authorities. As such, Respondent No. 5/ UPPCB along with mining inspector and Geologist, Ghaziabad had inspected the premises on 02.05.2024 had not found any mining outside the leased area. It was further found and verified that no water pollution, air pollution and noise pollution were found by Respondent No. 5. Copy of the joint inspection report dated 02.05.2024 is marked and annexed as Annexure -17. 22. However, UPPCB despite having found no non-compliance or mining outside of the leased area by the Answering Respondent, have now sought to impose the Environment Compensation for alleged mining outside the leased area without any illegal or excess mining carried by the Answering Respondent as per its own admission. The said imposition of Environment Compensation by the UPPCB vide its letter dated 04.04.2025 is devoid of any merit or factual finding of its own. In fact, the said imposition has even failed to consider the Replies dated 24.03.2025 and 08.03.2025 to the Show Cause Notice dated 20.02.2024 and as such is violative of principles of natural justice. Copy of the Show Cause Notice dated 20.02.2024 and letter dated 04.04.2025 are marked and annexed as Annexure18 (Colly). Copy of the replies dated 24.03.2025 and 08.03.2025 are marked and annexed as Annexure-19 (Colly). 23. That even otherwise, the basis of levy of Environment Compensation is not on account of any particular finding by UPPCB but on account of levy of penalty by the DM, Baghpat vide its letter dated 01.05.2024 for alleged violation of mining outside of the leased area by the Answering Respondent. As per the notice dated 01.05.2024 issued by DM, Baghpat, during spot inspection on 23.04.2024, it had allegedly found pits created due to illegal mining whereby 357 cubic meters was extracted outside of the leased area and thereby imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,89,230/-, Copy of the notice dated 01.05.2024 issued by the DM, Baghpat is marked and annexed herewith as Annexure-20. 24. It is stated that no such illegal excavation was carried out by the Answering Respondent and the same was denied and dispute before the DM, Baghpat vide letter dated 01.06.2024 since the same was baseless and no proof was provided towards such illegal excavation. The alleged inspection and investigation was not in the presence of the Answering Respondent and in fact, the Answering Respondent had even requested DM, Baghpat to do the inspection again in the presence of the Answering Respondent. Copy of the letter dated 01.06.2024 issued by the Respondent No. 6 is marked and annexed herewith as Annexure-21. 25. As such, the Answering Respondent being a first time licensee was not able to excavate to the complete extent of the permit granted of 1,40,000 cubic meters and had only been able to excavate 1,08,000 cubic meters from the leased area and thus, Answering Respondent had no need to venture into illegal excavation to invite such penalty in any case. Since the lease was expiring on 19.06.2024 and as consequence of the imposition of penalty without any show cause notice, the Answering Respondent would have been liable to stop work immediately and thus, was constrained and coerced to pay the said penalty of Rs. 3,89,230/-under protest which was also notified vide its letter dated 01.06.2024. Copy of the Challan for
