Dismissed

Krishna Blue Metals v. the Chairman Seiaa

NGT10 Sept 2026Appeal No. 33/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against the rejection of an environmental clearance proposal for a rough stone and gravel quarry near a solar power plant, the NGT rejected the appellant's argument that a solar farm is an 'inhabited site'. The court affirmed the impugned order, holding that proximity risks justified the rejection despite the appellant's claims.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed and the impugned order dated 10.01.2024 passed by SEIAA-TN was affirmed.

Krishna Blue Metals vs the Chairman Seiaa — Writ and Judicial Review | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No.2:-

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

¶3

Thursday, the 10^th day of September, 2026.

¶4

[Through Physical Hearing (Hybrid Option)]

¶5

Appeal No.33 of 2025 (SZ)

¶6

IN THE MATTER OF

¶7

M/s. Krishna Blue Metals

¶8

Rep. by its Partner Mr. S. Janahar Santhanakumar, S/o. Santhanakumar 93A, Mykkan Nadar Kudiyiruppu, Varandiveli, Tuticorin District – 628 207.

¶9

…Appellant(s)

¶10

Versus

¶11

State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) Tamil Nadu,

¶12

Through the Member Secretary, 9^th Floor, MetroS CMRL Building, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035.

¶13

…Respondent(s)

¶14

For Appellant (s): Mr. G. Vignesh represented M/s. A.S.Y. Viquaar Anzum, M. Mohamed Aathic, E. Niveditha. For Respondent(s): Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith.

¶15

Judgement Reserved on: 01^st September, 2026.

¶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 above appeal challenges the order dated 10.01.2024 passed by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Tamil Nadu ( SEIAA-TN ), whereby the Appellant’s proposal seeking Environmental Clearance for the proposed Rough Stone and Gravel Quarry over an extent of 2.98.0 hectares in S.F.

¶22

Page 1 of 9

¶23

Nos.485/2(P) and 486(P), Nedungulam Village, Sathankulam Taluk, Thoothukudi District, was rejected.

¶24

2. It is contended by the Appellant that the Mining Plan for the proposed project was approved by the Assistant Geologist/Assistant Director, Department of Geology and Mining, Thoothukudi, for a period of five years, for production of 5,11,230 CBM of Rough stone and 47,470 CBM of Gravel, dated 20.09.2023.

¶25

3. The Appellant initially submitted the proposal, which was considered by the State Expert Appraisal Committee ( SEAC ) in its 365^th Meeting held on 24.03.2023 and thereafter by the SEIAA in its 612^th Meeting held on 17.04.2023. The proposal was rejected on the ground that Solar Panel Power unit was situated 90 metres from the proposed quarry boundary and consequently, the proposal attracted Rule 36(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959.

¶26

4. Pursuant thereto, the Appellant substantially modified the proposal by reducing the quarry area from 4.98.0 hectares to 2.98.0 hectares, obtaining a fresh Precise Area Communication and modifying the Mining Plan to maintain a greater safety distance from the existing solar power installation. The revised proposal was submitted online on 12.10.2023. The revised proposal was placed before the SEAC in its 431^st Meeting dated 15.12.2023 and before the SEIAA in its 688^th Meeting dated 10.01.2024 and the Appellant had made a detailed presentation before the SEAC.

¶27

5. Notwithstanding the modification of the proposal and the increased distance from the Solar Panel Power unit, the SEAC again recommended rejection of the proposal. The SEAC had observed that the Solar Panel Power unit was situated at 160 metres from the proposed quarry boundary and expressed apprehension regarding fly-rock, air-over pressure, ground vibration and dust arising from blasting, excavation and transportation operations. The SEAC observed that the Solar Panel Power unit had been established prior to the present quarry proposal and that the proposed quarry was in a virgin area where no quarrying activity was presently being carried out.

¶28

Page 2 of 9

¶29

6. As per Rule 36(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, relied upon by the respondents, deals with the prescribed restrictions relating to inhabited sites, layouts and buildings and there was no specific statutory prohibition against a quarry on the ground of its proximity to a Solar Panel Power unit. According to the Appellant, the nearest village was stated to be at 1.58 km away, the distance criteria relating to habitation could not have been invoked against the proposal.

¶30

7. The apprehension regarding fly-rock, vibration and possible damage to the solar panels could have been addressed through mitigation and safety measures, such as controlled blasting, muffled, instead of rejecting the proposal outright. The fact that the area was a virgin area could not constitute a legally sustainable ground for rejection of an application for EC.

¶31

8. On the above grounds, the Appellant prayed that the impugned order dated 10.01.2024 be set aside and the matter be remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

¶32

9. Upon notice, the sole respondent viz., State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Tamil Nadu (SEIAA-TN) submitted its reply dated 11.07.2026 stating that the impugned decision was taken after due consideration of the proposal by the SEAC and the SEIAA. The Project Proponent had proposed quarrying of Rough Stone and Gravel over an extent of 2.98.0 hectares in S.F. Nos.485/2(P) and 486(P) of Nedungulam Village, under Category ‘B2’ under Item 1(a) of the EIA Notification, 2006, as amended.

¶33

10. It is stated that the earlier proposal of the Project Proponent had also been considered by the SEAC, wherein the Committee had declined to recommend the project. In its 365^th meeting held on 24.03.2023, the SEAC had noted that the Solar Power Plant was situated at a distance of 90 metres from the proposed quarry boundary. The proximity of the Solar Power Plant rendered the location highly sensitive, in view of the potential risks associated with blasting operations. The concerns of the SEAC were not confined merely to the distance from the Solar Power Plant, but also to the impacts of quarrying operations, including

¶34

Page 3 of 9

¶35

drilling, blasting, excavation and transportation. It was apprehended that fly-rock, ground vibration, air-overpressure, dust pollution and the movement of heavy earth-moving machinery could adversely affect the existing Solar Power Plant and its associated structures.

¶36

11. The SEIAA relied upon Rule 36(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, which provides the restriction relating to quarrying within 300 metres of an inhabited site. The SEIAA also referred to the provisions concerning layouts and building plans situated within 300 metres of a quarry and submitted that the existing Solar Power Plant had been established prior to the present quarry proposal and was presently in operation.

¶37

12. It is further stated in the reply that though the Project Proponent subsequently proposed a safety distance of 160 metres from the Solar Power Plant, the SEAC was of the view that such distance was not sufficient to eliminate the apprehended risks. The Committee particularly referred to the possibility of fly-rock and higher air-overpressure/noise resulting from blasting operations and continued to treat the area as a High Sensitive Zone. The proposed quarry was a newly planned quarry in a virgin area and that there were no other quarries in operation. Therefore, the proposal had to be assessed afresh, having regard to the existing Solar Power Plant and the surrounding environmental circumstances.

¶38

13. The reply further states that the precautionary principle warranted a cautious approach in the present case. The Solar Power Plant constitutes an important alternative-energy installation and its protection from potential adverse impacts arising from quarrying and blasting operations was required to be taken into consideration while appraising the proposal.

¶39

14. On the basis of the above considerations, the SEAC declined to recommend the proposal for Environmental Clearance. The matter was thereafter considered by the SEIAA in its 612^th meeting held on 17.04.2023 and 18.04.2023, wherein the SEIAA accepted the recommendation of the SEAC and decided not to

¶40

Page 4 of 9

¶41

recommend the project for Environmental Clearance. The matter was subsequently placed before the SEIAA in its 688^th meeting held on 10.01.2024. After considering the matter, the Authority again accepted the decision of the SEAC and declined to recommend the project. Consequently, the rejection proceedings were issued to the Project Proponent on 10.01.2024

¶42

15. Considered the pleadings, heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also perused the materials available on record.

¶43

16. It is not in dispute that the Appellant had initially proposed quarrying activity over an extent of 4.98.0 hectares and the said proposal was not recommended, inter alia, on account of the existence of a solar power plant at about 90 metres from the proposed quarry boundary and the apprehended consequences of blasting operations.

¶44

17. It is also not in dispute that the Appellant thereafter did not seek consideration of the proposal in its original form and the project area was substantially reduced from 4.98.0 hectares to 2.98.0 hectares. A fresh Precise Area Communication was obtained and the Mining Plan was modified. The revised proposal was submitted through online proposal dated 12.10.2023.

¶45

18. The revised proposal was thereafter considered afresh by the SEAC in its 431^st Meeting dated 15.12.2023. The SEAC noticed that the distance between the proposed quarry boundary and the existing solar power installation had increased to 160 metres. Notwithstanding the increased distance, the apprehension regarding the possible impact of fly-rock, air-over pressure, ground vibration, noise and dust arising from blasting, drilling, excavation and transportation activities.

¶46

19. Now, the issues that arise for determination are:

¶47

I. Whether a Solar Power Plant situated 160 metres from the proposed quarry can, in law, be treated as an “inhabited site” within the meaning of Rule 36(1-A) of the

¶48

Page 5 of 9

¶49

Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959?

¶50

¶51

II. Whether the impugned order dated 10.01.2024 passed by the SEIAA – Tamil Nadu can be sustained?

¶52

20. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant argued that the existence of a Solar Power Plant in the neighbouring property cannot, by itself, bring the said property within the expression “inhabited site” unless the Respondents identify a specific statutory provision which necessarily places such a unit as protected categories by Rule 36(1-A).

¶53

21. If the SEAC or SEIAA seek to apply the 300-metre restriction under Rule 36(1-A) on the sole ground that a Solar Power Plant is situated 160 metres from the proposed quarry, the Respondents are required to establish the statutory basis for such application and the authorities must disclose whether the land occupied by the Solar Power Plant is recorded as a village site, town site or house site or whether the Solar Power Plant is situated within any statutorily notified residential area, village site, town site or approved layout falling within the scope of Rule 36(1-A). In the absence of such classification, the physical presence of a commercial power generation installation cannot be equated with an “inhabited site”.

¶54

22. The expression “inhabited site” cannot be enlarged by administrative interpretation beyond the categories contemplated by the statutory Rules. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Building Material Manufacturers & Transport Association Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 6742 of 2001] , stated that an unapproved layout cannot be brought within the expression “inhabited site” merely by giving the expression an expansive meaning. The same principle applies here where the Rule prescribes a restriction, the authority must demonstrate the foundation for bringing the particular property within the protected category.

¶55

Page 6 of 9

¶56

23. The TNMM Rules, 1959 governing the siting of quarrying operations requires clarity and certainty, particularly where an existing activity in the vicinity is sought to be brought within the expression “inhabited site”, “layout” or “building” for the purpose of applying the prescribed distance restriction. The Rule prescribes a 300-metre restriction in respect of an “inhabited site” and also contains restrictions concerning layouts and building plans. However, where the nature of an existing industry does not clearly fall within the categories by the Rule, the absence of a definite siting criterion may give rise to uncertainty and recurring disputes.

¶57

24. The present case itself illustrates such a situation. The Solar Power Plant and the proposed quarry are both activities undertaken for economic purposes and subject to compliance with the applicable environmental requirements, both fall within the ambit of the freedom guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g). The right under Article 19(1)(g), however, is not absolute and is expressly subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interests of the general public under Article 19(6).

¶58

25. The question, therefore, is not as to which of the two activities (i.e. quarry and solar power plant) should prevail merely because one activity (solar power plant) was established earlier in point of time. The governing law must clearly prescribe the siting criteria under which one otherwise lawful activity may restrict the operation of another lawful activity in its vicinity.

¶59

26. In the present case, it was argued by the learned counsel for the Appellant that while the Solar Power Plant is undoubtedly an important renewable-energy installation required to be duly considered, the mere fact that it is situated within 300 metres of the proposed quarry cannot, in the absence of a clear statutory provision bringing such unit within the expression “inhabited site” under Rule 36(1-A), to determine the legality of the proposed quarry.

¶60

27. As referred to earlier, whether reasonable restriction could include total prohibition cannot be answered categorically. However, establishing a quarry directly next to an operational

¶61

Page 7 of 9

¶62

solar farm is generally restricted or effectively prohibited due to environmental safety and operational conflicts. Admittedly, most of the mining laws do not explicitly list ‘solar farms’ in their rule book. The unique physical impact of quarrying makes side-by-side operations legally and structurally problematic. The mining laws of most of the Southern States are brought out in 1960s, whereas, the commercial, grid connected solar farms in India first became active in 2009. However, the utility scale solar farm scaled up only after 2010 and particularly in the State of Tamil Nadu in 2017.

¶63

28. According to Rule 36 of the TNMMC Rules, no building, layout or structural permissions can be granted within a 300meter radius of an active quarry. If the solar farm’s control building or main tracker boundaries fall within the 300-meter zone, subsequent quarry permission may be prohibited. Besides, if the quarry uses deep-hole blasting, the DGMS Circular mandates a 500-meter danger zone. Even, in Form I, the appellant has stated that blasting for excavating the stone with appropriate charge of holes will be carried out to loosen the rock. Therefore, when the solar farm is already in existence, which is within the radius during active blasting windows permission cannot be granted.

¶64

29. The project site proposed is in Thoothukudi District, which has a widely coastal climate and dust travels fast. Therefore, the neighbouring solar farm will have ‘soiling losses’ to their panels. Even providing automatic dry-fogging and hauling the roads will be difficult because of the distance criteria. Extracting rough stone requires aggressive blasting and heavy crushing and being a ‘Red’ category industry cannot be allowed next to solar farms. Even after the Appellant modified the proposal by reducing the distance of the quarry area from 90 meter to 160 meter, it will technically violate the States’ quarry buffer zone. DGMS also enforces a strict 500-meter danger zone. As solar panels are highly fragile even if a single stray rock fragment from the blasting site, which may cause cracks or misalign their tracking motors may result in huge financial loss. Installing windbreak GI/MS sheet barricade along the boundary also may not help when the distance criteria is not satisfied. The solar farms being in a distance of 165 meter from rough stone quarry, is in a highly critical danger zone.

¶65

Page 8 of 9

¶66

The precautionary measures like high-boundary barricades, greenbelt or continuous wet drilling will not help the establishment of a quarry, which is subsequent to the establishment of solar farm.

¶67

30. In the light of the above discussions, the impugned order dated 10.01.2024 passed by the SEIAA, Tamil Nadu, is affirmed and the appeal [Appeal No.33 of 2025 (SZ)] is dismissed .

¶68

Sd/-

¶69

Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM

¶70

Sd/-
Dr. Prashant Gargava, EM
Internet – Yes/No
All India NGT Reporter – Yes/No
Appeal No.33/2025 (SZ)
10 th September, 2026. Mn.

¶71

Page 9 of 9

Krishna Blue Metals v. the Chairman Seiaa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Blue Metals v. the Chairman Seiaa

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

K a Rajagopal vs the Member Secretary

Fishing Boat Owners Association vs Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority

Protection of Environment and Public Service Committee through Its Chairman Mr. Bhagwanbhai B. Solanki vs Union of India through the Secretary

Protection of Environment and Public Service Committee through the Chairman Mr. Bhagwanbhai B. Solanki vs M/S Simar Port Pvt. Ltd. through the Managing Director

Vihaan Milk and Milk Processing vs the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board

M/S Hotel Garhwal Terreis Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board

Tribunal on Its Own Motion Based on the News Item Published in Eenadu Newspaper Edition Dated 12TH June 2021 Under the Caption Dredging Along the Embankments of Krishna River to Be Stopped vs the Chief Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh

Simla E S vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

In Re News Item Titled Pvt. Buses Turn Miyawaki Forest Into Parking Bay Appearing in the Times of India Chennai Edition Dated 18TH July 2025 vs National Highways Authority Represented by Its Regional Officer

S Vanjinmuthu vs the District Collector

News Item Titled Dumpyard Plan at Megalithic Site in Chennai S Perumbakkam Raises Asi S Hackles Residents Fear Appearing in the New Indian Express Dated 05 01 2025 vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board through Its Member Secretary

Ravi N vs Perumbakkam Panchayat Union Office