Sureshbhai Jayantibhai Patel (Proprietor of Jay Ambe Mining and Minerals) v. State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Gujarat

NGT14 Jul 2026Appeal No. 521/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal regarding rejection of re-appraisal application for mining lease in Aravalli range. Tribunal allowed amendment and disposed of appeal, directing SEIAA to conduct fresh appraisal after correcting geographical coordinates and verifying location.

What did the court decide?

Set aside impugned order, directed SEIAA to conduct fresh consideration and approve re-appraisal after correcting geographical coordinates of the mining area.

Sureshbhai Jayantibhai Patel (Proprietor of Jay Ambe… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

(Pune Bench)

¶2

Item No.10

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

[THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)]

¶5

APPEAL NO. 521/2025(WZ) I.A NO. 299/2026 (WZ)

¶6

Sureshbhai Jayantibhai Patel

¶7

…..Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

SEIAA, Gujarat & Anr.

¶10

….Respondents

¶11

Date of hearing: 14.07.2026

¶12

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE MR. SUDHIR KUMAR CHATURVEDI, EXPERT MEMBER

¶13

Appellant : Mr. Saurabh Kulkarni, Advocate along-with Mr. Adwait Gokhale, Advocate Respondents : Mr. Maulik Nanavati, Advocate and Ms. Manvi Damle, Advocate for R.1 Mr. Pushkal Mishra, Advocate for R.2

¶14

ORDER

¶15

In compliance of this Tribunal’s Order dated 02.07.2026, learned counsel for the appellant has filed an I.A. No.299 of 2026, seeking amendment in the Appeal as per Schedule-A annexed at Page No.304 to 306. We allow this prayer and direct the learned counsel for the appellant to incorporate the amendment.

¶16

At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant apprised that an amended copy of the memo of appeal has already been prepared by him, which he has provided us across the Dias and we direct that the said copy shall be e-filed by him, also. Hence, this Application i.e. I.A. No.299 of 2026 stands disposed of.

¶17

From the side of Respondent No.1-SEIAA, learned counsel Ms. Manvi Damle has appeared and states that she has received copy of this

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

amended appeal and does not want to file any additional reply to the said affidavit.

¶20

From the side of Respondent No.3-State of Gujarat, through its Commissioner of Geology and Mining Industries and Mines Department, none has appeared on the previous date i.e. on 02.07.2026, hence we are proceeding against him ex-parte.

¶21

From the side of Respondent No.2-MoEF&CC, learned counsel Mr. Pushkal Mishra is present and does not want to file any additional reply affidavit to this amended copy of the Appeal.

¶22

We take this amended appeal on record.

¶23

Thereafter, learned counsel for the appellant has urged, which has been agreed to by the learned counsel for Respondent No.2 as well, that on the previous date, we had considered this Appeal at length but had found that the grounds which were taken by us from the affidavit of SEIAA were made part of the Appeal by the learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, a formal amendment was required to be done, which has now been done. Hence, it is urged by the appellant that the matter may be finally decided today itself.

¶24

This Appeal has been filed seeking quashing of the Order dated 13.03.2025, whereby the re-appraisal application of EC moved by the appellant has been rejected by SEIAA i.e. Respondent No.1 on the ground that the lease area falls within the Eco sensitive zone boundary, which is not in compliance with the distance criteria prescribed by Hon’ble NGT in Original Application No.85 of 2019 dated 30.09.2020.

¶25

The appellants have submitted that the latitude and longitude of the mining area mentioned in the DSR prepared by the Respondent No.3District Geologist and considered by Respondent No.1-SEIAA at the time of appraising the environmental clearance granted to the appellant are not

¶26

Page 2 of 4

¶27

correct and do not give a true description of the exact location of the area of land leased by the State Government for carrying out mining activity and have requested for fresh reappraisal of the cases on the basis of the correct geographical location of the mining area. The appellant requested for fresh appraisal of the case on the basis of correct geographical location of the mining area.

¶28

The appellant has placed before SEIAA the material showing errors in the geographical positioning of the mining area. An attempt is made to demonstrate that there is variance in the correct geographical coordinates of the leased area within which the appellant is conducting mining, and Page 3 of 4 the latitudes and longitudes mentioned in the District Survey Report while describing its lease area. A Google image of mining lease area is drawn based on the different data sources, which were found to be different.

¶29

Further, it is mentioned that if the contention of the appellant that there is discrepancy in the description of their mining area in the District Survey Report and that such variation has resulted in erroneous plotting of the mining area on the map and brought about a wrong spatial location of the mining area, is found acceptable by this Tribunal, the SEIAA does not have the authority in law to review and revise it on its own decision. District Geologist may be directed to visit the mining area of appellant and earmark the exact location of the mining area. The District Geologist may first get the exact mining area demarcated by the District Inspector of Land Record and then record the coordinates of the identified area. Thereafter, the District Geologist may make suitable corrections, if so required, in the locational description of the mining areas. Post completion of this exercise by the District Geologist and on the basis the findings reported by the District Geologist, SEIAA shall reappraise the environmental clearance granted to the appellant by the District Environment Impact Assessment Authority.

¶30

Page 3 of 4

¶31

It is also mentioned in this affidavit that the leased area falls in the Aravalli range, proceedings regarding which are pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India concerning permissibility of carrying out mining activity in the Aravalli range. Under these circumstances, the actual mining activity to be carried out in the area shall be determined and decided on the basis the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, independent of the existence and/or continuance of any environmental clearance granted by the SEIAA.

¶32

In view of above facts and having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the impugned order needs to be set aside with the direction to Respondent No.1-SEIAA that a fresh consideration shall be made by them after ensuring that the discrepancy in the geographical locations of the leased area of the appellant i.e. the geographical coordinates (latitude and longitude) in the mining area of the appellant is cured by the Authority concerned. After such exercise is done, a fresh order shall be passed by Respondent No.1-SEIAA on the EC granted by DEIAA to the appellant. For that, if any application is required to be moved by the appellant before Respondent No.1-SEIAA via PARIVESH, they may move the same.

¶33

In view of above, this Appeal stands disposed of.

¶34

Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶35

Sudhir Kumar Chaturvedi, EM

¶36

July 14, 2026 APPEAL NO. 521/2025(WZ) I.A NO. 299/2026 (WZ) KNG

¶37

Page 4 of 4

Sureshbhai Jayantibhai Patel (Proprietor of Jay Ambe Mining and Minerals) v. State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sureshbhai Jayantibhai Patel (Proprietor of Jay Ambe Mining and Minerals) 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

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

Subhash Kumar Jain vs Commission of Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas

Jadeja Gajendrasinh Bhimaji @ Jesar Gajubha Bhimaji vs Union of India

Rasiklal Mohanlal Shah (Decd) through Lhs Anil Rasiklal Shah vs State of Gujarat through Secretary Industries and Mines Dept

Gkn Foods Products Pvt. Ltd. vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

Samita Rajendra Patil vs Jsw Steel Limited through Chairman

Mr. Sakharam Asaram Kale vs Regional Officer Mpcb

Rajendra Shah vs State of Gujarat through Principal Secretary Forest and Environment Department

Sureshbhai Jayantibhai Patel (Proprietor of Jay Ambe Mining and Minerals) vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Gujarat

News Item Titled Mumbai Lost Over 21000 Trees in 6 Years to Make Way for Metro Road Projects Appearing in the Indian Express Dated 26.03.2024 vs Central Pollution Control Board

Siddharth Singh Rajpoot vs State of Madhya Pradesh