Dismissed

Rdc Concrete India Private Limited Rep by Its Managing Director v. Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board

NGT6 Aug 2026Appeal No. 65/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal Southern Zone, Chennai, dismissed appeals filed by RDC Concrete India Private Limited. The Plant was found established without consent and violating distance norms from the highway and residential areas. The rules apply to temporary plants. The Tribunal directed the Board to follow strict pollution control measures for future captive RMC plants.

What did the court decide?

Appeals dismissed; TNPCB directed to follow precautionary pollution control methods for future RMC plant approvals.

Rdc Concrete India Private Limited Rep by Its Managing… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item Nos.3 & 4:-

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

¶3

Thursday, the 06^th day of August, 2026.

¶4

[Through Physical Hearing (Hybrid Option)]

¶5

Appeal Nos. 65 & 66 of 2025(SZ)

¶6

IN THE MATTER OF:

¶7

(In both the cases)

¶8

M/ s. RDC Concrete India Private Limited,

¶9

Represented by its Managing Director SF No.154/6, Kodiyam Village,

¶10

Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District.

…Appellant(s)

Versus

1. The Chairman

Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Chennai - 600 032.

¶15

2. The Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Hosur.

¶16

3. The Member Secretary, Central Pollution Control Board, Parivesh Bhawan, East Arjun nagar, Delhi – 110 032.

¶17

[R3 – suo motu impleaded vide order dated 09.04.2026].

¶18

…Respondent(s)

¶19

(In both the cases)

¶20

For Appellant(s): M/s. Rita Chandrasekar & M. Karunanidhi. For Respondent(s): Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for R1& R2. Mr. R. Thirunavukarasu for R3.

¶21

Judgment Reserved on 16^th July, 2026.

¶22

CORAM :

¶23

HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

¶24

HON’BLE Dr. PRASHANT GARGAVA, EXPERT MEMBER

¶25

Page 1 of 10

¶26

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶27

Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member

¶28

1. The present appeals [Appeal Nos. 65 & 66 of 2025 (SZ)] have been filed against the common order dated 31.10.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Appellate Authority, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, with the following prayer:

¶29

“It is prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to call for the records relating to the order dated 31.10.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Appellate Authority, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control, made in Appeal Nos.149 & 150 of 2025 and quash the same and consequently direct the Respondents to grant CTO direct to the Appellant for manufacture of RMC at the rate of 1000 Cubic Meter per month for execution of the project, namely construction of bypass to Bagalur town branching from Kin 3/0 (Kothapalli) and joining at Kin 9,350 (Jee Mangalam) including shifting of Utilities of NH 207 (New NH 648) on engineering, Procurement & Construction basis Contract in the state of Tamil Nadu awarded by the National Highway Authority of India”.

¶30

2. It is submitted that the Appellant is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The company was established in the year 1993, with its head office situated at Thane West. The Appellant Company is a PAN India Company engaged in the manufacture of Ready Mix Concrete (RMC) and the Appellant is one of the companies being the pioneers for setting up India's first commercial RMC Plant.

¶31

3. It is further submitted that the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI), office of Superintending Engineer (National Highway Circle, Salem) invited bids for construction of bypass to Bagalur town branching from Kin 3/0 (Kothapalli) and joining at Kin 9,350 (Jee Mangalam) including shifting of utilities of NH 207 (New NH 648) on engineering, procurement & construction basis Contract in the State of Tamil Nadu.

¶32

4. It is stated that for the purpose of executing the project assigned by the NHAI, the Appellant company took on lease the property comprised in S.No.154/2A2B, Kodiyalam Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District measuring an extent of 1 Acre. The property was taken on lease for industrial use specifically for setting up and operating an RMC and allied

¶33

Page 2 of 10

¶34

products manufacturing unit. It is further stated that the RMC Plant was to be set up on a temporary basis for the purpose of execution of the project in question and once the works are completed in all respects, the RMC Plants will be dismantled.

¶35

5. The Appellant further submits that upon taking the property on lease, the Appellant company started its activities and established a temporary RMC Plant for the purpose of execution of the project in question. It is further submitted that the Appellant company was under a bonafide impression that since the project involved is a public project, it commenced its manufacturing activities.

¶36

6. It is submitted that the Appellant company submitted an online application in Form I under Section 21 of the Air Act on 27.05.2025 seeking Consent to Operate (CTO Direct) . The Appellant company applied for consent for manufacturing RMC at the rate of 1000 cubic meters per Month. The Appellant also submitted an online application in Form II under Section 25/26 of the Water Act on 27.05.2025 seeking CTO Direct. It is submitted that said application was placed in the 412^th meeting of District Level Consent Clearance Committee (DLCCC) held on 23.07.2025. It is submitted that by the communication bearing

¶37

Proc.No.F.403HSR/GS/DEB/TNPCB/31/W&A/2025, dated 24.07.2025 , the 2^nd Respondent rejected the application for the following reasons:-

¶38

a. The unit of M/s. RDC Concrete India Private Limited, SF No.154/6, Kodiyalam Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District has not complied with the guidelines stipulated for RMC plants dated 16.08.2017 as below:

¶39

i. The unit of M/s. RDC Concrete India Private Limited, SF No.154/6, Kodiyalam Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District is located 10m from National Highway (NH-648) and as against the minimum distance of 250m from the nearby residential area, layouts, NH/SH, educational institutions, religious places and human settlements with population more than 500.

¶40

b. The unit is located in the Residential areas as per Hosur New Town Development Authority Land use classification.

¶41

Page 3 of 10

¶42

8. It is submitted that a composite order was passed by the 2^nd Respondent which was put to challenge before the Hon’ble Appellate Authority, Pollution Control during August 2025 and the same was taken up on its file as Appeal No. 149 of 2025 as against the rejection of the Application filed under the Air Act seeking consent. The Appellant also filed Appeal No.150 of 2025 challenging the order of the 2nd Respondent rejecting the consent application filed under the Water Act. Along with the Appeal, the Appellant filed an affidavit undertaking to dismantle the RMC Unit after the completion of the project entrusted by the NHAI. The Appellant also undertook to supply the entire production of the unit in respect of the project and not to any third parties.

¶43

9. The Hon’ble Appellate Authority dismissed the Appeals stating that the Appellant had established and commenced its operations without obtaining consent from the Board and that the unit is located in a residential area and NH648 runs just 10m away from the unit, which is in violation of guidelines prescribed by the Board.

¶44

10. It is submitted by the Appellant that one of the reasons assigned for rejecting the Consent Application was that the Unit namely the Appellant company has not complied with the guidelines dated 16.08.2017 stipulated by the Respondent Board. In this regard, it is submitted that the Guidelines dated 16.08.2017 is not applicable to such of those RMC Plants established temporarily.

¶45

11. In response, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, namely the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board , filed a report in Appeal No.65 of 2025(SZ) dated 27.03.2026 stating that the Appellant unit M/s. RDC Concrete India Private Limited located at SF.No.154/6, Kodiyalam Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District has submitted an application through online portal on 27.05.2025 seeking CTO Direct under the provisions of the Water (P&CP), Act 1974 as amended and the Air (P&CP) Act, 1981 as amended, for manufacturing Ready Mix Concrete - 1000 Cubic Meter/Month.

¶46

Page 4 of 10

¶47

12. The said application was returned to the unit through the online portal on 14.06.2025 , requesting the unit to furnish and/or rectify certain particulars, among others. The unit was specifically directed to submit certificates obtained from the competent authorities evidencing compliance with the siting criteria prescribed for Ready Mix Concrete plants by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, in compliance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal (Southern Zone) dated 30.03.2017 in Application No. 24 of 2017, namely:

¶48

No RMC plant shall be permitted within 250 metres from nearby residential areas, layouts, National/State Highways, educational institutions, religious places and human settlements.

¶49

13. The unit has resubmitted the application on 01.07.2025 without furnishing the requisite supporting documents evidencing compliance with the aforesaid siting criteria prescribed for Ready Mix Concrete plants. Consequently, the application was again returned on 06.07.2025.

¶50

14. The unit once again resubmitted the application on 07.07.2025 , still without furnishing requisite supporting documents evidencing compliance with the aforesaid siting criteria prescribed for Ready Mix Concrete plants. In this connection, the unit was inspected on 17.07.2025 and during the inspection, it was observed that the unit has installed all the machinery in the premises for manufacturing of ReadyMix Concrete without obtaining necessary consent of the Board and the unit was also in operation. Further, the unit is located at about 10m from National highway 648 (Dobbaspet to Hosur) and hence, the unit has not complied with the siting criteria issued by the Board in compliance of the directions issued by the Hon'ble NGT (SZ).

¶51

15. Based on inspection conducted on 17.07.2025, a Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued to the unit vide proceedings dated 18.07.2025 for the following reasons:

¶52

1. The unit was in operation without obtaining prior consent to operate from the Board.

¶53

Page 5 of 10

¶54

2. The unit has not complied the siting criteria of ready mix concrete plants as per orders of the Hon'ble NGT (SZ) dated 30.06.2017 in application no.24 of 2017 because the unit site is located at about 10 m from NH 648 (Dobbaspet to Hosur).

¶55

16. The issue was placed before the District Level Consent Clearance Committee meeting held on 23.07.2025 . The District Level Consent Clearance Committee has decided to reject the application and accordingly a Consent Refusal order was issued to the unit vide Proc. No. F.4037HSR/ GS/ DEE/ TNPCB/ 31/W&A/2025, dated 24.07.2025 on the following grounds:

¶56

1. The unit is located at a distance of 10 m from National highway (NH - 648) and as against the stipulated minimum distance of 250m from the nearby residential area, layouts, National/ State Highways, educational institutions, Religious places and human settlements with population more than 500.

¶57

2. The unit is located in the Residential Zone as per Hosur New Town Development Authority land use classification.

¶58

17. The unit has replied on 25.07.2025 for the SCN issued by the Board and informed that the unit has approached the Hon'ble Appellate Authority, Chennai based on the TNPCB rejection proceeding dated 24.07.2025 . The unit has also informed that the unit has stopped the production as per instruction issued during the inspection on 17.07.2025.

¶59

18. The unit has filed Appeal Nos. 149 & 150 of 2025 against the Proc. No: F. 4037 HSR/GS/DEE/TNPCB/31/W&A/2025 dated 24.7.2025 before the Hon'ble Appellate Authority, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Chennai. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Appellate Authority has dismissed the Appeal on 31.10.2025 and the operative portion of the Order inter alia is as follows:

¶60

"The appellant's application for Consent to Operate-Direct for a ready mix concrete plant at SF No: 154/6, Kodiyalam Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District was rejected by the second respondent herein, vide his Proc. No: F. 4037 HSR / GS / DEE / TNPCB /31/W&A / 2025 dated 24.7.2025, on the ground that the unit is located 10m from National Highway (NH – 648) and the unit is located in the residential area as per Hosur New Town Development Authority Land Use Classification, thereby attracting the ready mix plant guidelines issued by the Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board as directed by the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal order dated 30.3.2017 in Application

¶61

Page 6 of 10

¶62

No: 24 of 2017. Challenging the same, the appellant preferred these appeals. Respondent-Board files counter to the same.

¶63

The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant has got a purchase order for supply of ready mix concrete from one M/s. RDC Concrete India Private Limited, who was awarded with a contract by National Highways, Salem Circle for construction of bypass to Bagalur town branching from Kothapalli and Jee Mangalam. He further submits that the project is only for a period of two years and after completion of the project the unit will be dismantled and the land will be restored to its original condition.

¶64

On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Board would submit that the appellant has installed all the machineries in the premises for manufacturing of ready mіх concrete without obtaining necessary consent of the Board and also started its operation. The unit is located at about 10m from National Highway 648 (Dobbaspet to Hosur) thereby violating the siting criteria issued by the respondent-Board.

¶65

Нeаrd both sides.

¶66

It is an admitted fact that the appellant has established the unit and commenced its operation without obtaining consent from respondent-Board. The unit is located in the residential area as per Hosur New Town Development Authority and NH-648 runs just 10m away which is in clear violation of the guidelines prescribed by TNPCB.

¶67

Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent herein vide Proc. No. F.4037 HSR / GS / DEE / TNPCB / 31 / W&A / 2025 Dated: 24.7.2025."

¶68

19. The unit had established a Ready Mix Concrete plant in clear violation of the siting criteria prescribed for Ready Mix Concrete Plants by the Board in compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble National Green Tribunal. The rejection of the Consent to Operate - Direct application has also been upheld by the Hon’ble Appellate Authority.

¶69

20. We have considered the pleadings and heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the Appellant and Respondents.

¶70

21. The Respondent Board/TNPCB, during its inspection conducted on 17.07.2025, observed that the unit had installed all the machinery required for the manufacture of Ready Mix Concrete (RMC) without obtaining the requisite Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate from the Board. It was further found that the unit was already engaged in manufacturing operations.

¶71

Page 7 of 10

¶72

22. The unit, which claims to be one of the pioneers in the Ready Mix Concrete (RMC) industry with operations across India, cannot be ignorant of the statutory requirement to obtain the necessary Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate prior to the installation and commencement of operations of the plant. The installation and operation of the unit without securing the mandatory consents constitute a clear violation of the applicable statutory provisions. In view of the above, TNPCB is at liberty to assess and levy environmental compensation, after following due process and in accordance with law.

¶73

23. The “Guidelines for Ready Mix Concrete Plants” issued by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board do not stipulate that their applicability is restricted to permanent units only or that temporary units are excluded from their scope. Pollution generated even from temporary operations may cause significant and, in some cases, long-term adverse environmental impacts. Accordingly, the temporary nature of an activity, by itself, cannot be a valid ground for exempting it from compliance with the applicable environmental guidelines.

¶74

24. The RMC plants have the potential to generate significant dust emissions, which may impair visibility and create safety hazards for vehicular traffic on highways. Consequently, the establishment of such plants in close proximity to an operational highway poses a potential risk to road users. In the present case, the Appellant's RMC plant is situated merely 10 metres from the National Highway, as against the stipulated minimum distance of 250 metres.

¶75

25. Further, the mere fact that the project is a public and time-bound project cannot justify the establishment or operation of an RMC plant in contravention of the applicable guidelines.

¶76

26. Even if the site is temporary, the RMC plant must strictly implement pollution control measures prescribed in the guidelines to protect the environment as well as nearby residential areas from exposure to dust pollution, including measures such as:

¶77

Page 8 of 10

¶78

Dust mitigation: Construction of 20 feet high windbreaking tin sheet barricades all around the plant periphery to contain the dust generated from its operation in order to protect the nearby Kodiyalam Village lands.

¶79

Enclosures: The unit should provide fully enclosed silos with bag filters for cement storage and automated water-sprinkling systems over aggregate storage piles.

¶80

Wherever required, ensure zero-discharge by setting up temporary settling tanks to reuse concrete wastewater instead of letting toxic slurry drain into the village lands.

¶81

27. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Appellant's contentions that the applicable guidelines govern only permanent RMC plants and not temporary RMC plants such as the Appellant's, and that the plant is exempt from compliance with the applicable guidelines on account of being established for a public project, is not sustainable. Even if the RMC plant is temporary, project-specific/captive, RMC plant does not give the appellant and automatic legal right to build a dust generating plant right next to highway. The 250 metres safety buffer still applies.

¶82

28. In the case of projects undertaken in the larger public interest or located in densely populated urban areas, where compliance with certain siting criteria may not be practicable, and where it is demonstrably established that the installation of a Ready Mix Concrete (RMC) plant at the project site is indispensable for execution of the project, the TNPCB may consider examining the feasibility of permitting such plants as an exception. Any such permission should be subject to stringent pollution control measures, continuous environmental monitoring, and robust regulatory oversight to ensure strict compliance with the prescribed standards. The TNPCB may also consider reviewing and suitably revising the existing guidelines to provide for such exceptional circumstances.

¶83

Page 9 of 10

¶84

29. It is open to the appellant to apply again for consent, keeping in mind the zero-tolerance on pollution control and the TNPCB may consider the same by applying the siting and other criteria. In such a case, the appellant also is to strictly required to apply and obtain CTE and CTO. The appellant also is required to give a formal legal undertaking to TNPCB that the entire plant will be completely dismantled and cleared immediately upon completion of the specific project. It is also prohibited to sell the concrete commercially to any third parties/private builders and the 100% produced must be used to the designated project only.

¶85

30. In view of the above, while the appeals [Appeal Nos.65 & 66 of 2025(SZ)] are dismissed , the TNPCB is directed to strictly follow the above precautionary methods before issuing any CTE/CTO for a captive or standalone RMC plant in the future. Sd/Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM Sd/Dr. Prashant Gargava, EM Internet – Yes/No All India NGT Reporter – Yes/No Appeal Nos.65 & 66/2025 (SZ) 06^th August, 2026. AD.

¶86

Page 10 of 10

Rdc Concrete India Private Limited Rep by Its Managing Director v. Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rdc Concrete India Private Limited Rep by Its Managing Director v. Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board

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

Tanaji Balasaheb Gambhire vs Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change

R Arumugam vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Tamil Nadu

Lloyd St Jude Joachim Fernandes vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

J.S. Jain Dyeing Factory vs Punjab Pollution Control Board

Rspl Limited vs State of Gujarat

Btw India Private Limited vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Western Central Railways through Its Divisional Commercial Manager vs Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board through Its Member Secretary

Devarajan N vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

V Subramaniam Son of Valliyappagounder vs the President Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

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

Rdc Concrete India Private Limited Rep by Its Managing Director vs the Chairman Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

Remmy Substrates India P Ltd. vs the Chairman Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

Remmy Substrates India P Ltd. vs the Chairman Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board