Dismissed

Sushilkumar Mulchandji Agrawal (Propriter of M/S Bravim Enterprise) v. State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Gujarat

NGT8 Jul 2026Appeal No. 487/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal dismissed an appeal challenging the rejection of a request to re-appraise an Environmental Clearance. The court held that since the appellant admitted the mining lease overlapped with the eco-sensitive zone, the initial rejection was correct, granting liberty for a fresh application for a reduced lease area.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is rejected with liberty to make a fresh application before the appropriate authority for grant of lease for a lesser area.

Sushilkumar Mulchandji Agrawal (Propriter of M/S Bravim… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No.25

¶2

(Pune Bench)

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

[THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)]

¶5

APPEAL NO.487 OF 2025 (WZ)

¶6

Sushilkumar Mulchandanji Agrawal

¶7

…..Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Gujarat & Anr.

¶10

….Respondents

¶11

Date of hearing: 08.07.2026

¶12

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. SUJIT KUMAR BAJPAYEE, EXPERT MEMBER

¶13

Appellant : Mr. Saurabh Kulkarni, Advocate along-with Dr. Prashant Bhat and Mr. Adwait Gokhale, Advocates

¶14

Respondents : Mr. Maulik Nanavati, Advocate along-with Ms. Manvi Damle, Advocate for R-1/SEIAA, Gujarat Mr. Pushkal Mishra, Advocate for R-2/MoEF&CC.

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This appeal has been filed, seeking quashing of order dated 23.12.2024 passed by Respondent No.1- SEIAA, Gujarat, whereby the application of the appellant for re-appraisal of the Environmental Clearance (EC) granted by the DEIAA has been rejected, on the ground that BalaramAmbaji Wild-Life Sanctuary is within 1 km. which is not in compliance with the distance criteria prescribed by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal vide order dated 30.09.2020 in Original Application No.85/2019 ; Sustainable Sand Mining Guidelines of MoEF&CC, 2016 etc.

¶17

From the side of Respondent No.1- SEIAA, Gujarat, Report by way of an affidavit dated 09.01.2026 has been filed, wherein it is submitted that the appellant was fully aware of the geographical location of its respective lease. The geographical coordinates, i.e. latitude and longitude, of the lease

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

area are available with the appellant. They also find mention in the approved mining plan possessed by and available with each appellant, having been obtained at the relevant point of time for grant of environmental clearance from DEIAA. The Notification dated 8.11.2021 issued by the Central Government notifying the eco-sensitive zone around the boundary of Balaram-Ambaji Wildlife Sanctuary gives boundary description as also the maps of the sanctuary demarcating the eco-sensitive zone together with latitudes and longitudes. The spatial location of the lease area can be easily superimposed alongside the boundary details of the eco-sensitive zone. When it is done so in the case in hand, it emerges that a substantial lease area overlaps with the eco-sensitive zone. In fact, the transgression of lease area into the eco-sensitive zone has been fairly accepted and admitted by the appellant during the hearing.

¶20

It is further submitted in the above affidavit by Respondent No.1 that the appellant, considering the irrefutable material showing that a part of their mining lease area falls in or gets covered under the notified ecosensitive zone, has made an alternative submission. They have submitted that about 33% of their mining area falls within the eco-sensitive zone, wherein mining is prohibited in law. The remaining area of the lease is outside the eco-sensitive zone or the buffer zone and there is no restriction, much less prohibition, to carrying out commercial mining activity in and over such area. They offered to give an undertaking that they shall not conduct any fresh mining in the lease area which falls within the ecosensitive zone, and has committed to restrict mining activity only in the permissible area. They have requested the SEIAA to approve the environmental clearance granted by the DEIAA with suitable modification, limiting the area of mining by excluding the lease area falling in the ecosensitive zone.

¶21

It is further submitted in the above affidavit by Respondent No.1 that

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

the appellant has later informed that they have initiated the process of preparing modified mining plan showing both the restricted zone and the area where mining is legally permissible, and stated that they shall submit the same to SEIAA for granting revised environmental clearance by deducting the area of lease which falls within the prohibited or restricted zone. Therefore, the appellant has been informed by the SEIAA that they do not have jurisdiction to revise the environmental clearance.

¶24

In view of the above affidavit of Respondent No.1- SEIAA, it is quite clear that there was no discrepancy found in the GPS coordinates and therefore, we are of the view that the application of the appellant for reappraisal of the Environmental Clearance (EC) was rightly rejected by Respondent No.1, hence this appeal deserves to be rejected and is accordingly rejected with the liberty granted to the appellant to make a fresh application before the appropriate authority for grant of lease for a lesser area in accordance with law.

¶25

Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶26

Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee, EM

¶27

July 08, 2026 APPEAL NO.487 OF 2025 (WZ) P.Kr.

¶28

Page 3 of 3

Sushilkumar Mulchandji Agrawal (Propriter of M/S Bravim Enterprise) v. State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushilkumar Mulchandji Agrawal (Propriter of M/S Bravim Enterprise) v. State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vipin Kumar Saxena vs Seiaa

Calangute Constituency Forum vs State of Goa

Ms Chawla Engineering Works vs Delhi Pollution Control Committee

Ms Rapid Diagnostic Group vs Delhi Pollution Control Committee

A.Thiyagaraj vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

A.Thiyagaraj vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

A. Thiyagaraj vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

A.Thiyagaraj vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

Vandana Chavan vs Pune Municipal Corporation

Sarang Yadwadkar vs Union of India

Vandana Chavan vs Pune Municipal Corporation

Rameshkumar Nanjibhai Patel vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Gujarat

Bhakhariya Majesh Jayantibhai (Proprietor of Maa Ambe Quarry Works) vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Gujarat

Rahimbhai Parsani (Proprietor of Kisan Quarry Works) vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Maharashtra (Seiaa)