M/S Tirupati Minerals Private Limited, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Mines And Minerals, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Secretary Department of Housing And Environment, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - Member Secretary Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board, Paryavas Bhawan, North Block, Sector - 19, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Director Directorate of Geology And Mining, Indravati Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

5 - The Collector And District Magistrate Collectorate Office, Rampur, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶13

6 - Regional Office - Korba, Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board H.I.G. 21 And 22, Near Tehsil Office, Rampur, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶14

7 - Deputy Director (Mining) Department Of Geology And Mining, Collectorate Office, Rampur, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh (Original Respondents)

¶15

8 - Govind Gour Alias Govind Sharma S/o Late Shri R.N. Gour R/o - Flat 402, B-Block, Indrasen Nagar, Mangala, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Original Petitioner)

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶18

2

¶19

For Petitioner	:	Mr. Amit Soni, Advocate
For Respondents No.1, 2, 4, 5 and 7	:	Mr. Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate General
For Respondents No.3 and 6	:	Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondent No.8	:	Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Senior Advocate assisted byMr. Harsh Dave, Advocate

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶21

Order on Board

¶22

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶23

16.01.2026

¶24

1. Heard Mr. Amit Soni, learned counsel for the review petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents No.1, 2, 4, 5 & 7, Mr. Animesh Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 & 6 as well as Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Harsh Dave, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.8/original writ petitioner.

¶25

2. The present review petition has been filed by the review-petitioner seeking review/recall of the order dated 31.10.2025 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 85 of 2025, with following prayer :-

¶26

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant review application and order dated 31.10.2025 passed in WPPIL No. 85/2025 particularly the directions contained in Paragraph 16 thereof may kindly be reviewed in larger interest of Justice.”

¶27

3

¶28

3. By the said order, the writ petition was disposed of with the observation that the respondent authorities shall not permit any industry to fill the pit with fly ash and that the water body so formed shall not be disturbed.

¶29

4. Mr. Amit Soni, learned counsel for the review petitioner, submits that the impugned order dated 31.10.2025 has been passed under a patent misconception of both facts and the applicable statutory framework. It is contended that the foundational premise of the order that a “water body so formed” exists at the Konkona Ordinary Stone Mine, is demonstrably erroneous. The material placed on record, including the affidavits filed by respondent No.6, clearly establishes that mining operations were carried out pursuant to valid permissions till the period 2023–2024 and that no permanent or natural water body ever came into existence. At best, the pit had accumulated rainwater on account of cessation of operations, which cannot, in law or in fact, be equated with a protected water body.

¶30

5. Mr. Soni further submits that the operative and binding Quarry Closure Plan of 2024, approved by the competent statutory authority, namely the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (‘SEIAA’), Chhattisgarh, mandates reclamation of the mined area by filling the mine pit with fly ash, thereafter covering it with top soil and undertaking plantation. This statutory obligation has overriding force and supersedes the earlier closure plan of

¶31

4

¶32

2016, which stood exhausted and rendered otiose after the grant of subsequent mining permissions. Therefore, the direction restraining fly ash filling is in direct conflict with the approved closure plan and frustrates the object of scientifically reclaiming the abandoned mine in accordance with environmental norms.

¶33

6. It is contended by Mr. Soni that the review petitioner is a necessary and proper party to the proceedings, being the primary executing agency engaged for transportation and filling of fly ash under valid work orders and permissions issued by the concerned authorities. The impugned directions have the effect of permanently stalling the lawful business operations of the review petitioner and imposing serious financial and commercial prejudice, despite the petitioner not having been impleaded in the writ petition nor afforded any opportunity of being heard. Such an order, having grave civil consequences, is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice, particularly audi alteram partem .

¶34

7. It is further contended by Mr. Soni that the direction issued by this Court effectively operates as a blanket and perpetual injunction against the respondent authorities, compelling them to act contrary to the statutory mining and environmental regime, without there being a full and final adjudication on the inter se validity of the competing quarry closure plans. The failure to consider the rationale and legal effect of the subsequent closure plan, prepared and approved after fresh mining permissions,

¶35

5

¶36

constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record. It is, therefore, urged that the impugned order, to the extent it restrains fly ash filling by proceeding on an incorrect factual premise and by overlooking binding statutory material already on record, warrants review and recall in the interest of justice, equity, and to prevent manifest injustice to the review petitioner.

¶37

8. On the other hand, Mr. Animesh Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 3 and 6, fairly submits that pursuant to paragraph 16 of the impugned order dated 31.10.2025 passed by this Court, the work order granted in favour of the review petitioner has been cancelled by the competent authorities in obedience to and in compliance with the directions contained therein. He further submits that, in view of the said judicial direction, the respondent authorities had no discretion but to discontinue the work relating to fly ash filling at the mine site.

¶38

9. Mr. Tiwari contends that at this stage he is not in a position to justify or continue the said work order contrary to the directions of this Court. However, it is fairly conceded that the petitioner may be permitted to submit a fresh and comprehensive representation before the competent authorities, particularly before respondent No. 6, raising all permissible grounds in support of its claim. It is submitted that, in the event such a representation is filed, the same may be considered and decided independently by the concerned authority in accordance with law, strictly keeping in

¶39

6

¶40

view the applicable environmental statutes, rules, and regulatory guidelines, as well as the environmental impact of the proposed activity.

¶41

10. Mr. Tiwari assures the Court that such representation, if filed, shall be examined objectively and expeditiously, without being influenced by any earlier order, and a reasoned decision shall be taken on its own merits, balancing environmental considerations with the statutory framework governing mine reclamation and fly ash utilization.

¶42

11. Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State as well as Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Harsh Dave, learned counsel appearing for the original writ petitioner/respondent No.8 jointly submit that they have no objection in case the impugned order dated 31.10.2025 is suitably modified, clarified, or reviewed to the limited extent of the present review petitioner alone. It is fairly stated that such modification may be confined to protecting and adjudicating the rights of the review petitioner without affecting the operation of the order vis-à-vis other parties or the general issues raised in the public interest litigation.

¶43

12. It is further submitted that the State and the original writ petitioner would not oppose a limited interference by this Court, if deemed appropriate, so as to enable the review petitioner to pursue its remedy in accordance with law, subject to environmental

¶44

7

¶45

safeguards, statutory rules, and applicable guidelines, and without diluting the environmental concerns underlying the original writ proceedings.

¶46

13. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned order under review.

¶47

14. This Court while deciding the public interest litigation being Writ Petition (PIL) No.85/2025, has passed the following order, by observing as follows :-

¶48

“ 13. The primary grievance of the petitioner was that the pit formed by mining of the stones should not be used for filling up the fly ash but since there existed a huge water body since 2019, the same should be left as a water body only. From the above affidavit filed by the Regional Officer, CECB, it appears that at this stage, the grievance raised by the petitioner has been redressed as no dumping of fly ash is being done by any of the industries.

¶49

14 Mr. Bhaduri, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner contends that though the dumping of fly ash has been stopped, but when dumping may start again, cannot be ruled out and as such, the respondent authorities may be directed to restrain any of the industries to dump fly ash in the area in question and the mining pit should remain a water body for ever.

¶50

15 On the above submission, Mr. Tiwari submits that the mine has been closed long ago and as per the earlier closure plan, the same was to be

¶51

8

¶52

filled by the fly ash but if any changes has to be made in the mine closure plan with respect to the use of the pit, that can be done only by the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (for short, the SEIAA) and not the CECB.

¶53

16 In view of the above submission, we hereby dispose of this petition with a hope and trust that the respondent authorities would not permit any industries to fill the pit with fly ash and the water body so formed shall not be disturbed. In case, the petitioner has still any grievance, he may take recourse to the appropriate authority in accordance with law. ”

¶54

15. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and upon a careful perusal of the impugned order sought to be reviewed, the pleadings on record, and the affidavits filed by the respondent authorities, we are of the considered opinion that the present review petition deserves to be partly allowed to a limited extent, strictly confining the relief to the review petitioner alone.

¶55

16. It is evident from the record that while disposing of Writ Petition (PIL) No.85/2025, this Court proceeded on the premise that a “water body so formed” existed in the mining pit and, on such premise, issued the observation contained in paragraph 16 of the order dated 31.10.2025. However, the material subsequently brought to the notice of this Court, particularly the affidavits filed by respondent No.6, prima facie indicate that the mining operations at Konkona Ordinary Stone Mine continued pursuant

¶56

9

¶57

to valid permissions till the year 2023–2024 and that the pit had merely accumulated rainwater after cessation of mining activity. Whether such accumulation of water constitutes a permanent water body and whether the mine pit is required to be reclaimed by fly ash filling, as mandated under the approved Quarry Closure Plan of 2024, are issues which necessarily require consideration by the competent statutory authority under the applicable environmental and mining regulations.

¶58

17. This Court also takes note of the fact that the review petitioner, though directly affected by the directions contained in paragraph 16 of the order dated 31.10.2025, was not a party to the original writ proceedings. The impugned observation has resulted in cancellation of the work order issued in favour of the review petitioner and has serious civil and commercial ramifications. In such circumstances, the ends of justice would be subserved if the review petitioner is afforded an effective opportunity to place its case before the competent authority for an appropriate decision in accordance with law.

¶59

18. It is equally significant that the learned State counsel as well as the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the original writ petitioner have fairly stated before this Court that they have no objection if the impugned order is suitably modified or clarified to the limited extent of the present review petitioner, without disturbing the order in its application to other parties or the

¶60

10

¶61

broader issues involved in the public interest litigation.

¶62

19. In view of the above, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival claims, this Court is inclined to clarify and modify the order dated 31.10.2025 to the extent that the observation contained in paragraph 16 thereof shall not come in the way of the review petitioner from submitting a fresh, detailed, and comprehensive representation before respondent No.6. The said representation may raise all permissible grounds available to the review petitioner under law, including reliance upon the approved Quarry Closure Plan of 2024, the environmental clearances granted, and the guidelines governing reclamation of abandoned mines and utilization of fly ash.

¶63

20. In turn, respondent No.6 is accordingly directed that, in the event such a representation is filed by the review petitioner within a reasonable time, the same shall be considered and decided independently, objectively, and expeditiously, in accordance with law, keeping in view the applicable environmental statutes, rules, notifications, and guidelines, as well as the environmental impact of the proposed activity. While deciding the representation, respondent No.6 shall not be influenced by the observations made in paragraph 16 of the order dated 31.10.2025 and shall pass a reasoned order after due application of mind.

¶64

21. It is clarified that this limited modification/clarification is granted only in favour of the present review petitioner and shall not affect

¶65

11

¶66

the operation of the order dated 31.10.2025 in respect of other parties or the general issues raised in Writ Petition (PIL) No.85/2025, nor shall it be construed as a dilution of the environmental concerns underlying the public interest litigation.

¶67

22. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant review petition stands disposed of to the limited extent indicated above.

¶68

Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶69

Anu

M/S Tirupati Minerals Private Limited, v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Tirupati Minerals Private Limited, v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramdayal Vs Mangli Bai

Kavita Kushwaha Vs Jagmohan Kashyap

Hem Bai Sahu Vs Kisano Sahu

Tabasum Ahmed Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Bundeli Bai Vs Chief Manager, South Easter Coal Limited

The State of Chhattisgarh Vs Dr. Samriddhi Dubey