Allowed

K. Balamurugan v. the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority

NGT6 Apr 2026Appeal No. 6/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal allowed an appeal against the SEAC's rejection of an environmental clearance proposal for an ordinary earth quarry. The court held that the SEAC acted arbitrarily by returning a fresh proposal without independent appraisal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order returning the proposal was set aside; matter remitted to SEAC/SEIAA for fresh consideration, independent appraisal, and passage of a reasoned order within 8 weeks.

K. Balamurugan vs the State Environmental Impact Assessment… — Land Acquisition | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No. 5:-

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

¶3

Monday, the 06^th day of April, 2026.

¶4

[Through Physical Hearing (Hybrid Option)]

¶5

Appeal No.06 of 2026 (SZ)

¶6

IN THE MATTER OF:

¶7

K. Balamurugan

¶8

S/o. Kasinathan, No.2/21, Pandaravadai Street, Thalachangadu, Tharangambadi Taluk, Mayiladuthurai District – 609 107.

¶9

…Appellant(s)

¶10

Versus

¶11

1) State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA-TN) Rep. by its Member Secretary, Metros, 9^th Floor, Nandanam, Chennai – 35.

¶12

2) State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC-TN) Rep. by its Chairman, Metros, 9^th Floor, Nandanam, Chennai – 35.

¶13

...Respondent(s)

¶14

For Appellant (s): Mr. S. Saravanan a/w. M/s. P. Kokila, B. Girija, B. Pugazhvendhan, K. Narotham Doss and B. Kumaran.

¶15

For Respondent(s): Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for R1 & R2.

¶16

CORAM :

¶17

HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

¶18

HON’BLE Dr. PRASHANT GARGAVA, EXPERT MEMBER

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member

¶21

1. The present Appeal has been filed against the impugned order passed by the State Expert Appraisal Committee ( SEAC ), Tamil Nadu/Respondent No.2, in returning the Appellant’s proposal submitted vide Online EC Proposal No. SIA/TN/MIN/543823/2025 dated 05.07.2025 (New File No. 12481

¶22

Page 1 of 7

¶23

dated 23.07.2025), seeking grant of Environmental Clearance (EC) for quarrying of ordinary earth.

¶24

2. The Appellant has taken on lease the land measuring an extent of 1.02.00 hectares, comprised in Survey Field Nos. 346/2, 346/3, 349/3A, 362/1 and 349/7, situated at Melaiyur Village, Sirkazhi Taluk, Mayiladuthurai District, proposed for quarrying of ordinary earth.

¶25

3. The Appellant applied for earth quarry lease in the subject land on 20.05.2022 under Rule 19 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, before the Assistant Director, Department of Geology and Mining, Kancheepuram. The said proposal was accepted based on the recommendations of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagapattinam and the Assistant Geologist, Department of Geology and Mining, Nagapattinam. Thereafter, a Precise Area Communication was issued vide Rc.No.35/Mines/2022 dated 18.08.2022, directing the Appellant to obtain Mining Plan approval from the District Collector and Environmental Clearance from the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority ( SEIAA ), Tamil Nadu.

¶26

4. Pursuant thereto, the Appellant submitted an application for prior Environmental Clearance under the ‘B2’ category for quarrying of ordinary earth vide Online Proposal No. SIA/TN/MIN/291215/2022 dated 02.09.2022 (File No.9468/2022) . The said proposal was considered by the SEAC, Tamil Nadu, in its 324^th meeting held on 21.10.2022, wherein the Committee noted the following:

¶27

(i) A portion of the project area is classified as

¶28

“Nanjai”, in S.F. No.362/1.

¶29

(ii) The proposed quarry site was located within 15 meters from River Cauvery, as noted in the order of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.(MD) Nos. 20903 of 2016.

¶30

5. The Appellant contends that, in view of the directives issued by the Department of Geology and Mining dated 30.07.2021, the SEAC – Tamil Nadu decided not to recommend the proposal for Environmental Clearance. Thereafter, the SEIAA

¶31

Page 2 of 7

¶32

– Tamil Nadu, in its 569^th meeting held on 10^th & 11^th November, 2022, took a decision; however, the same was not communicated to the appellant. Despite the lapse of the time period prescribed under Rule 8 of the EIA Notification, 2006. Such inaction, in the statutory timeline, reflects a clear procedural lapse on the part of the Authority.

¶33

6. The Appellant further contends that the decision of non-recommendation by the SEAC, Tamil Nadu, was not in consonance with the provisions of the TNMMC Rules. In order to address the concerns raised, the Appellant undertook modifications and prepared a revised mining plan. The revised mining plan was approved by the Assistant Director, Department of Geology and Mining, Nagapattinam, vide proceedings in Rc. No. 35/Mines/2022 dated 26.12.2024.

¶34

7. Based on the revised mining plan, the Appellant requested the SEIAA/SEAC – Tamil Nadu to reconsider the proposal, stating that all concerns raised during earlier appraisal had been duly addressed. However, the request for reconsideration and reappraisal was rejected during the 805^th Meeting of the SEIAA – Tamil Nadu held on 03.04.2025 without forwarding to SEAC – Tamil Nadu for reappraisal. The appellant herein did not choose to prefer any appeal against the same. Nevertheless, the Appellant submitted a new application with revised documents through Online EC Proposal No.SIA/TN/MIN/543823/2025 dated 05.07.2025 and the proposal was filed and numbered with a New File No.12481/2025 .

¶35

8. The above proposal was placed before the SEAC – Tamil Nadu in its 597^th Meeting held on 24.07.2025, wherein the proposal was returned unilaterally stating that “Based on the presentation and documents furnished by the project proponent, SEAC-II noted that the proposal was placed in 805^th Authority Meeting held on 03.04.2025. The Authority decided to reject the reconsideration request of PP after due consideration. So, the committee decided to return the proposal in its present form based on the decision made in the 805th Authority Meeting.”

¶36

Page 3 of 7

¶37

9. Aggrieved by the said action, the present Appeal has been filed on the following grounds:

¶38

I. The impugned action of SEAC – Tamil Nadu is mechanical and without proper application of mind.

¶39

II. The power of the SEAC – Tamil Nadu is circumscribed by Rule 36 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 and in absence of any statutory violation, rejection of the proposal is impermissible.

¶40

III. The impugned order is erroneous and violative of the principles of natural justice, as no proper reasoning has been assigned for returning the proposal.

¶41

IV. The SEAC – Tamil Nadu has returned the proposal without undertaking factual scrutiny, and merely relied upon earlier minutes, thereby acting beyond the scope of its statutory functions under the EIA Notification, 2006.

¶42

V. The competent authority in the Department of Geology and Mining has already recorded that there is no violation of Rule 36, and therefore, returning the proposal without proper consideration amounts to arbitrary exercise of power.

¶43

VI. Respondents have failed to consider the revised mining plan, wherein all earlier objections relating to “Nanjai land” and proximity to River Cauvery have been duly addressed.

¶44

10. Upon notice, the respondents entered appearance through their standing counsel.

¶45

11. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the respondents and also perused the materials available on record.

¶46

12. The appeal arises out of the impugned order passed by the 2^nd Respondent viz., SEAC – Tamil Nadu, returning the Appellant’s new proposal Online EC Proposal No. SIA/TN/MIN/543823/2025 dated 05.07.2025, and a New File No. 12481 submitted on 23.07.2025 for grant of Environmental Clearance for ordinary earth quarry.

¶47

Page 4 of 7

¶48

13. It is admitted that the Appellant had initially applied for Environmental Clearance under ‘B2 Category’ vide proposal dated 02.09.2022, which was considered by the SEAC – Tamil Nadu in its 324^th Meeting held on 21.10.2022, wherein the Committee noted existence of “Nanjai” in S.F. No.362/1 and proximity of the project site within 15 meters of River Cauvery.

¶49

14. Based on the above observations and in view of the directives of the Department of Geology and Mining dated 30.07.2021, the SEAC – Tamil Nadu decided not to recommend the proposal. The SEIAA – Tamil Nadu, in its 569^th Meeting held on 10^th & 11^th November, 2022, took note of the same. However, it is evident that no formal reasoned order was communicated to the Appellant.

¶50

15. The request of the Appellant for reconsideration was rejected in the 805^th Meeting of SEIAA – Tamil Nadu held on 03.04.2025. Hence, the Appellant submitted a fresh proposal vide Online EC Proposal No.SIA/TN/MIN/543823/ 2025 dated 05.07.2025 (New File No.12481), which was placed before the SEAC – Tamil Nadu in its 597^th Meeting held on 24.07.2025. However, the SEAC – Tamil Nadu returned the fresh application replying upon the decision taken in the 805^th Meeting dated 03.04.2025 without considering the same on merits.

¶51

16. The core issue that arises for consideration before this Tribunal is whether the SEAC – Tamil Nadu was justified in returning the fresh proposal without appraisal, merely on the ground that an earlier proposal relating to the same project had been rejected.

¶52

17. This Tribunal is of the considered view that once a fresh proposal is submitted, the same is required to be independently evaluated on its own merits, in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the EIA Notification, 2006. The SEAC, being an expert appraisal body, is statutorily obligated to scrutinize the proposal, apply its mind to the revised material and make appropriate recommendations to the SEIAA. The act of returning the proposal without such appraisal amounts to abdication of statutory duty.

¶53

Page 5 of 7

¶54

18. This Tribunal also finds merit in the contention of the Appellant that Rule 36 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, which prescribes specific statutory restrictions and in the absence of any violation thereof, rejection of the proposal on extraneous considerations cannot be sustained.

¶55

19. In the considered opinion of this Tribunal, the impugned action of the SEAC – Tamil Nadu in returning the proposal without appraisal is arbitrary, unsustainable in law and violative of the principles of natural justice, as well as contrary to the scheme of the EIA Notification, 2006.

¶56

20. In the result,

¶57

I. The appeal [Appeal No.06 of 2026 (SZ)] is allowed and the impugned order passed by the 2^nd Respondent/SEAC – Tamil Nadu, as recorded in the minutes of the 597^th Meeting of the SEAC – Tamil Nadu dated 31.07.2025 held on 24.07.2025, is set aside.

¶58

II. The matter is remitted back to SEAC/SEIAA – Tamil Nadu, for fresh consideration of the Appellant’s proposal for grant of Environmental Clearance, strictly in accordance with law.

¶59

III. The SEAC/SEIAA – Tamil Nadu shall take the Appellant’s proposal on file, subject the same to independent appraisal on its own merits, and shall not be influenced by the earlier decision of rejection.

¶60

IV. The SEAC – Tamil Nadu shall duly examine the revised mining plan and supporting documents, including the modifications carried out by the Appellant addressing earlier deficiencies and make appropriate recommendations to the SEIAA – Tamil Nadu in accordance with law.

¶61

Page 6 of 7

¶62

V. The Appellant shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing, and all relevant materials submitted by the Appellant shall be duly considered. The SEIAA – Tamil Nadu shall thereafter pass a reasoned order on the proposal, in accordance with law.

¶63

VI. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶64

21. With the above directions, the appeal [Appeal

¶65

No.06 of 2026 (SZ)] is disposed of.

¶66

Sd/-

¶67

Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM Sd/Dr. Prashant Gargava, EM

¶68

Appeal No.06/2026 (SZ) 06^th April, 2026. Mn. Note:

¶69

The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the SEAC/SEIAA – Tamil Nadu by e-mail for compliance.

¶70

Page 7 of 7

K. Balamurugan v. the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Balamurugan v. the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority

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

Sunil Verma vs Punjab Pollution Control Board

Mrs.P.Chandra Proprietrix M/S.P.M.Enterprises vs Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board

Ms God Gift Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs Haryana State Pollution Control Board

M/S Frick India Ltd. vs Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas (Caqm)

V v Titanium Pigment Private Limited vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan vs Seiaa

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan vs Seiaa

Rajdarbar Iconic Venture Ltd. vs Commission for Air Quality Management in Ncr

Patlola Karthik Reddy vs Union of India

Paramesh Baligolla vs Chief Secretary Govt of Andhra Pradesh

Anantha Seetharam Reddy vs State of Telangana Rep. by Its Principal Secretary. Irrigation and Cad Department

Dhenupuri Housing Colony, Kannadasan Avenue, Seethalakshmi Nagar Welfare Association, a Registered Society, Rep by Its President, D.Ravi vs the Secretary, State Urban Development Department, Govt. of Tamil Nadu

V v Titanium Pigment Private Limited vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board