Disposed

Mohammad Arif v. State of Madhya Pradesh

NGT21 May 2025Original Application No. 154/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment addresses an application alleging illegal mining by a respondent near the Kaduavan Dam, risking dam safety. The National Green Tribunal constituted a committee to inspect the site. Based on the committee's report confirming compliance with environmental norms and necessary safeguards, the Tribunal directed restrictions on blasting within 200 meters of the dam and mandated proper stor

What did the court decide?

The Tribunal was disposed of. Directions issued: No blasting within 200m of the dam; overburden not to be stored outside lease area; retain wall to prevent soil erosion.

Mohammad Arif vs State of Madhya Pradesh — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item No.04

¶2

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

¶3

Original Application No.154/2024(CZ) (I.A.No.79/2024)

¶4

Mohd. Arif & Anr. Applicant(s)

¶5

Vs.

¶6

M/s Mahalaxmi Mines & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶7

Date of Hearing: 21.05.2025

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER

¶9

For Applicant (s): None. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sachin K. Verma, Adv. (with Mr. Harshita Tejwani, Adv.) Mr. Prashant M. Harne, Adv.

¶10

ORDER

¶11

Issued raised in this application is illegal mining being undertaken by Respondent No.7 in an ecologically fragile area with the potential to endanger the life of the local residents. The Respondent No.7 is illegally and continuously undertaking Mining, Quarrying and blasting operations in close proximity to Kaduavan Dam in Mauganj Tehsil of Mauganj District, which is compromising the structural integrity of the Kaduavan Dam and causing irreversible environment damage to Kaduavan water reservoir. It is submitted that nearby villagers have approached local authorities several times and have apprised them about the seriousness of the issue.

¶12

That vide letter dated 14.02.2024, Superintendent Engineer (Irrigation) ordered Executive Engineer (Irrigation) to remove the said Crusher plant owned and operated by Respondent No.7/Mahalaxmi Mines and Stone Crusher, as they were illegally carrying out blasting operations as well as

¶13

¶14

O.A. No. 154/2024(CZ Mohd. Arif & Anr. s vs. M/s Mahalaxmi Mines & Ors.

¶15

storing large quantities of excavated/mined earth-material close to lake-bed in the submergence zone of the dam. These activities were causing serious damage to the Kaduavan Dam & polluting the Kaduavan dam reservoir. Therefore, Executive Engineer was ordered to file an FIR against M/s Mahalaxmi Mines and Stone Crusher to get the illegal encroachment removed.

¶16

The matter was taken up by this Tribunal and a committee was constituted with direction to submit the factual and action taken report. The members of the committee visited the site and submitted the report as follows :-

¶17

“M/s Mahalaxmi Stone Mines has been established on Khasra no. 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 135, 136, 140 / 1, 140 / 2, 141, 142, 143, 144 / 1, 144 / 2, 145, 148 / 1/2 and 148/1/3 of village Harraha Gujran, total area 6.134 hectares (Khasra of unit), after obtaining necessary permission for mineral stone (making gravel by mechanical action) from the following departments.

¶18

1. Letter issued by Gram Panchayat Harraha, Tehsil

¶19

Mauganj dated 26.01.2019 and 26.11.2019

¶20

2. Permission order letter No. 6069 dated 19.11.2019 issued by Mineral/Mining

¶21

Department, District, Rewa.

¶22

3. Letter No. 1004 dated 27.07.2019 issued by Regional Head Mineral Resources Department, M.P. Government Directorate of Geology and

¶23

Mining Regional Office Rewa for approval of mining plan.

¶24

¶25

O.A. No. 154/2024(CZ

¶26

Mohd. Arif & Anr. s vs. M/s Mahalaxmi Mines & Ors.

¶27

4. Letter No. 6106 dated 08.05.2019 issued by Divisional Forest Officer, District Rewa.

¶28

5. Letter No. 1225 dated 20.03.2020 issued by Executive Engineer, Upper Purwa Municipal Division, Rewa.

¶29

6. Environmental Clearance Letter No. 590 dated 18.05.2021 by M.P. State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA).

¶30

7. Letter No. 51252549 dated 01/08/2024 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Labor and Employment, Directorate General of Mines Safety, Regional Office, Jabalpur (KPMO).

¶31

8. Letter issued by Central Ground Water Authority, New Delhi for ground water extraction.

¶32

9. Consent letter no.113167 dated 06/08/2021 for establishment of mines by Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board.

¶33

10. Consent renewal letter no.116304 dated 31/08/2022 for mines by Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board.

¶34

11. Establishment Consent Outward No. 15240 dated 01/09/2022 issued by Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board for stone crusher to the unit.

¶35

¶36

O.A. No. 154/2024(CZ

¶37

Mohd. Arif & Anr. s vs. M/s Mahalaxmi Mines & Ors.

¶38

12. Letter No. 1943 dated 01/09/2023 issued by Tehsildar, Tehsil Mauganj District Mauganj stating that the distance from the bridge tank level of Kaduawan Dam from the stone crusher of the unit is 125 meters in the east and 108 meters in the west.

¶39

13. Consent to Operate Outward No. 15675 dated 11/09/2023 issued to the stone crusher unit by Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board.

¶40

14. Letter No. 1034 dated 18/03/2024 issued by Executive Engineer, Upper Purva Canal Division, Rewa states that the crusher plant is located outside the submergence area of the dam.

¶41

STATUS FOUND DURING INSPECTION:-

¶42

1. It is clear from the above documents provided by the unit to the committee that the unit was established and found to be in operational condition after obtaining necessary permission/no objection/consent from all the concerned departments.

¶43

2. The excavation of stone was being done by the unit in the approved mine area only. Apart from the above, no illegal excavation and illegal storage was found.

¶44

3. The blasting work in the mine by the unit is done from time to time as per the norms prescribed by DGMS (Directorate of Mine Safety) by entering

¶45

¶46

O.A. No. 154/2024(CZ

¶47

Mohd. Arif & Anr. s vs. M/s Mahalaxmi Mines & Ors.

¶48

into a contract with M/s Mishra Contractors, Proprietor Shri Deepak Mishra, an agency registered with the Directorate of Mine Safety.

¶49

4. Letter No. E/CC/MP/22/752 (E 129316) dated 04/07/2024 issued by the Chief Explosives Controller of Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization, Government of India to the blasting operator (M/s Mishra Contractors, Proprietor Shri Deepak Mishra).

¶50

5. During the inspection, no mining work was found in the mine area nor was blasting work done at the said time.

¶51

6. The distance from the mine area to the Kaduaavan Dam in case of full filling was observed to be about 125 meters.

¶52

7. The overburden generated by excavation in the mine area was found to be properly maintained.

¶53

8. It has been found that about 400-500 trees have been planted by the mine manager in the mine boundary area and on both sides of the mine's and mine transport road and on the outer side of the dug.

¶54

9. A cone model based modern stone crusher has been installed by the mine manager within the mine area boundary.

¶55

10. The primary and secondary crushing chambers of the stone crusher and all conveyor belts have been completely covered. A fog system machine

¶56

¶57

O.A. No. 154/2024(CZ

¶58

Mohd. Arif & Anr. s vs. M/s Mahalaxmi Mines & Ors.

¶59

has been installed on the crusher's duck for air

¶60

pollution control.

¶61

11. The mine manager has constructed a boundary wall on three sides of the crusher, i.e., north, east and south.

¶62

12. The mine manager has installed water sprinklers for air pollution control at the distribution points and boundaries of all conveyor belts.

¶63

13. During the inspection, the manager got the crusher started and the work of air pollution measurement as per the prescribed standards and collection of ground water samples from Kaduaavan Dam and nearby areas was done by the Pollution Control Board. The test results are in accordance with the prescribed standards.

¶64

14. During the inspection, photographs of the geographical location of the site were taken, which are enclosed.

¶65

15. The Committee found signs of storage of overburden generated from mining in the past, outside the mining lease area, towards the reservoir in the north direction of the lease area, about 40 x 40 meters, which was later removed from the said place and back filled in the mine. At present, no overburden storage was found at the site.

¶66

Recommendation of the Committee:-

¶67

After inspection of the site and scrutiny of documents, the Committee recommends the following:-

¶68

¶69

O.A. No. 154/2024(CZ

¶70

Mohd. Arif & Anr. s vs. M/s Mahalaxmi Mines & Ors.

¶71

1. M/s Mahalaxmi Stone Crusher and Mines and Crusher unit is being operated only after obtaining permission and no objection from the concerned departments.

¶72

2. Mining is being done in about 1.0 hectare in the western part of Aadan lease area. Whose minimum distance from Kaduaavan Dam is 125 meters. Therefore, blasting should be prohibited in this part of the lease area for the safety of the dam and blasting should be prohibited up to 200 meters from the dam (stop dam).

¶73

3. The overburden generated from the mining process should not be stored outside the lease area and the overburden dump should not be done in the northern part of the mine towards the dam/reservoir.

¶74

4. In order to prevent soil erosion in the event of heavy rainfall in the ditch made for stone feeding in the stone crusher unit, a retaining wall of at least 10 feet should be built in the northern direction towards the reservoir.

¶75

5. The stone dust generated from the crusher unit should not be stored at a height of more than 6.0 meters.

¶76

¶77

O.A. No. 154/2024(CZ

¶78

Mohd. Arif & Anr. s vs. M/s Mahalaxmi Mines & Ors.

¶79

6. Intensive plantation should be done in coordination with the Water Resources Department in the private land available towards the north of the lease area.

¶80

7. Outside the boundary area of the mine and crusher and between the Kaduaavan Dam, there is land of other lease holders, on which some amount of overburden due to excavation by the mine manager had accumulated in the land of the said other land owners, which was removed and stored in our own land and it was directed that under no circumstances any type of waste from the mine and crusher should be stored in the land of other land owners outside the lease area.

¶81

8. The unit manager was directed by the committee that the excavation and blasting work in the mine should be done as per the prescribed standard limit so that the dam constructed by the Water Resources Department and the natural structures around it are not adversely affected.”

¶82

Notices were also issued to the respondent and in compliance thereof, the learned counsel for Respondent No. 7 has submitted that this Tribunal has constituted a committee and the project proponent undertakes that the blasting will not be undertaken within 200 metres of the reservoir dam (stop

¶83

¶84

O.A. No. 154/2024(CZ

¶85

Mohd. Arif & Anr. s vs. M/s Mahalaxmi Mines & Ors.

¶86

dam) and further the dumping of the overburden will not be carried out at the northern side of the stone quarry towards the reservoir/dam.

¶87

It is further argued that the respondent project proponent has already constructed a retaining wall at the northern side to stop the soil erosion as recommended by the committee. The respondent project proponent has carried out plantation and large number of samplings are planted during the rainy season.

¶88

It is further argued that the respondent-project proponent has also donated 10,000 plants to the Forest Division, Circuit Rewa.

¶89

The contention of the learned counsel for Respondent No. 7 are that the project proponent is having all the requisite valid permissions and consent and is also having a valid in order clearances for carrying out the mining activities in the lease area, therefore the submission and contentions made by the applicant are misconceived and devoid of any merit.

¶90

Submission of the learned counsel for the State/MPSEIAA are that all environmental clearances issued by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority are based on a comprehensive assessment of the document submitted by the project proponent through the Parivesh Portal. On the basis of technical evaluation carried out by the State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC), SEAC appraises the cases and issued the environmental clearance.

¶91

On the basis of the above report, the learned counsel for the State of Madhya Pradesh has also filed the reply and argued that unit has obtained the necessary permissions and consent conditions from the concerned department and no illegal excavation and illegal storage was found by the committee. It is further submitted that the norms prescribed by the DGMS, Directorate of Mine Safety are being followed in accordance with the rules.

¶92

¶93

O.A. No. 154/2024(CZ

¶94

Mohd. Arif & Anr. s vs. M/s Mahalaxmi Mines & Ors.

¶95

In view of the above contention of the parties and submission of the applicant as report submitted by the Joint Committee, we conclude and direct as follows :-

¶96

Proper precautions should be taken and there should be no blasting within 200 metres from the dam/stop dam at the western part and should be in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Directorate of Mines.

¶97

Over burden generated from the mining process should not be stored outside the lease area and the over burden dump should not be done in the northern part of the mine towards the dam of the reservoir.

¶98

In order to prevent soil erosion in the event of heavy rainfall in the ditch made for stone feeding in the stone crusher unit, a retaining wall of at least 10 feet should be built in the northern direction towards the reservoir. The stone dust generated from the crusher unit should not be stored at a height of more than 6.0 meters.

¶99

Intensive plantation should be done in coordination with the Water Resources Department in the private land available towards the north of the lease area.

¶100

The unit manager was directed by the committee that the excavation and blasting work in the mine should be done as per the prescribed standard limit so that the dam constructed by the Water Resources Department and the natural structures around it are not adversely affected.

¶101

Executive Engineer, Water Works Department concerned and the State Pollution Control Board is directed to periodically monitor the environmental conditions and in

¶102

¶103

O.A. No. 154/2024(CZ

¶104

Mohd. Arif & Anr. s vs. M/s Mahalaxmi Mines & Ors.

¶105

case of any violation or in case of any threat to the damage of dam, necessary precautions should be taken and direction be issued to the mine owner for taking proper precautions, so that, the dam may not be adversely affected due to blasting or mining operation.

¶106

With these observations Original Application No. 154/2024 along with I.A. No. 79/2024 stand disposed of.

¶107

Sheo Kumar Singh, JM

¶108

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶109

21^st May, 2025 O.A. No. 154/2024(CZ PN

¶110

¶111

O.A. No. 154/2024(CZ

¶112

Mohd. Arif & Anr. s vs. M/s Mahalaxmi Mines & Ors.

Mohammad Arif v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Arif v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Mincon Exploration Pvt. Ltd. through Authorised Representative vs State of Madhya Pradesh through Principal Secretary Department of Minerals and Mines

Vijay Shankar Pandey vs M/S Gopal Choudhary

Krishnarani Agrawal vs Town and Country Planning Department

Anuj Kumar vs State of Uttarakhand

Anand Hooda vs Haryana State Pollution Control Board

News Item Titled "Marble Waste Creates Mirage of Now in Rajasthan,S Kishangarh Poses Long Term Risks" Appearing in the Hidnu Dated 13.04.2025. vs

Karan Sonone vs Union of India

Vipin Kumar Saxena vs State of Uttar Pradesh

M/S Mincon Exploration Pvt. Ltd. through Authorised Representative vs State of Madhya Pradesh through Principal Secretary Department of Minerals and Mines

Vijay Shankar Pandey vs M/S Gopal Choudhary

Krishnarani Agrawal vs Town and Country Planning Department

Mohammad Arif vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Karan Sonone vs Union of India

Karan Sonone vs Union of India