Disposed

News Item Titled "Activist Questions Forest Dept,S U-Turn Over Mining in Karnataka,S Tumakuru" Appearing in Deccan Herald Dated 10.06.2025. vs

NGT9 Jul 2025Original Application No. 329/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal registered this original application suo-motu based on a news report regarding a mining proposal in Karnataka that allegedly violates environmental norms. The Court impleaded statutory authorities as respondents, transferred the matter to the Chennai Bench, and listed it for hearing.

What did the court decide?

Notice issued to CPCB, MoEF&CC, and KSPCB; application transferred to Southern Zonal Bench, Chennai.

News Item Titled "Activist Questions Forest Dept,S U-Turn… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

Court No. 1

¶2

Item No. 06

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Original Application No. 329/2025

¶5

News Item titled "Activist questions forest depts U-turn over mining in Karnataka’s Tumakuru" appearing in Deccan Herald dated 10.06.2025.

¶6

Date of hearing: 09.07.2025

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER

¶8

Respondent: None

¶9

ORDER

¶10

This Original Application is registered suo-motu on the basis of the news item titled “Activist questions forest depts U-turn over mining in Karnataka’s Tumakuru” appearing in Deccan Herald dated 10.06.2025.

¶11

The news item relates to the Karnataka Forest Department allowing two mining leases in Tumakuru, despite earlier rejecting the proposal due to concerns about environmental damage.

¶12

As per the news item, on May 14, the department recommended approval of a project by Mineral Enterprises Private Limited, covering 119.1 acres across Gollahalli, Hosahalli, and Kodihalli villages in Chikkanayakanahalli taluk.

¶13

The news item highlights that the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Tumakuru, had earlier raised concerns about the area being prone to "accelerated" soil erosion and noted the presence of wildlife such as leopards, sloth bears, wild pigs, and peafowl. In a letter to the Additional Chief Secretary of the Forest Department, conservationist Giridhar Kulkarni appealed for the proposal to be rejected. He pointed out that two earlier proposals adjacent to the same area were dropped after site

¶14

¶15

inspections by the regional office of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), Bengaluru, which had recommended against them.

¶16

The above news item indicates violation of the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957.

¶17

The news item raises substantial issues relating to compliance with the environmental norms and implementation of the provisions of scheduled enactment.

¶18

The power of the Tribunal to take up the matter suo-motu has been recognized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Ankita Sinha & Ors.” reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 897.

¶19

Hence, we implead following as respondents in this matter:

¶20

(i) Respondent no.1- Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), through its Member Secretary, Parivesh Bhawan, East Arjun Nagar, Delhi-110032

¶21

(ii) Respondent no.2- Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), Regional Office, Bengaluru Regional Office (SZ), Kendriya Sadan, 4th Floor, E&F Wings, 17th Main Road, Koramangala II Block, Bangalore – 560034

¶22

(iii) Respondent no.3- Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Through it’s Member Secretary Parisara Bhavana", No #49, Church Street, Bengaluru – 560001

¶23

Issue notice to the above respondents for filing their response/reply

¶24

by way of affidavit before the appropriate Bench of the Tribunal at least

¶25

¶26

one week before the next date of hearing. If any respondent directly files the reply without routing it through his advocate then the said respondent will remain virtually present to assist the Tribunal.

¶27

Since the matter relates to the Southern Zonal Bench, Chennai, therefore, OA is transferred to the Southern Zonal Bench for appropriate further action. The office is directed to transfer the original record of the OA to Southern Zonal Bench, Chennai.

¶28

List before Southern Zonal Bench at Chennai on 25.09.2025.

¶29

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶30

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶31

July 09, 2025 Original Application No. 329/2025 JG.

¶32

News Item Titled "Activist Questions Forest Dept,S U-Turn Over Mining in Karnataka,S Tumakuru" Appearing in Deccan Herald Dated 10.06.2025. vs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

News Item Titled "Activist Questions Forest Dept,S U-Turn Over Mining in Karnataka,S Tumakuru" Appearing in Deccan Herald Dated 10.06.2025. vs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gareeb Guide Ngo vs State of Andhra Pradesh

News Item Titled Illegal Encroachment of Forest Land Appearing in the Eenadu Chennai Edition Dated 29 01 2025 vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change through Its Regional Office Rep by Its Regional Director

K Rajarajan vs Central Pollution Control Board

Galina Babaiteva vs State of Goa through Goa State Pollution Control Board

Dulli Chand Meena vs State of Rajasthan

P S Saboo vs Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands

M/S Msp Steel Sponge Iron Ltd. vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Sonjit Kumar Kayal vs West Bengal Pollution Control Board

Gram Panchayat Village Rampur Kalan District Sas Nagar (Mohali) through Its Sarpanch Surjit Singh vs State of Punjab

Kapil Kumar vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Amitabh Thakur vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Jeetu Chaudhary vs

Dr Amit Kumar vs Union of India

Nakul Kumar Gupta vs Uttarakhand Forest