Disposed

Nirmla Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh

NGT24 Nov 2025Original Application No. 494/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal disposed of an Original Application challenging mining leases, environmental clearance, and a District Survey Report. The Tribunal held the application was barred by res sub judice due to pendency of a Writ Petition in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh and dismissed it as the remedy of appeal was available against the EC, with liberty to re-approach if issues survive t

What did the court decide?

The Original Application was disposed of with liberty to the applicant to approach the Tribunal again if any environmental issue survives the High Court judgment.

Nirmla Sharma vs State of Himachal Pradesh — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item No. 16

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Original Application No. 494/2025 (IA No 648/2025)

Nirmla Sharma

Applicant

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.

¶9

Respondent(s)

¶10

Date of hearing: 24.11.2025

¶11

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

¶12

Applicant: Mr. Shivam Prashar, Mr. Madhhav Tyagi & Mr. Anirudh Thakur, Advs. for Applicant

¶13

Respondents: Mr. Anil Jaryal, Adv. for R - 1 to 3, 7, 8, 11 & 12

¶14

Mr. Aditya Dhawan & Mr. Anirudh Negi, Advs. for R - 9 & 10

¶15

Mr. Shalabh Gupta, Adv. for MoEF & CC (Through VC) Mr. Ashish Joshi, proxy counsel for Mr. Vaibhav Srivastava, AAG for HP SPCB (Through VC)

¶16

ORDER

¶17

1. In this Original Application (OA), the applicant has sought for

¶18

multiple reliefs including the relief of quashing the DSR for District Kangra,

¶19

Himachal Pradesh dated 20.08.2024.

¶20

The reliefs claimed in this OA are as under:

¶21

i . quash and set aside the Mining Lease Deed dated 18.06.2025 executed between the Government of Himachal Pradesh and Respondent No.9 (Annexure A-14), being wholly illegal and void ab initio

¶22

ii . quash the Environmental Clearance (EC) dated 17.09.2022 granted to Respondent No.9 (Annexure A-10), as the same was issued in the absence of a valid District Survey Report (DSR) and contrary to statutory mandates and judicial pronouncements;

¶23

iii . quash the Letter of Intent (LOI) issued in 2018 in favour of Respondent No.9 (Annexure A-9), being illegal, arbitrary, and dehors the guidelines and notifications governing mining of minor minerals;

¶24

iv . quash the purported Final District Survey Report (DSR) dated 20.08.2024 for District Kangra (Annexure A-8), being prepared without adherence to statutory procedure, without committee-based participation, without field verification, geo-tagging, cluster mapping, or public consultation, and direct the Respondents to

¶25

¶26

prepare a fresh DSR strictly in accordance with the EIA Notification, 2006 (as amended), Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016, and Enforcement & Monitoring Guidelines, 2020, using scientific methods and participatory processes;

¶27

v . Direct the Respondents to impose environmental compensation on all mining activities carried out pursuant to the impugned EC, LOI, and lease deed, in accordance with the ‘Polluter Pays’ principle and statutory mandate;

¶28

vi . Pass such further order(s) or direction(s) as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and environmental protection.

¶29

A reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1, 2,3 and 8

¶30

disclosing that Civil Writ Petition bearing no. 11671/2025 titled as M/s Mata Ashapuri Stone Crusher vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., challenging the DSR of 2024 of District Kangra is pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh wherein even the reply has been filed by the respondent no.1. The prayer clause along with the issue of pendency of writ petition is mentioned in the reply of respondent nos. 1, 2,3 and 8 as under:

¶31

“1. That it is humbly submitted that the present Original Application is barred by Principle of "Res-Subjudice", as in respect to the issue involved in the Original Application, one Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, S/o Sh. Bakshi Ram, Proprietor of M/s Mata Ashapuri Stone Crusher, R/o of Village Kanyan, Post Office Barran, Tehsil Jaisinghpur, District Kangra, H.P. has already filed a Civil Writ Petition bearing No. 11671 of 2025 titled as M/s Mata Ashapuri Stone Crusher Vs. State of H.P. & Others in the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh with the prayers, inter alia as under:

¶32

"A. That Mining Lease Agreement dated 18-06-2025 (Annexure P- 35), Environment Clearance dated 17-09-2022(Annexure P-22) and LOI (Annexure P-12) issued in favour of the respondent No. 10 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

¶33

B. That the District Survey Report-2024 of District Kangra (Annexure P-8) approved by EIAA Himachal Pradesh on 20-082024 may kindly be quashed and Set aside with directions to the respondents to prepare and publish valid DSR in strict Compliance of EIA Notification dated 15-01-2016, Notification dated 25-07-2018, Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines 2016 and Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for sand mining -2020.

¶34

C. That respondents may kindly be direct to prepare and published valid DSR of each mining site available for mining of minor minerals on River bed of Bias River by using the Drone and other Modern IT Equipments and declare the area of 09-92-13 5 Hect. Comprising in Khasra Nos. 424/1, 427/1, 429/1, 429/5,432/2, 431/2, 432/7, and 429/2 Mauza Jaisinghpur and Mohal Bagh Kulja, Tehsil Jaisinghpur, District Kangra, H.P. as no mining Zone."

¶35

A copy of CWP No. 11671 of 2025 is enclosed herewith as Annexure R-1 for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Tribunal. Further, the present replying respondents have duly filed the reply of above Civil Writ Petition and the matter is now pending for decision. A copy of reply so filed by the present replying respondents is enclosed herewith as

¶36

¶37

Annexure R-2 for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Tribunal. Hence, the present Original Application is not maintainable.”

¶38

A copy of the writ petition has also been enclosed.

¶39

Once the jurisdictional High Court is examining the issue of validity of the DSR of Kangra which is under challenge is this OA also, the judicial propriety demands that the parallel proceedings should not be undertaken by the Tribunal. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. vs. Yogendera Mohan Sengupta & Anr. reported in (2024)

¶40

1 S.C.R. 973 :2024 INSC 30, has clearly held that:

¶41

“xxx …………………………….xxx……………..……xxx….…………………xxx 109. In view of the settled legal position, we are of the view that the continuation of the proceedings by the NGT during the pendency of the writ petitions before the High Court was not in conformity with the principles of judicial propriety. Needless to state that the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, insofar as its territorial jurisdiction is concerned, has supervisory jurisdiction over the NGT. Despite pendency of the proceedings before the High Court including the one challenging the interim order dated 12th May 2022 passed by NGT, the NGT went ahead with the passing of the second order impugned herein.

¶42

110. It will also be relevant to refer to the observations of this Court in the case of Raghu Ramakrishna Raju Kanumuru (Member of Parliament) (supra) , which read thus:

¶43

“13. We are, therefore, of the considered view that it was not appropriate on the part of the learned NGT to have continued with the proceedings before it, specifically, when it was pointed out that the High Court was also in seisin of the matter and had passed an interim order permitting the construction. The conflicting orders passed by the learned NGT and the High Court would lead to an anomalous situation, where the authorities would be faced with a difficulty as to which order they are required to follow. There can be no manner of doubt that in such a situation, it is the orders passed by the constitutional courts, which would be prevailing over the overs passed by the statutory tribunals.”

¶44

111. It can be seen from the perusal of the orders of the NGT itself that though the NGT was informed about the High Court being in seisin of the proceedings, it went on to hold that the judgment given by it was binding and therefore, the draft development plan, which 8 in its view, was not in conformity with its judgment, was liable to be set aside.”

¶45

That apart we also noticed that the applicant has additionally challenged the EC dated 17.09.2022 granted to the respondent no.9. Against the EC remedy of Appeal is available, therefore, the OA cannot be entertained.

¶46

In such circumstance, we do not find any good ground to proceed with the OA which is accordingly disposed of. However, with liberty to the

¶47

¶48

applicant to approach the Tribunal again, if any environmental issue survives after the Judgment by the Hon’ble High Court.

¶49

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶50

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶51

November 24, 2025 OA No. 494/2025 AM

¶52

Nirmla Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmla Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surab vs State of Rajasthan

Ajinkya Dilip Barne vs Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation

Vishal S. Rajemahadik vs Maharasthra Pollution Control Board

Dheeraj Tiwari vs Chhattishgarh Environment Conservation Board

Sameer Sharma vs Shakuntalam Landcraft Pvt. Ltd.

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

News Item Titled "22 Saal Se Band Company Mein Kaat Diye 1 Hazaar Se Jyada Ped Noida Mein Van Vibhag Ne Jabt Kiya Kate Pedo Se Bhara Truck" Appearing in Navbharat Times Dated 11.06.2024 vs

Rakesh Kaushal vs

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 156/2024 in Original Application No. 32/2020 of Varun vs Central Pollution Control Board

Rajaram vs State of Haryana

Rajeev Ranjan vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Council of Engineers through Its President Er Kapil Dev vs State of Punjab through the Principal Secretary of Local Government

Balaji Dhar vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation

Balaji Dhar vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation