Dismissed

Sanjib Dhal S/O Murali Dhal Aged About 47 Years v. 1. State of Odisha Represented by Chief Secretary Government of Odisha

NGT10 Mar 2026Appeal No. 3/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal challenging the grant of fresh Environmental Clearance for a stone quarry, alleging violation of mining depth limits and ignoring a prior Tribunal order. The tribunal found the appellant offered no legal basis for the depth argument and dismissed the appeal as no substantive issue remained.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed on the ground that the appellant failed to show any law stating mining could not be permitted at the site and no further adjudication was necessary.

Sanjib Dhal S/O Murali Dhal Aged About 47 Years vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No.01

¶2

Court No.1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONE BENCH, KOLKATA

¶4

(THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING WITH HYBRID MODE)

¶5

Appeal No.03/2026/EZ

¶6

Sanjib Dhal Appellant(s)

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Odisha and Others Respondent(s)

¶9

Date of hearing: 10.03.2026

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. SUJIT KUMAR BAJPAYEE, EXPERT MEMBER For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sankar Prasad Pani and Mr. Ashutosh Padhy, Advocates (through VC).

¶11

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Apurba Ghosh, Advocate for respondent no.4 (through VC) Mr. Dipanjan Ghosh, Advocate along with Member Secretary, Odisha State Pollution Control Board (through VC).

¶12

ORDER

¶13

We are passing this order in continuation to the earlier orders dated 18.02.2026 and 24.02.2026.

¶14

This appeal has been filed seeking quashing of the Environmental Clearance (EC) dated 29.12.2025, which was granted in favour of Respondent No.6- Mr. Ajit Sahu by Respondent No.4- State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Odisha for the project Tolarpasi Road Metal Quarry over an area 12.25 Acre or 4.957 Ha. at Village - Tolarpasi under Tahasil - Gondia of District - Dhenkanal, Odisha, on the ground that the SEIAA did not consider the Order dated 13.10.2025 passed by the Tribunal in Original Application No.185/2025 . It is also stated that the lessee has already reached the maximum permissible

¶15

¶16

depth of 6 mtrs. and therefore, this EC could not have been granted for mining at the area in question.

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellant states that earlier at the same site, mining activity had already been done beyond 6 mtrs. depth, therefore, that mining ought to have been closed under the closure plan. But instead of doing that, fresh EC has been granted by Respondent No.4- SEIAA, Orissa, erroneously.

¶18

We enquired from learned counsel for the appellant as to where is the position of law stating that the mining could not have been permitted at the site where mining have already been done at certain depth, he could not show any law, rather kept insisting that the said site ought to have been closed under the closure plan and that the impugned EC has been erroneously granted.

¶19

From the side of Respondent No.4- SEIAA, Orissa, reply affidavit dated 09.03.2026 has been filed, wherein it is recorded that one Mr. Ajit Kumar Sahu was successful bidder on 30.04.2021 for mining of stone from Tolarpasi Road Metal Quarry for a lease period of five (05) years. Thereafter, on 18.10.2021, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sahu submitted an Environmental Clearance (EC) application to the SEIAA, Odisha on 24.06.2021 for mining of stone from Tolarpasi Road Metal Quarry. The proposal was placed in the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) Meetings held on 26.08.2021 and 05.10.2021. Thereafter, the SEAC recommended the proposal for grant of EC with standard and specific conditions. Thereafter, the proposal was placed in the meeting of SEIAA, Odisha and thereafter, the Authority approved the recommendation of SEAC and accorded the EC for Tolarpasi Road Metal Quarry. Accordingly, the EC was issued on 18.10.2021 for extraction of

¶20

¶21

20,034 cum of stone per annum and 1,00,166 cum of stone during five (05) years lease period.

¶22

It is further submitted in this affidavit by Respondent No.4 that a lease agreement was made on 01.02.2022 between the Project Proponent and Tahasildar, Gondia for a period of five (05) years, which is valid upto 31.01.2027. In the meantime, a case was filed before the Tribunal bearing Original Application No.100/2024/EZ, alleging therein excess mining and violation of Environmental Clearance (EC) conditions. The Tribunal, vide its order dated 16.05.2024, directed for constitution of a Joint Committee. The said Committee visited the alleged site on 16.07.2024 for assessing the quantity of stone extracted from the Tolarpasi Road Metal Quarry. Thereafter, the Joint Committee submitted its inspection report on Tolarpasi Road Metal Quarry with certain recommendation i.e. for reclamation of mined out area after declaration of closer of the mines; information to the local people in advance, while carrying out blasting, before 30 minutes; implementation of Environmental Management Plan (EMP) and plantation as per the EC conditions, etc.

¶23

It is further submitted in this affidavit by Respondent No.4 that based on the joint inspection report dated 16.07.2024, the SEIAA, Odisha issued a Show Cause notice dated 05.12.2024 to the Project Proponent for excess mining of 7092 cum stone from Tolarpasi Road Metal Quarry and non-compliance of EC conditions. Subsequently, the EC was revoked vide letter dated 18.01.2025. After hearing the matter, the Tribunal, vide order dated 31.01.2025, disposed of the matter observing that in view of the action taken by the SEIAA, Odisha, and the report of the Joint Committee, nothing remains for adjudication. Thereafter, the Project Proponent submitted a fresh EC application to the SEIAA, Odisha vide

¶24

¶25

proposal dated 11.08.2025 for mining of stone from Tolarpasi Road Metal Quarry over an area 12.25 Acres or 4.957 Ha. at Village-Tolarpasi under Tahsil-Gondia of Dhenkanal District, Odisha.

¶26

It is further submitted in this affidavit by Respondent No.4 that the present petitioner (Mr. Sanjib Dhal) filed another Original Application bearing Original Application No.185/2025 (EZ) on 08.10.2025, alleging therein that the computation of Environmental Damage Compensation for excess mining from Tolarpasi Road Metal Quarry has not been done and that no steps were taken for implementation of mine closure plan, etc.

¶27

It is further submitted in this affidavit by Respondent No.4 that during the first hearing, the Tribunal disposed of Original Application No.185/2025 on 13.10.2025, with a direction to the SEIAA, Odisha and the Deputy Director of Mines, Talcher to consider the representation dated 28.07.2025 of the Petitioner (treating the said Original Application as a representation) and take appropriate remedial action within three months. The applicant was also granted liberty to approach the Tribunal again if aggrieved. It is further submitted that, a copy of the said Original Application was not received by the SEIAA, Odisha, either from the petitioner or through the appointed counsel. Further, a copy of the said order was received directly from the Tribunal vide e-mail dated 03.11.2025 and the order along-with the petition was received on 06.01.2026. However, the said communication was unfortunately not noticed at that time, which resulted in delay in submission of the reply in a timely manner.

¶28

It is further submitted in this affidavit by Respondent No.4 that a fresh EC proposal of Tolarpasi Road Metal Quarry was placed in SEAC’s meeting held on 06.11.2025 and thereafter, the SEAC recommended the

¶29

¶30

proposal for grant of EC which is valid from the date of issuance of the EC up to the lease period with standard and specific conditions. On 10.11.2025, the Project Proponent filed a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack vide W.P. (C) No. 31843/2025 in the

¶31

matter of Ajit Kumar Sahu & Other Vrs. State of Odisha & Ors. After hearing the matter, the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 12.11.2025 disposed of the said Writ Petition with a direction to the SEIAA, Odisha that “ in view of such facts and submission, without going into the merit of the case, the Opposite party No. 03/ SEIAA, Odisha is directed to disposed of the representation of the Petitioner vide Annexure15 by passing of one month from the date of production/presentation of a certified of this order” . Subsequently, the Project Proponent has submitted a Certified Copy of the Hon’ble High Court’s order dated 12.11.2025 to the SEIAA, Odisha through e-mail dated 18.11.2025.

¶32

It is further submitted in this affidavit by Respondent No.4 that after SEAC recommendation, the project proposal of Tolarpasi Road Metal Quarry for EC was placed in 254^th meeting of SEIAA held on 21.11.2025 and 257^th Meeting held on 09.12.2025. After detailed deliberation, the Authority decided to seek clarification/ information/ document from the Project Proponent. Thereafter, on 29.12.2025, the Environmental Clearance (EC) was granted to the Project Proponent on 29.12.2025 with validity up to 24.03.2026 (i.e. validity of mining plan from the date of issuance of the EC letter) with the condition that further, extension of EC shall be considered after submission of a revised Mining Plan beyond 24.03.2026. The said Environmental Clearance has been granted on the basis of following points:-

¶33

¶34

“ i. The Hon'ble High Court, Odisha vide order dated 12.11.2025 in W.P.(C) No.31843 of 2025 directed to SEIAA, Odisha to consider the representation of the Petitioner vide Annexure-15 by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of production/presentation of a certified of this order.

¶35

ii. The mining lease of Tolarpasi Road Metal Quarry remains valid upto 31.01.2027 and has not been cancelled by the competent Authority i.e. Mining Officer, Dhenkanal as on date of consideration of EC application.

¶36

iii. The project proponent/respondent no.06 has deposited the amounting of Rs.28,51,423/-towards excess mining to environmental compensation to Forest, Environment and Climate Change Department, Govt. of Odisha on 06.12.2025 and penalty amount of Rs.27,15,385/- for excess mining and revenue loss to the Mining Officer, Dhenkanal on 09.1.2.2025 and Rs.11,95,620/- towards cost of plantation as per the EC conditions to the DFO, Dhenkanal on 10.12.2025.

¶37

iv. The project proponent/respondent no. 06 has complied the recommendation of joint committee dated 16.07.2024 on solar fencing around the boundary of the lease area, plantation and has mentioned that the reclamation of mined out area will be done after declaration of closer of mines.

¶38

v. As per the approved mining plan dated 26.03.2021 of Tolarpasi Road Metal Stone Quarry, the Geological Reserve is 4,26,787 cum, Mineable Reserve is 3,74,757 cum, proposed annual extraction of stone 20034 cum/annum and 1,00,166 cum in 5 years lease period. After deduction of excess mining stone material i.e. 7092 cum still available of which is sufficient quantity of mineable reserve for further mining.”

¶39

It is further submitted in this affidavit by Respondent No.4 that the the Petitioner (Mr. Sanjib Dhal) filed an appeal bearing Appeal

¶40

¶41

No.03/2026 before the Tribunal on 27.01.2026 against the approval dated 29.12.2025 issued by the SEIAA, Odisha for Tolarpasi Road Metal Quarry over an area 12.25 Acre or 4.957 Ha. at Village-Tolarpasi under Tahasil-Gondia of District-Dhenkanal, Odisha. In this affidavit, the allegations raised by the appellant are denied.

¶42

It is further submitted in this affidavit by Respondent No.4 that the Authority considered the Environmental Clearance (EC) application, submitted by the Project Proponent, in compliance with the direction of the Hon'ble High Court, Orissa vide order dated 12.11.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.31843 of 2025. Accordingly, the EC was granted vide EC letter dated 29.12.2025, wherein the details of compliance and conditions were clearly specified. However, the petitioner failed to mention these facts in the appeal petition. It is further submitted that, the Authority has complied with the order dated 13.10.2025 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 185/2025/EZ. In this regard, the lessee/respondent no. 06 has deposited the environmental damage compensation amounting to Rs.28,51,423/- to the Forest, Environment and Climate Change Department, Govt. of Odisha on 06.12.2025. Further, a penalty, amounting to Rs.27,15,385/- towards excess mining and revenue loss, was deposited to the Mining Officer, Dhenkanal on 09.12.2025 and a penalty, amounting to Rs.11,95,620/- towards the cost of plantation, was deposited to the DFO, Dhenkanal on 10.12.2025 in compliance with the EC conditions. It is further submitted that respondent no. 06 has complied with the recommendations of the Joint Committee dated 16.07.2024 in O.A. No. 100/2024/EZ, except the recommendation relating to reclamation of mined out area which will be undertaken after declaration of closure of the mine as stated by the respondent no. 06.

¶43

¶44

It is further submitted in this affidavit by Respondent No.4 that with regard to the allegation concerning the depth of mining, it is submitted that the lessee has already reached the maximum depth of 6 mtrs. as is evidenced by the affidavit of SEIAA, Odisha in O.A. No.100/2024/EZ. Further, it is submitted that, this is an old source operated since the years 2005 to 2007 as a temporary quarry permit. Subsequently, the quarry was operated after obtaining of EC from SEIAA, Odisha vide letter dated 17.08.2015 in favour of Mr. Ajit Kumar Sahu for extracting quantity of stone 12,520 cum in 5 years lease period. Thereafter, the same lessee has obtained EC for the same source vide EC letter dated 18.10.2021 for extracting quantity of stone 20,034 cum/annum(maximum) and 1,00,166 cum in 5 years lease period. Further, under Odisha Minor Mineral Concession (OMMC) Rules, 2016, Section 37 of Chapter-V, page no.43, it is mentioned that the depth of the quarry below the surfaces shall not exceed six meters. The said condition of OMMC, Rules, 2016 has also been given in the EC after incorporating the said condition that the depth of mining will be 6 meters from the surface for 5 years lease period and it is submitted that this is an old source operated since 2005 and EC obtained for 2 terms (i.e. 10 years = 5 years (2015 to 2020) + 5 years (2021 to 2026)). It is further submitted that the Mining Officer/ Deputy Director of Mines is the Competent Authority for approval of the mining plan, based on the mineable reserve considering the depth of mining. The EC is granted after assessment of anticipated environmental impacts of the proposed project during mining operation and its mitigation measure for sustainable mining.

¶45

After having considered the reply affidavit of Respondent No.4, we are convinced that proper procedure has been followed by Respondent No.4 in the grant of the said EC to the Project Proponent. Moreover,

¶46

¶47

learned counsel for the appellant has not filed rebuttal to the said affidavit of Respondent No.4 till date. Therefore, we are of the view that nothing remains to be decided in the present appeal and dismiss the same accordingly.

¶48

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶49

…............................................. Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee, EM

¶50

March 10, 2026, Appeal No.03/2026/EZ P.Kr.

¶51

Sanjib Dhal S/O Murali Dhal Aged About 47 Years v. 1. State of Odisha Represented by Chief Secretary Government of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjib Dhal S/O Murali Dhal Aged About 47 Years v. 1. State of Odisha Represented by Chief Secretary Government of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Raja Jebadoss vs Seiaa

Aranya Parisara Madhu Havamana Badalavane Sangha vs State of Karnataka

Jalarm Quarry Works Private Limited vs Seiaa

M/S. Santosh Medical College Hospital vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Mohan Pandurang Halarnkar vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Hanumant Uttam Govekar vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Girdhari Lal Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs Delhi Pollution Control Committee

Girdhari Lal Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas

Scheduled Tribe Association Sao Jose De Areal vs the Goa State Pollution Control Board

Scheduled Tribe Association Sao Jose De Areal vs the Goa State Pollution Control Board

Thomas Fernandes vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Gulabi Ramzan Rayashi vs the State of Gujarat

Gulabi Ramzan Rayashi vs the State of Gujarat

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan vs Seiaa