Allowed

Ramesh B. Mundley v. State of Gujarat through Secretary Industries and Mines Dept

NGT11 Aug 2026IA No. 339/2026 in Original Application No. 115/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

N.G.T. allowed an interim application to amend pleadings and directed SEIAA to reconsider the applicant's environment clearance application after verifying correct mine lease coordinates following admitted errors in the District Survey Report.

What did the court decide?

Allowed amendment of pleadings; directed SEIAA to make fresh EC consideration considering corrected mine coordinates.

Ramesh B. Mundley vs State of Gujarat through Secretary… — Writ and Judicial Review | NGT (2026)

¶1

(Pune Bench)

¶2

Item No.9.14

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

[THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)]

¶5

I.A NO. 339/2026 IN

¶6

OA NO. 115/2026 EARLIER APPEAL NO.48/2026(WZ)

Ramesh B. Mundley

…..Applicant

Versus

State of Gujarat & Ors.

¶11

….Respondents

¶12

Date of hearing: 11.08.2026

¶13

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

¶14

Applicant : Mr. Saurabh Kulkarni, Advocate a/w Mr. Adwait Gokhale, Advocate Respondents : Mr. Parth H. Bhatt, Advocate a/w Ms. Shruti Umesh, Advocate for R.1 to R.4 Mr. Maulik Nanavati, Advocate for R.5

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The learned counsel for the applicant has filed I.A. No.339 of 2026 praying for amendment in the pleadings and the prayer clause as per the schedule annexed with it, as Annexure A-2. A copy of this Application is served to the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1-State of Gujarat, Respondent No.2-Commissioner of Geology, Respondent No.3-Collector, Respondent No.4-The Geologist as well as Respondent No.5-SEIAA who have no such objection to the Application to be allowed, hence we allow the same and direct the Applicant to incorporate them, as prayed.

¶17

Subsequent to that, the learned counsel for the Applicant has provided us an amended copy of the said Original Application which is

¶18

Page 1 of 5

¶19

taken on record to be treated as Original Application as from now onwards.

¶20

The learned counsel for Respondent No.1 to 4 and Respondent No.5 also do not want any additional pleadings to be brought on record after taking on record the amended copy of the Original Application and would rely on the earlier filed replies.

¶21

In the present Original Application prayer is made by the Applicant that a direction be issued to quash the DSR of Chhota Udepur District dated 07.02.2024 for the applicant, for being in violation of the Sustainable Sand Mining Management and Mining Guidelines, 2016 and Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020 as the coordinates of the mining leases of the applicant are mentioned incorrectly. It is further prayed that the direction be issued to Respondent No.3-Geologist to prepare a fresh DSR for the applicant in strict compliance with the mandatory procedure, including scientific replenishment studies and field-level data verification; therefore, further it is prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to reconsider the application of the Applicant for reappraisal of the EC on account of the glaring errors in the coordinates of the Mining Lease of the applicant on the PARIVESH portal and the DSR.

¶22

In the body of the application, it is said that Respondent No.4-The Geologist, Chhota Udepur has committed grave error while drafting and finalizing the DSR of Chhota Udepur District as the mining coordinate of the leases of the applicant are mentioned incorrectly. Respondent No.5SEIAA has relied upon the DSR and had issued rejection letters to the applicant. The coordinates which are relied upon by Respondent No.5SEIAA are not that of applicant and totally different from the actual

¶23

Page 2 of 5

¶24

geographical locations of the Applicant. Therefore, the impugned order dated 28.03.2025/02.04.2025 be set aside which has been passed rejecting the application of the applicant on the ground that the lease area is situated within or nearby the Forest area, which is not complying with the distance criteria suggested by CPCB and accepted by NGT.

¶25

From the side of Respondent No.1 to 4, reply affidavit dated 27.07.2026 has been filed stating therein that upon re-verification of the records, it came to light that the minor error crept in the District Survey Report, with respect to the coordinates cited therein, which indicate the location of the mining lease of the present Applicant.

¶26

It is further mentioned that this Tribunal by Order dated 09.04.2026 in a similar matter in Original Application No.12 of 2026 has observed as follows:

¶27

“ 11. Accepting, the argument made by the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1-SEIAA, Gujarat, we allow both these applications in terms of the judgment passed by us on 09.12.2025 in Appeal No.35/2025 and in other connected appeals, to the effect that the impugned orders passed by Respondent No.1-SEIAA dated 13.03.2023 and 15.04.2023 are set aside, with a direction that Respondent No.1-SEIAA, Gujarat shall make fresh consideration after ensuring that the discrepancy in geographical locations of the leased area of the applicants i.e. the geographical coordinates (latitude and longitude coordinates) in the mining area of the applicants is cured by the authority concerned. After such exercise is done, a fresh order shall be passed by Respondent No.1-SEIAA on the Environment Clearances granted by DEIAA to all these applicants and for that, if any application is required to be moved by the applicants before the Respondent No.1-SEIAA via PARIVESH, they may move the same.”

¶28

Page 3 of 5

¶29

It is further mentioned that since the present Application is substantially similar to the issues raised in the above-mentioned application, hence the same order may be passed in this case also.

¶30

From the side of Respondent No.5-SEIAA, reply affidavit dated 07.04.2026 has been filed, wherein it is stated that they relied upon the 12-point checklist mentioned in MoEF&CC OM dated 28.04.2023 which includes DSR. The regulatory authority is justified in placing reliance upon the District Survey Report, particularly in the light of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s rulings. Therefore, under the circumstances, no fault could be attributed to the Answering Respondent. Further, it is mentioned that if this Tribunal finds any discrepancy in the description of the mining area in the DSR and that such variation has resulted in erroneous plotting of the mining area while submitting re-appraisal application on PARIVESH and brought about a wrong spatial location of the mining area, the regulatory authority does not have the power to review the same, in such circumstances this Tribunal may pass an appropriate order directing the District Geologist to again visit the mining area of the applicant and demarcate the exact location of the mining area. If need be, the District Geologist may first correct 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.

¶31

We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and from the affidavit of Respondent No.1 to 4, it is quite evident that they have admitted an error to have crept in, in the DSR as regards the locational coordinates of the mining lease of the applicant in the case in hand and based on that only the SEIAA has wrongly rejected the

¶32

Page 4 of 5

¶33

application for re-appraisal of the Applicant. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to pass following order in this case.

¶34

We allow this Application with the direction to the Respondent No.5SEIAA, Gujarat to make fresh consideration after ensuring that the discrepancy in the geographical locations of the leased area of the applicant i.e. the geographical coordinates (latitude and longitude coordinates) of the leased area of the applicant mentioned in the DSR is cured by the authority concerned. After such exercise is done a fresh order shall be passed by the Respondent No.5-SEIAA on EC granted by DEIAA to the applicant and for that, if any application is required to be moved by the applicant before the Respondent No.5-SEIAA via PARIVESH, he may move the same.

¶35

11. Hence this Application is disposed of.

¶36

Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶37

Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee, EM

¶38

August 11, 2026 I.A NO. 339/2026 IN OA NO. 115/2026 EARLIER APPEAL NO.48/2026(WZ) KNG

¶39

Page 5 of 5

Ramesh B. Mundley v. State of Gujarat through Secretary Industries and Mines Dept

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh B. Mundley v. State of Gujarat through Secretary Industries and Mines Dept

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shahanavaj Khan vs State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority Bihar

Shahanavaj Khan vs State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority Bihar

Neeraj Chhachhar vs

Rspl Limited vs State of Gujarat

Residents Welfare Society Shyam Kunj vs NCT of Delhi

1. Alaka Mishra W/O- Harekrushna Mishra Aged About 75 Years vs 1. State of Odisha Additional Chief Secretary Revenue and Disaster Management Department Govt. of Odisha

Ajay Kant Rohit vs State of Bihar

Lakhyajyoti Gogoi vs Moefcc

Royal Quarry Works Co. Shri Vishnubhai Kalidas Patel vs State Enviromental Impact Assessment Authority Gujarat

Mahendrabhai Rudabhai Dharsandia vs State Enviromental Impact Assessment Authority Gujarat

M/S. Vasudev Minerals Company C/O. Denishbhai Vinodray Buddhdev vs Seiaa

Karim Gillani vs M/S Giriraj Associates

Mr. Nagesh Vinayak Dhamale vs Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change (Moef & Cc) New Delhi.

Mr. Nagesh Vinayak Dhamale vs Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change (Moef & Cc) New Delhi.