mining Department denied it, raising suspicions of siphoned funds or deliberate falsehoods. This road, announced by the Chief Minister in 2008, was damaged by mining excavations, as per letters to the Mining Officer in 2021. The court's probe into this anomaly highlights systemic issues in infrastructure protection amid mining operations.

The legal questions at hand include: Whether the mining operations violated EC conditions and mining plans; the extent of state officials' complicity; entitlement to compensation for surface right holders; and measures for ecological restoration in the Aravalli, a notified eco-sensitive area.

Arguments Presented

The petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate Shailendra Jain and others, argued that the state had turned a blind eye to rampant illegal mining, allowing operations to extend beyond the 11-hectare lease into adjoining areas, including their surface-held land. They contended that this caused irreversible ecological harm—depletion of soil, creation of unsafe pits and fissures, and failure to implement EC safeguards like benching, terracing, peripheral fencing, siltation ponds, and green belts. Specific violations included intersecting the groundwater table (prohibited under Clause 4 of EC), absence of topsoil stacking for reclamation, and non-submission of air quality or groundwater monitoring data to the Haryana State Pollution Control Board. The petitioners highlighted two accidents in 2025 involving falling stones and soil slips, attributing them to unsafe practices, and demanded cessation of mining, assessment of ₹9+ crores in dues, and compensation for villagers and farmers affected by dust, noise, and access blockages.

They further alleged collusion between the lessee and officials, pointing to delayed inspections and the Mining Officer's belated October 1, 2025, recommendation for lease cancellation—framed on economic unviability rather than environmental breaches. RTI documents and police reports were cited to prove the public road's existence and its destruction, suggesting embezzlement or cover-up. The petitioners urged the court to direct restoration, prosecute violators, and invoke public interest for Aravalli protection.

On the respondents' side, the State of Haryana, through Additional Advocates General Nitin Kaushal and Rajesh Gaur, submitted reports claiming mining was closed, with water accumulation from rain and no illegal activity detected due to site inaccessibility from soil slides. The Mining Officer denied the public road's existence, aligning with revenue records, and attributed missing pillars (C, D, E) to January and July 2025 slides. The October 2025 communication recommended termination citing accidents, non-compliance with benches and buffers, and geotechnical instability, but emphasized economic infeasibility from overburden removal costs exceeding mineral value. A December 11, 2025, order from the State Mining Engineer approved closure and rehabilitation, produced in court, though the bench doubted its authenticity due to overwriting and omission of violations.

Private respondent No. 9, represented by Senior Advocate Amit Jhanji and others, countered that much illegal activity was by the petitioners themselves, including their stone crusher operations between pillars B and C. They claimed adherence to the 2022-2027 mining plan, with partial compliance noted by the Directorate General of Mines Safety in May 2025, and argued that further mining was unviable, justifying closure under Rule 79 of the 2012 Rules. The respondents portrayed the site as stable post-closure, with fresh saplings indicating some reclamation efforts, and disputed the extent of over-mining, asserting boundaries were verifiable via GPS despite missing pillars.

These arguments revealed a stark contrast: petitioners framing a narrative of plunder and negligence, versus respondents' defensive stance of closure and denial, which the court found unconvincing based on the Commissioner's report.

Legal Analysis

The court's reasoning pivots on the prima facie evidence of egregious violations, elevating the case from a private royalty dispute to a public interest litigation on environmental integrity. While no specific precedents were cited, the bench invoked inherent powers under Article 226 to probe systemic failures, drawing on established principles of sustainable development and the precautionary principle implicit in Indian environmental jurisprudence (e.g., as in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India , though not referenced). The judgment meticulously dissects non-compliance with the EC Certificate's 20+ conditions, such as Clause 9 (bench height and slope maintenance), Clause 15 (terracing and plantation on higher benches), and Clause 16 (catch drains and siltation ponds), which were absent, leading to erosion, slope failures, and groundwater risks. The mining plan's requirement for stepwise benching was ignored, resulting in steep cliffs and a 47-meter pit, breaching the three-meter buffer above the groundwater table—a safeguard against depletion in water-stressed Haryana.

The court distinguished legal mining from plunder by emphasizing boundary integrity: only six of nine pillars were present, rendering verification impossible and allowing unchecked expansion. This violated the Haryana Mines and Minerals Concession Rules, 2012, particularly on lease demarcation and safety. State inaction was critiqued as "callousness," with potential "connivance," referencing the Mines Act, 1952's Section 22(3) prohibition orders and the Directorate's partial vacating in May 2025, yet no follow-through. The belated closure order was termed a "cover-up," as it ignored violations and focused on unviability, effectively condoning illegality.

The disappearance of the HSAMB road exemplifies misuse of public funds, raising questions under fiscal accountability laws and the Prevention of Corruption Act, though not invoked. The bench took judicial notice of Aravalli's fragility—worsening air quality and depleting water tables—aligning with National Green Tribunal directives on the range. By appointing an Advocate Commissioner and mandating drone/satellite evidence, the court innovated fact-finding, distinguishing factual disputes from evidenced plunder. This analysis clarifies that while private parties bear direct responsibility, state machinery's duty under Article 21 (right to a clean environment) demands proactive enforcement, not reactive reports.

News sources corroborated this, noting the Commission's findings of truck movements and dumps, reinforcing the court's view of ongoing activity despite claims of closure.

Key Observations

The judgment is replete with poignant excerpts underscoring the court's alarm:

• "What is seen with the naked eye, is not only disturbing but is also bewildering. It prima-facie appears to be a case of blatant violation of Environmental norms contained in the Environmental Clearance Certificate as well as mining plan causing loot and plunder of natural resources." This highlights the visible scale of destruction.

• "The other unfortunate aspect noticed by us is the callousness on part of the State authorities in discharge of their duties which has led to such unfortunate situation. At this stage, we cannot rule out connivance on the part of the responsible officers who were entrusted with the duty to ensure compliance of laws." (Para 26) This points to official complicity.

• "Either the HSAMB has siphoned off money to the tune of crores or the Mining Department is telling a blatant lie to the Court. Either of the exigency is most disturbing." (Para 44) Addressing the road's fate.

• "This matter poses serious concern not only for the parties to this case but has much wider ramifications for preservation of ecology and environment as well as for the larger public interest." (Para 1) Framing the broader stakes.

• On plantation: "Going by the EC plan, over the leased period of ten years, at least 6000 trees ought to have been planted which are not there at all." (Para 28) Illustrating non-compliance.

These observations, drawn directly from the bench's order, emphasize the gravity of ecological and administrative lapses.

Court's Decision

The High Court issued comprehensive directions to address the "rampant loot and plundering," prioritizing environmental remediation over immediate private claims. It directed the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, to personally examine the entire issue—including mining records, official responsibilities, and restoration proposals—and file an affidavit detailing actions against violators, both private and public. The mining area was ordered sealed within 48 hours under the Deputy Commissioner, Charkhi Dadri's supervision, with videography to prevent tampering, and status quo maintained barring alterations.

The Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change was impleaded as a respondent, required to file an affidavit on redressal measures for Aravalli protection. The Haryana Space Application Centre was impleaded and directed to provide year-wise satellite imagery from 2016, aiding verification of violations. All mining records were to be produced in sealed cover. The court reserved liberty for parties to respond and for potential referral to an independent agency like the CBI if state responses faltered. Pending claims for rent/compensation (₹9+ crores) were left to the District Collector, without prejudice.

Practical effects include immediate site lockdown, halting further damage, and compelling high-level accountability—potentially leading to lease cancellations, prosecutions under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and environmental compensation under NGT rules. For future cases, this reinforces judicial tools like Commissioners and tech evidence in PILs, deterring lax oversight in mining. It may spur policy reforms, such as stricter Aravalli monitoring, influencing leases statewide and bolstering eco-jurisprudence. The decision signals that environmental public interest trumps economic gains, urging states to fortify compliance mechanisms amid climate crises.

In essence, the ruling not only redresses local grievances but catalyzes systemic change, ensuring the Aravalli's safeguarding for generations.