Partly allowed

K a Rajagopal v. the Member Secretary

NGT9 Sept 2026Appeal No. 54/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against the rejection of an environmental clearance application for a rough stone and gravel quarry. The National Green Tribunal Southern Zone held that while proximity to educational institutions within the blasting danger zone required safety measures, other objections regarding wildlife sanctuaries and water bodies were not valid grounds for rejection. The order was partly allowed, and t

What did the court decide?

Impugned order partially set aside; matter remitted to SEAC/SEIAA for rehearing with personal hearing after six weeks.

K a Rajagopal vs the Member Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No.6:-

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

¶3

Wednesday, the 09^th day of September, 2026.

¶4

[Through Physical Hearing (Hybrid Option)]

¶5

Appeal No.54 of 2024 (SZ)

¶6

IN THE MATTER OF

¶7

K.A. Rajagopal

¶8

S/o. Arjuna Raja, 24 E, Gundoormurthy Street, Rajapalayam Town, Rajapalayam Taluk, Virudhunagar District – 626 117. …Appellant (s) Versus 1. The Member Secretary State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Tamil Nadu, 3^rd Floor, Panagal Maaligai, No.1, Jeenis Road, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015. 2. The Chairman State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC), 3^rd Floor, Panagal Maaligai, No.1, Jeenis Road, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015. …Respondent(s) For Appellant (s): M/s. S. Varsha, Premchandar & M. Mahamani. For Respondent(s): Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for R1 & R2.

¶9

Judgement Reserved on: 19^th August, 2026.

¶10

CORAM :

¶11

HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

¶12

HON’BLE Dr. PRASHANT GARGAVA, EXPERT MEMBER

¶13

Page 1 of 12

¶14

J U D G M E N T

¶15

Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member

¶16

1. The above appeal is filed by appellant challenging the order dated 20.12.2023 passed by the 1^st Respondent/State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority ( SEIAA ), Tamil Nadu, rejecting the appellant’s application for grant of Environmental Clearance ( EC ) for quarrying of rough stone and gravel over an extent of 1.10.5 hectares in S.F. Nos.293/1A(P) and 293/2B(P), Mellur-Duraisamypuram Village, Rajapalayam Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶17

2. It is the case of the appellant that the requisite statutory approvals for the proposed quarrying activity had already been obtained. The District Collector, Virudhunagar, granted approval in respect of the subject area on 01.06.2019 and the District Geology and Mining Department, Virudhunagar, approved the mining plan on 15.10.2019 for the patta land comprised in the aforesaid survey numbers, for a period of five years. Thereafter, the appellant obtained the Terms of Reference ( ToR ) and participated in the public hearing. Pursuant thereto, the Environment Impact Assessment ( EIA ) Report was prepared and submitted on 27.07.2023, following which the appellant submitted an application seeking grant of EC.

¶18

3. The appellant contends that the impugned order dated 20.12.2023 was passed substantially on the basis of the State Expert Appraisal Committee ( SEAC ) – Tamil Nadu recommendation dated 22.09.2023, without due consideration of the appellant’s detailed representation dated 19.10.2023. The said representation specifically addressed and responded to each of the objections and concerns raised by the SEAC. The principal contentions raised by the appellant in the said representation are set out below:

¶19

(i) Proximity to the Nellai Wildlife Sanctuary and Tiger Reserve:

¶20

The Nellai Wildlife Sanctuary is situated 4.6 km to the west of the lease area and that the project site falls outside the notified Eco-Sensitive Zone ( ESZ ). Therefore, prior clearance from the National Board for Wildlife ( NBWL ) is not required. The Srivilliputhur–Megamalai Tiger Reserve is situated 6.3 km from

¶21

Page 2 of 12

¶22

the sanctuary boundary and 1.8 km from the ESZ boundary. According to the appellant, these aspects, as specifically set out in the representation, were not properly considered by the SEIAA.

¶23

(ii) Proximity of Stella Mary’s B.Ed. College and Teacher Training College: The nearby educational institutions Stella Mary’s B.Ed. College and Teacher Training College are situated 340 metres from the lease area, are non-residential institutions and have a student strength of less than 100. As two other quarrying units are operating within 500 metres of the said campus and this circumstance was not duly considered while assessing the appellant’s proposal.

¶24

(iii) Proximity of Periyakulam Kanmoi and Odai: Periyakulam Kanmoi and Odai are situated 240 metres from the proposed quarry and are presently dry water bodies having no direct connectivity with the proposed quarrying area. The appellant contends that the prescribed statutory safety distance is maintained and the existence of the said water bodies does not constitute a valid ground for rejection of the application for Environmental Clearance.

¶25

(iv) Brick chamber and hollow-block manufacturing unit: The appellant disputes the objection concerning the presence of a brick chamber at 145 metres and a hollow-block manufacturing unit at 60 metres from the proposed quarry. The mere existence of such structures or activities at the stated distances does not constitute a statutory prohibition against the proposed quarrying activity.

¶26

(v) Government hospital and school: The appellant disputes the objection relating to the nearby Government hospital and school, contending that both are situated more than 1.5 km from the project site and do not fall within the prescribed distance so as to constitute a valid ground for rejection of the proposal.

¶27

Page 3 of 12

¶28

(vi) Residential structures and roads: With regard to the nearby residential structures and roads, it is contended that the prescribed distance requirements under the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, have been duly complied with. The footpath situated within the appellant’s patta land was erroneously treated as a public village road, resulting in an incorrect assessment of the applicable distance criteria.

¶29

4. According to the appellant, the impugned order reiterates the SEAC’s recommendation without demonstrating independent application of mind to the materials while arriving at the decision to reject the application for Environmental Clearance.

¶30

5. Upon notice, the 1^st Respondent namely, the SEIAATamil Nadu submitted its counter-affidavit dated 08.09.2025 stating that the ToR along with Public Hearing was issued to the Project Proponent vide Letter dated 31.01.2022. Thereafter, Thiru. K.A. Rajagopal, the Project Proponent, applied for Environmental Clearance for the proposed Rough Stone and Gravel Quarry, falling under Category ‘B’, Item 1(a) – Mining of Minerals Projects of the Schedule to the EIA Notification, 2006, as amended. The proposal was placed before the 410^th Meeting of the SEAC held on 22.09.2023. Upon consideration of the project presentation, documents furnished by the Project Proponent and the KML file uploaded in the PARIVESH portal, the SEAC identified several sitespecific environmental and safety concerns, namely:

¶31

i. The Nellai Wildlife Sanctuary and Srivilliputhur–Megamalai Tiger Reserve is located close to the project site;

¶32

ii. The presence of Stella Mary’s B.Ed. College and Stella Mary’s Teacher Training College within the blasting danger zone (500m from the lease) as prescribed by the DGMS Circular;

¶33

iii. The presence of Periyakulam Kanmai and Odai at about 240 m from the proposed quarry;

¶34

iv. The brick chamber at about 145 m and a hollow-block manufacturing unit at about 60 metres from the project site;

¶35

v. The presence of a Government Hospital and Government School in the vicinity;

¶36

Page 4 of 12

¶37

vi. Residential houses and other structures in the surrounding area;

¶38

vii. A public village road at about 60 m and Devipattinam Road at 170 metres from the project site; and

¶39

viii. Tenkasi–Madurai Road at 500 m from the eastern side of the project area.

¶40

6. Having regard to the above site-specific sensitivities, as the proximity of protected areas, the presence of educational institutions within the blasting danger zone, water bodies, roads, habitation and other establishments, the SEAC decided not to recommend the proposal for grant of Environmental Clearance. The proposal was thereafter placed before the 662^nd meeting of SEIAA held on 16.10.2023. Upon consideration of the recommendation of SEAC and rejected the proposal. Accordingly, the proposal was closed and the decision was communicated to the Project Proponent vide Letter dated 20.12.2023.

¶41

7. It is also stated in the reply that the decision was not founded upon any single objection, but upon an overall assessment of the environmental and safety sensitivities associated with the proposed site. As per the details furnished by the Project Proponent itself, the Nellai Wildlife Sanctuary is situated 4.6 km from the project site, with its ESZ boundary at 3.5 km, while the Srivilliputhur–Megamalai Tiger Reserve is 6.3 km away, with its ESZ boundary at 1.8 km. These factors, when considered together with the presence of educational institutions within the blasting danger zone and other sensitive receptors in the vicinity, were considered significant from the perspective of environmental protection and human safety.

¶42

8. The reply further states that the existing quarries (5 Nos.) are located within the 500-metre radius of the proposed site, as evidenced by the cluster letter issued by the Department of Geology and Mining on 15.10.2019, and that the proposed quarry constitutes a fresh area. Considering these circumstances cumulatively, along with the other adverse factors, the respondent contends that the proposal did not merit Environmental Clearance and was therefore rejected by applying the precautionary principle and an eco-centric approach.

¶43

Page 5 of 12

¶44

9. We have carefully considered the pleadings, heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the respondents and also perused the materials placed on record.

¶45

10. The issue that arises for consideration is:

¶46

Whether the rejection of the appellant’s application for Environmental Clearance by the SEIAA, on the basis of the site-specific environmental and safety concerns identified by the SEAC, warrants interference?

¶47

Proximity to the Educational Institution:

¶48

11. The reply of the SEIAA discloses that Stella Mary’s B.Ed. College and Stella Mary’s Teacher Training College are situated at a distance of 340 metres from the proposed quarry lease area. Though this distance is beyond the 300-metre restriction prescribed under Rule 36 (1-A) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, the SEAC has considered the said institutions with reference to the 500-metre blasting danger zone contemplated under the relevant DGMS Circular (SOMA)/(Tech) Cir. No.2 of 2003 dated 31.01.2003.

¶49

12. In this regard, the appellant contends that the institutions are non-residential and have a student strength of less than 100 and therefore, the presence of such institutions at the stated distance would not pose any significant safety concern. We are unable to accept the said contention of the appellant. The fact that an educational institution is non-residential or has a limited student strength does not eliminate the potential risks associated with blasting operations. An educational institution necessarily involves the regular presence of students, staff and other persons, and the safety implications of blasting in its vicinity, therefore, require due consideration.

¶50

Page 6 of 12

¶51

13. However, with reference to the DGMS circular dated

¶52

31.01.2003, the following is stated:

¶53

“ Subject: Dangers due to blasting projectiles. ….

¶54

The matter is brought to your attention so that following connective measures are taken in case similar conditions exists in any mine under your control

¶55

(1) In the interest of safety to treat all the places within a radius of 500m of the place of firing as the danger zone, all persons who are required to remain within the danger zone at the time of blasting should take protection in substantially built shelter

¶56

(2) Formulate a code of practice for controlled blasting Technique with mili-second delay detonators/ electric shock tubes/ cord relays or use of sequential blasting machines or by adequately muffling of holes including precautions to be taken during blasting operation until all dear signal given by blaster. (3) Training of persons and their helpers engaged in such blasting operations.”

¶57

14. On the other hand, Rule 36 of the TNMMC Rules,

¶58

1959 , states as follows:

¶59

“Rule 36- General restrictions in respect of quarrying operations:-

¶60

No lease shall be granted for quarrying stone within 300 metres (three hundred metres) from any inhabited site : Provided that the existing quarries which are subsisting under current leases shall be entitled for continuance till the expiry of the lease period. The lessees whose quarries lie within a radius of 300 metres from the inhabited site shall undertake blasting operations only after getting permission of the Director of Mines Safety, Gorgaum;

¶61

Provided further that the new and existing units of quarries shall also be required to comply with the Pollution Control Measures (i.e., dust control measures) besides complying with the other conditions in regard to Pollution Control Measure.”

¶62

15. A comparative reading of the above DGMS Circular and Rule 36 of the TNMMC Rules, 1959, would clearly establish that the distance criterion prescribed under the TNMMC Rules is 300 metres from an inhabited site. On the other hand, the DGMS Circular mandates that all persons who are required to remain within the danger zone, i.e., within 500 metres at the time of blasting, shall take protection in a substantially built shelter.

¶63

16. It is pertinent to note that the SEAC has rejected the proposal on the ground that two educational institutions are located within the blasting danger zone, stated to be within 500 metres from the lease area, as prescribed under the DGMS Circular dated 31.01.2003. However, the reference made by the SEAC to a 500-

¶64

Page 7 of 12

¶65

metre blasting danger zone from the lease area does not, in itself, clearly establish any restriction regarding the proximity of structural buildings to the quarry.

¶66

17. A careful perusal of the wording of the conditions stipulated in the DGMS Circular indicates only that persons who are required to remain within the danger zone, i.e., within 500 metres at the time of blasting, are required to take protection in a substantially built shelter. The said condition does not expressly impose a complete prohibition or restriction on the siting of a quarry within a 500-metre radius, as observed by the SEAC.

¶67

18. If the DGMS Circular had categorically stipulated that the siting of a quarry is prohibited within the 500-metre danger zone, the stand taken by the SEAC would have been justified. In the absence of such an express prohibition, the SEAC may consider the aforesaid distinction and, if deemed necessary, impose appropriate additional safety measures in this regard.

¶68

Proximity to Nellai Wildlife Sanctuary and Tiger

¶69

Reserve:

¶70

19. As regards the proximity to Nellai Wildlife Sanctuary and Tiger Reserve, we have considered the contention of the appellant with reference to Rule 36 (1-A) (e) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, which states the following:

¶71

“(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no quarrying or mining or crushing activities shall be carried out within one kilometre radial distance or the protective distance as notified by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India from time to time, whichever is more, from the boundaries of ecologically sensitive areas , environmentally and ecologically protected areas such as the National Parks, Wild Life Sanctuaries, Tiger Reserves, Elephant Corridors and Reserve Forests.”

¶72

20. It is clear that the above-referred rule prohibits quarrying, mining or crushing activities within one-kilometre radial distance or the protective distance notified by the MoEF&CC, whichever is more, from the boundaries of National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuaries and Tiger Reserves.

¶73

Page 8 of 12

¶74

21. As per the MoEF&CC, by Notification S.O. 2794(E) dated 02.08.2019, notified the Eco-Sensitive Zone around the Nellai Wildlife Sanctuary, while Notification S.O. 3974(E) dated 30.10.2019 notified the Eco-Sensitive Zone around the Srivilliputthur-Meghamalai Tiger Reserve (SMTR). The Nellai Wildlife Sanctuary is stated to be 4.6 km from the lease area, whereas the appellant relies upon the notified ESZ distance of 3.5 km. Similarly, the Srivilliputhur–Megamalai Tiger Reserve is stated to be 6.3 km from the lease area, while the appellant relies upon an ESZ distance of 1.8 km under the aforesaid notification. On the distances placed before us, the proposed quarry is beyond the respective notified protective distances.

¶75

22. Accordingly, rejection of the proposal on this ground is not sustainable. This ground is answered in favour of the appellant.

¶76

Periyakulam Kanmai and Odai:

¶77

23. The next objection concerns the Periyakulam Kanmai and Odai, stated to be situated at 240 metres from the proposed quarry. The appellant submitted that the waterbody is presently dry and have no direct connectivity with the proposed quarry.

¶78

24. With regard to the waterbody, the TNMMC Rules,1959 states the following:

¶79

“36. General restrictions in respect of quarrying operations :- (1) The quarrying permit holder or the lessee or their men shall not work or carry on or allow to be worked or carried on any mining operations at or to any point within a distance of 50 metres from any railway line except with the previous written permission of the Railway administration concerned or under or beneath any ropeway or any ropeway trestle or station except under and in accordance with the written permission of the authority owning the ropeway or from any reservoir, canal or other public works such as public roads and buildings except with the previous written permission of the Collector of the district or any other officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf and otherwise than in accordance with such instructions, restrictions and conditions, either general or special, which may be attached to such permission.”

¶80

25. In the present case, the waterbody is stated to be at a distance of 240 metres from the proposed quarry, which is substantially beyond the 50-metre restriction referred to in the Rule. Accordingly, this ground is answered in favour of the appellant.

¶81

Page 9 of 12

¶82

Brick Chamber and Hollow-Block Manufacturing Unit:

¶83

26. The SEAC has raised an objection regarding the presence of a brick chamber at 145 metres and a hollow-block manufacturing unit at 60 metres from the proposed quarry. The appellant, however, contends that these are allied activities forming part of the same project, which are run by the Appellant himself and their presence cannot be treated as an independent objection against the proposed quarry. Moreover, the appellant also stated that the impugned order cannot withstand on this ground because in the statutory norms there is no prohibition for carrying out mining activity near another industrial areas.

¶84

27. As averred and admitted by the Appellant himself that the brick chamber and hollow block manufacturing unit are allied business and run by the Appellant, no impact would be caused. Hence, the above ground of rejection is not acceptable and the ground lies in favour of the appellant.

¶85

Government Hospital and Government School:

¶86

28. Rule 36 contemplates a 300-metre restriction in relation to an inhabited site. The said Government Hospital and Government School are situated at a distance of 1.5 km away from the subjected quarry.

¶87

29. Therefore, the mere reference by SEAC to the existence of these institutions in the vicinity, cannot constitute a sustainable ground for rejection. Accordingly, this ground is answered in favour of the appellant.

¶88

Residential Structures and Habitation:

¶89

30. The SEAC has also noted the presence of residential houses and other structures in the vicinity of the proposed quarry. Though the appellant contends that the applicable distance requirements prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, have been duly complied with, relevant Form-I indicating the actual distance between the quarry site and the nearest residential habitation has not been placed on record. Neither the appellant nor the respondent has furnished the precise

¶90

Page 10 of 12

¶91

distance between the quarry and the residential structures in the surrounding area with supporting materials.

¶92

Proximity of Public Village Road:

¶93

31. The public village road is situated at 60 metres, Devipattinam Road at 170 metres, and the Tenkasi–Madurai Road at 500 metres from the proposed quarry.

¶94

32. The TNMMC Rules, 1959, under the general restrictions relating to quarrying operations, provides the following:

¶95

“36. General restrictions in respect of quarrying operations:

¶96

(1) … … … In the case of village roads, no working shall be carried out within a distance of 10 metres and except with the previous permission of the Collector of the District or any other officer duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf and otherwise than in accordance with such directions, restrictions and additions, either general or special, which may be attached to such permission”

¶97

33. The appellant contends that the pathway referred to by SEAC as a public village road is in fact only a private footpath situated within the appellant's patta land. Rule 36(1) specifically provides that, in the case of village roads, quarrying operations shall not be carried out within 10 metres. Even assuming that the road referred to by SEAC is a public village road, the distance disclosed is 60 metres, which is substantially beyond the specific 10-metre restriction. Similarly, the other roads are stated to be at 170 metres and approximately 500 metres respectively. Therefore, on the distances available on record, no violation of the specific road-distance restriction under Rule 36 is established.

¶98

34. Accordingly, rejection of the Environmental Clearance on this ground is also not sustainable. This ground is also answered in favour of the appellant.

¶99

35. In view of the foregoing observations and discussions, the appeal [Appeal No.54 of 2024 (SZ)] is partly allowed to the extent indicated above, setting aside the rejection of the Appellant’s proposal for grant of Environmental Clearance by the

¶100

Page 11 of 12

¶101

SEIAA – Tamil Nadu, vide impugned order dated 20.12.2023 and the matter is remitted back to the SEAC/SEIAA – Tamil Nadu for reconsideration of the proposal by affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the Appellant before passing order. Such exercise has to be completed by the authorities within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of this judgment.

¶102

Sd/-

¶103

Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM

¶104

Sd/Dr. Prashant Gargava, EM

¶105

Internet – Yes/No All India NGT Reporter – Yes/No

¶106

Appeal No.54/2024 (SZ)
09 th September, 2026. Mn.

¶107

Page 12 of 12

K a Rajagopal v. the Member Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K a Rajagopal v. the Member Secretary

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

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

Sayyed Mohammed Sabir Usman vs Union of India through the Secretary

Sayyed Mohammed Sabir Usman vs Union of India through the Secretary

Krishna Blue Metals vs the Chairman Seiaa

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

Vivasayeegal Mattrum Suthrusuzhal Paathukapu Sangam Erode Represented by Vijayakumar vs Sunraja Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Mr Ahmed Riyas vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep by Its Principal Secretary Environment Forest and Climate Change Department Secretariant Complex Namakkal Kavignar Maaligai

Vivasayeegal Mattrum Suthrusuzhal Paathukapu Sangam Erode Represented by Vijayakumar vs Sunraja Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Fishing Boat Owners Association vs Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority

Fishing Boat Owners Association vs Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority

Fishing Boat Owners Association vs Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority