Disposed

Sunil Kumar Yadav v. State of Rajasthan

NGT21 Nov 2025IA No. 130/2025 in Original Application No. 156/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants sought injunction against mining near residential area citing health hazards and unscientific operations. Tribunal directed authorities to report on compliance and evidence production. IA for exemption was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Notice issued to Director, Department of Mines to submit report within 15 days and produce documentary evidence on next hearing. IA for exemption from filing annexures allowed and disposed of.

Sunil Kumar Yadav vs State of Rajasthan — Mining and Natural Resources | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item No.01

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CENTRAL ZONE BENCH, BHOPAL (Through Video Conferencing)

¶3

Original Application No.156/2025(CZ) (I.A. No.130/2025)

¶4

Sunil Kumar Yadav & Ors. Applicant(s)

¶5

Vs.

¶6

State of Rajasthan & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶7

Date of Hearing: 21.11.2025

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE DR. SUJIT KUMAR BAJPAYEE, EXPERT MEMBER

¶9

For Applicant (s): Mr. Tarun Gupta, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :

None.

ORDER

This application has been filed with the prayer to pass an order to restrained against Respondent No. 4 M/s Galaxy Infra to stop carrying out mining operations in mining leases ML No.85/1997, ML No.87/1997, ML No.88/1997, ML No.89/1997, each having an area of 1 hectare, situated near Village Banethi, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶14

Submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant is that these mining leases of respondent no. 4 are situated very close to the Village abadi which is leading to serious health hazards for the local residents particularly, because of this being carried out in unscientific and unsystematic manner. The norms issued by the authorities in that regard are not being followed. The residential colony is located within 50 metres on the said mining sites.

¶15

Learned counsel states that he had written a complaint dated 17.09.2024 addressed to respondent no. 2 - Director, Department of Mines, Ajmer

¶16

O.A. No.156/2025(CZ) Sunil Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶17

¶18

regarding directions to be issued to stop illegal mining by heavy machinery and cancellation of above mentioned mining leases. But it is stated that no response has been received to the said complaint so far. Hence, the applicant has approached this Tribunal.

¶19

We find that the applicant ought to have filed the copy of EC granted in favour of respondent no. 4 with respect to mining to be done in the area at the site in question which is not been done. Regarding this the applicant states that the applicants are poor villagers therefore they could not have access to the said documents and therefore he prayed that directions may be issued to the government authorities to provide these documentary evidence.

¶20

In our view, it is the responsibility of the applicant to find out these documents under RTI and after having obtained them he should have approached us with this original application. But be that as it may, as of now we can only call for a report from the respondent no. 2 Director, Department of Mines and Geology, as to what action has been taken at their end on the complaint dated 17.09.2024 made by the applicant.

¶21

Therefore, we direct the registry to issue notice to respondent no. 2 along with a copy of this order and report shall be submitted within 15 days positively.

¶22

If the respondent no. 2 has any documentary evidence with respect to the grant of EC or other permissions for mining in favour of respondent no. 4 these documents shall also be placed before us on the next date of hearing.

¶23

Put up this matter for consideration on 27^th January, 2026.

¶24

IA No. 130/2025 :-

¶25

The applicant has moved this application seeking exemption from filing original certified/typed/fair/translated copies of the annexures/documents/orders.

¶26

¶27

O.A. No.156/2025(CZ) Sunil Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶28

We enquired from the learned counsel as to why this prayer is being made, he states that he has moved this application just by abundant precaution. We allow this prayer and accordingly I.A. No. 130/2025 is disposed of .

¶29

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶30

Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee, EM

¶31

21^th November, 2025, OA No.156/2025(CZ) PN

¶32

¶33

O.A. No.156/2025(CZ) Sunil Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Sunil Kumar Yadav v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar Yadav v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dheeraj Tiwari vs Chhattishgarh Environment Conservation Board

Dheeraj Tiwari vs Chhattishgarh Environment Conservation Board

Minering Aggregates Private Limited vs Sieaa

Dheeraj Tiwari vs Chhattishgarh Environment Conservation Board

Ia No. 135/2025 in Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 7/2024 of National Green Tribunal Southern Zone vs the Secretary to Govt. of Tamil Nadu Public Works Department

Vikash Kumar Pathak vs State of Bihar

Balaji Dhar vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation

K Selvaraj vs Ministry of Environment Forests Climate Change

Dheeraj Tiwari vs Chhattishgarh Environment Conservation Board

Dheeraj Tiwari vs Chhattishgarh Environment Conservation Board

Dheeraj Tiwari vs Chhattishgarh Environment Conservation Board

Surab vs State of Rajasthan

Shri Harish Mathurkar vs Collector Office of Collector Betul

News Item Titled Raat Me Ped Kaat Jhadiyon Me Chipa Dete Hain Moka Milte Hi Thikane Laga Rahe Lakdi Jagah Jagah Dikhe Thunth Appearing in Dainik Bhaskar Dated 29TH August 2025 vs State of Madhya Pradesh