Disposed

Chander Singh v. 1. Union of India

NGT15 Jul 2026IA No. 585/2025 in Original Application No. 995/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal disposed of an application concerning mining violations at Dundu, Uttarakhand. Relying on Supreme Court directions and a committee report, it directed authorities to frame and implement an ecological restoration scheme using an already deposited sum. Pending applications were also disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent nos. 7 and 8 to frame an ecological restoration scheme within two months and implement it within eight months using Rs. 80 lakhs deposited by the applicant-respondent.

Chander Singh vs 1. Union of India — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No.15 Court No. 1

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶3

Original Application No. 995/2019 (IA No 585/2025, IA No 662/2019, IA No 663/2019)

¶4

Chander Singh Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Union of India & Ors.

¶7

Respondent(s)

¶8

Date of hearing: 15.07.2026

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER Applicant: Mr. Varun Katiyar, Mr. Abhishek Singh & Ms. Shivani Verma, Advocates for Applicant Respondents: Mr. Pinaki Misra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rahul Khurana, Mr. Hasil Jain & Ms. Bhavya, Advocates for R – 4 Mr. Mukesh Verma & Ms. Vatsala Tripathi, Advocates for UKPCB (Through VC) Mr. Adiraj Bali & Mr. Deepak Bora, Advs. for R - 2, 6 & 8 Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate for CPCB (Through VC)

¶10

ORDER

¶11

In this Original Application (OA), Applicant has alleged that respondent No. 4 M/s. N.B. Minerals Corporation Limited, has indulged in the mining of Magnesite, Dolomite and Soap Stone at Village Dundu, Tehsil Didihat, District Pithoragarh, Uttarakhand.

¶12

The Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the grievance of the applicant was in respect of the collection of over-burden (waste) outside the mining area and improper disposal thereof by the respondent-project proponent. He has submitted that during the pendency of this OA, the said violation has been remediated and grievance of the applicant does not survive.

¶13

¶14

In the environmental matters mere concession by the complainant is not enough to close the issue.

¶15

The OA was initially disposed of by the Tribunal by order dated 26.10.2021 by finding that project proponent had extracted minerals and carried out mining in excess of the permitted limit and, accordingly, levying the interim compensation of Rs. 2 crores and directing the State Government to review the mining operations.

¶16

Against the above order, project proponent had filed the Civil Appeal Nos.2003-2004/2022 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and by order dated 21.11.2024, appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, granting permission to the project proponent to raise all pleas and contentions before the Tribunal. Tribunal by order dated 04.07.2025, allowed the Review Application No. 03/2025 filed by the project proponent and recalled the orders dated 26.10.2021 and 28.01.2022 and had restored the OA.

¶17

The chain of events indicates that mining lease for an area of 5.568 ha. in village Dundu, District Pithoragarh, Uttarakhand was granted to respondent no.4- N.B. Minerals Corporation Limited for 20 years in 1980. The mining lease/permission was extended till 31.03.2013. The mining activities were carried out by respondent no.4 till 02.04.2019 when the mining activity was stopped by the District Magistrate for obtaining the Environmental Clearance (EC) from the SEIAA in compliance of the order of the Tribunal dated 27.03.2019. The mining was again restarted by the respondent no.4 after obtaining the fresh EC from SEIAA on 09.10.2019. The mining plan of the respondent no.4 expired on 31.03.2020 and thereafter no mining activity has been undertaken.

¶18

The Tribunal in this O.A had earlier constituted the committees and had obtained the reports and by order dated 26.10.2021, had found that respondent no.4 had caused environmental damage by dumping the

¶19

¶20

material which was overflowing into the river and had failed to take preventive measures to avoid spillage from the pit area towards the valley and the muck had spread in the surrounding environment beyond the allotted area. The Tribunal had accordingly levied the interim compensation of Rs. 2 crore while disposing of the O.A. by order dated 21.08.2021.

¶21

This order was subject matter of challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court at the instance of the respondent no.4 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2003-2004 of 2022 in the matter of N.B. Minerals Corporation Limited vs. Union of India & Ors. The Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 22.08.2022 while issuing notice in the appeal had passed the following order:

¶22

“UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER

¶23

Issue notice, returnable in the month of January, 2023. In the meanwhile, the appellant would deposit a sum of Rs. 80 lakhs in three installments. The first installment of Rs. 25 lakhs will be deposited on or before 30th September, 2022; second installment of Rs. 25 lakhs will be deposited on or before 15th November, 2022; and the balance amount of Rs. 30 lakhs will be deposited on or before 31st December, 2022.

¶24

List for hearing and disposal on a non-miscellaneous day in the month of January, 2023.”

¶25

By order dated 07.09.2022, Hon’ble Supreme Court had directed that an amount of Rs. 80 lakhs will be paid in three instalments to be deposited with the District Magistrate, Pithoragarh, Uttarakhand.

¶26

The Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 27.02.2024 passed in the above Civil Appeal, had formed a joint committee by directing as under:-

¶27

“ UPON hearing the counsel, the Court made the following ORDER

¶28

We have examined the counter affidavit/status report filed by the State

¶29

of Uttarakhand.

¶30

Colour photographs have been produced in the Court, and are taken and kept on record.

¶31

The appellant NB Minerals Corporation Limited is permitted to construct the retaining/safety wall by using machines the (like earthmoving/construction equipment vehicle and excavator), as

¶32

¶33

specified in paragraph 5.5.7 of the counter affidavit/status report filed by the State of Uttarakhand. The retaining/safety wall will be constructed under the supervision ano guidance of the Additional District Magistrate, Didihat. Photographs prior to the commencement of the construction and post-construction will be placed on record.

¶34

We clarify that the appellant NB Minerals Corporation Limited will not carry out any other construction or mining of Magnesite/Dolomite.

¶35

In order to ascertain the actual factual position and the effect of the mining activities undertaken from the year 2010-201 till the closure order, we deem it appropriate to appoint a Committee consisting of the following three members :-

¶36

1. The nominee appointed by the Chairman of the Central Pollution Control Board, having domain/subject matter expertise;

¶37

2. The nominee appointed by the Vice-Chancellor of the Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, who should be associated with environmental issues and have domain/subject matter expertise; and

¶38

3. The nominee appointed by the Director General, The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), New Delhi, having domain/subject matter expertise.

¶39

The Committee will also examine the reparative undertaken, and opine whether mining activity should be permitted, and condition, which should be imposed.

¶40

A copy of the order passed by the National Green Tribunal dated 26.10.2021, as well as, the counter affidavit/status report filed by the State of Uttarakhand, will be made available by the Registry to the members of the Committee.

¶41

The Committee will be given full assistance by the (i) Revenue Officer, Dandu Kanalicheena; (ii) District Mining Officer, Geology and Mining Department, Uttarakhand; (iii) Forest Conservator, Pithoragarh; (iv) Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Pithoragarh; and (v) the Additional District Magistrate, Didihat.

¶42

The three members of the Committee will be entitled to an honorarium of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) each, which shall be paid by the appellant N B Minerals Corporation Limited. In addition, the Committee will be paid the out-of-pocket expenses and other incidental expense(s) for visiting the site.

¶43

The said Committee will submit its report within a period of six weeks from the date a copy of this order is received by them.

¶44

Re-list after six weeks from the date the nominees/members of the Committee, as indicated above, are appointed.”

¶45

In compliance of the aforesaid order, joint committee had submitted

¶46

the report before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 10.05.2024, recording that

¶47

¶48

total area affected by both mining and the debris slide was estimated to be approximately 24,400 sqm. It also found that total exposed area encompassing the mining site and expanded debris slide had increased to approximately 38,000 sqm. The Committee also found that a large quantity of overburden supposed to be compacted with the stabilising slopes within the mining area has been allowed to flow down the hill into the forest/thick vegetation since 2010. The committee had accordingly made the following recommendations: -

¶49

“5. Recommendations:

¶50

1. Mining has been carried out over a decade in such a manner and with disregard for environmental and mining regulations that one has to think twice before allowing mining at this site. Mining can only be carried out after mining plan has been approved by the Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM), which should include measures to stabilise the existing debris and plans for proper storage of expected overburden on site with slope protection measures to prevent erosion of soil from the dump and drainage system in the form of garland drain all around the dump to collect the surface runoff during rain.

¶51

2. The overburden has been allowed to flow outside the mining area since 2010 due to which thick vegetation/forest has been destroyed in the area affected by sliding debris. A plantation drive should be carried out by N.B. Minerals Corporation to remediate the affected area and all remediation measures be supervised by the committee constituted by the District Magistrate, Pithoragarh.

¶52

3. The wall constructed at the edge of mining site along the hill slope / cliff is not a retaining wall. The wall can act as a measure for limiting roll out of some loose debris. Debris should be kept at a distance from this wall and not abut it and a 4 ft free board should be always ensured. Further, care should be taken to collect if some soil escapes through the weep-holes.

¶53

4. Since the mining level in a significant part of the mining lease area and the public road level are currently the same, further mining plan of the mining lease area be reviewed by the IBM carefully. Conditions regarding use of explosives be also reviewed by the IBM.”

¶54

Reply affidavit of the District Magistrate, Pithoragarh dated 06.07.2025 filed in R.A. 3/2025 (place on record in this O.A. along with the reply affidavit of respondent no.4 dated 05.08.2025) discloses that a joint committee was constituted by the District Magistrate, Pithoragarh to

¶55

¶56

examine the compliance status, which had submitted the report to the District Magistrate, Pithoragarh on 15.07.2023 (page 505) finding the compliance as under:-

¶57

“5.5.1. माह जुलाई , 2020 ( खनन पटटा समाप्ति अवधि ) सेवर्तमान र्क खनन कार्तबन्द है। पट्टािारकद्वारा पट्टाक्षेत्रमेंखनन कार्ोंसेसमीप केक्षेत्रकोपर्ातवरणीर्क्षधर्से बचानेकेधलएपटटाक्षेत्रकेबाहरढालदारभू - भागमेंसुरक्षादीवारर्थाधवधभन्नस्थानीर् प्रजाधर्केपेडो़ोंकोलगार्ागर्ाहै।फोटोग्राफस़ोंलग्नहै। ( स़ोंलग्नक -3)

¶58

5.5.2 प‌ट्टािारकद्वारापट्टाक्षेत्रकाधजओररफ्रेन्सड्रोनसवेधकर्ागर्ाहै , धजसकीप्रधर्स़ोंलग्न है।इसकेअधर्ररक्तपट्टाक्षेत्रमेंपूवतमेंखननकार्तकेदौरानधनकलेमलवेकोढालदार भूभागकीओरधगरनेसेरोकनेहेर्ुउपचारात्मकउपार्र्था - सुरक्षादीवार काधनमातण धकर्ागर्ाहै।‌ ( स़ोंलग्नक -4)

¶59

5.5.3. पट्टाक्षेत्रसेपूवतमेंढालदारधदशामेंमलवापार्ागर्ावर्तमानमेंपट्टािारकद्वारामलवे कीरोकथामहेर्ुसुरक्षादीवारकाधनमातणधकर्ागर्ाहै।

¶60

5.5.4. पट्टािारकद्वाराभधवष्यमेंजधनर्मलवे / अपधशष्टकोखननपट्टेकेक्षेत्रसेबाहरड्म्प नधकर्ेजानेकेस़ोंब़ोंिमेंशपथपत्रपूवतमेंप्रस्तुर्धकर्ागर्ाहै।वर्तमानमेंभीप‌ट्टािारक द्वाराखननक्षेत्रसेबाहरमलवानड्ालेजानेएव़ोंखननक्षेत्रमेंहीमलवेकोड्म्पधकर्े जानेसम्बन्धी‌नोटराईज्डशपथपत्रप्रस्तुर्धकर्ागर्ाहै , जोस़ोंलग्नहै। ( स़ोंलग्नक -5)

¶61

5.5.5. पट्टािारकद्वाराखननक्षेत्रसेबाहरकीओरपूवतमेंधगरेमलवेंकेसुरधक्षर् / धनस्ताररर् धकर्े जानेहेर्ु कार्तर्ोजना प्रस्तुर् की गईहै , धजसकी प्रधर् स़ोंलग्नहै। ( स़ोंलग्नक 6) पट्टािारकद्वाराधकर्ेगर्ेकार्ोंकीप्तस्थधर्धनम्नवर ् है :-

¶62

(I) पट्टािारकद्वाराखननक्षेत्रसेबाहरपूरबधदशामेंमप्तन्दरकीओरएव़ोंपधिमधदशामें रा०३०का० छडनदेव कीओर ढालदार भूभाग मेंधगरेमलवेकोखनन क्षेत्रके अन्दरस्थानान्तररर्धकर्ागर्ाहै।फोटोग्राफस़ोंलग्नहै। ( स़ोंलग्नक -7)

¶63

(II) उक्तकेअधर्ररक्तकधर्पर्र्ीब्रढालदारभूभागकीओरधगरेमलवे , जोपट्टाक्षेत्रके अन्दर स्थानान्तररर्धकर्ा जाना सम्भव नही़ोंहै , कोप‌ट्टािारकद्वारा स्थल परही सुरधक्षर्करर्ेहुए सीढीनुमाखेर्ो़ोंकाधनमातण धकर्ा गर्ाहैर्था धवधभन्नस्थानीर् प्रजाधर्वृक्षो़ोंकेवृक्षारोपणधकर्ाजानापार्ागर्ा।धनरीक्षणकेदौरानलगार्ेगर्े वृक्षआत्मधनभतर आर्ुर्था 02-03 धफट ऊ़ोंचाईके पार्ेगर्े। प‌ट्टािारक द्वारा अवगर्करार्ागर्ाधकधजसस्थलपरमलवाजमाहै , वहभूधम AR है।श्रीभण्डारी द्वाराउक्तभूधमकेसम्बन्धमेंपट्टािारकमै०एन०बी०धमनरल्सधल०कोपट्टािारक मै०एन०बी०धमनरल्सएव़ोंश्रीधकशनधस़ोंहभण्डारीकेद्वारा 30 वर्षोंहेर्ुलीजपर ली afila र्ोराईज्डशपथपत्रकेमाध्यमसेअनापधिभीप्रदानकीगईहै।रधजस्टड्त लीजएव़ोंनोटराईज्ड Public शेपपत्रस़ोंलग्नहै।

¶64

(III) ( प‌ट्टािारक ढालदार भागो़ोंकी ओर धगरेमलवेमेंसेकुछ मलवेंकोप‌ट्टाक्षेत्रमें स्थानान्तररर् 22 धकर्ा गर्ा है र्था शेर्ष मलवा , जो जो प‌ट्टाक्षेत्र के अन्दर स्थानान्तररर्धकर्ा जाना सम्भव नही़ोंहै , कोस्थल परहीसुरधक्षर्धकर्ा गर्ाहै , धजसका उल्लेख उपरोक्तधबन्दु स़ोंख्या (1) एव़ों (11) मेंधलर्ा गर्ाहै। स्थल की भौगोधलकपररप्तस्थधर्र्ो़ोंकेदृधष्टगर्अन्यउपार्धकर्ाजानासम्भवप् र ीर्नही़ोंहोर्ा है।

¶65

5.5.6. प‌ट्टािारकद्वारालोकधनमातणधवभाग , धपथौरागढकेमागतदशतनमेंढालदारभूभागकी ओरसुरक्षादीवार , मलवा / गादकोनदीमेंजानेसेरोकनेहेर्ुर्ालाबो़ोंकाधनमातणधकर्ा गर्ाहै। खनन क्षेत्रकेड्ाउनधहल धदशा मेंबहनेवालीड्ुण्डूनदीमेंवर्तमान मेंमलवा

¶66

¶67

जाना नही़ोंपार्ा गर्ा र्था ड्ुण्डूनदीप्रभाधवर्नही़ोंहोरहीहै। फोटोग्राफ स़ोंलग्नहै। ( स़ोंलग्नक -7)

¶68

5.5.7. धनरीक्षण केसमर्प‌ट्टाक्षेत्रान्तगतर्सबसेधनचलीबैन्चपरसुरक्षादीवार नही़ोंपाईगई। इस सम्बन्धमेंपट्टािारकद्वारा अवगर्करार्ा गर्ा धक उक्तसुरक्षादीवार का धनमातण धबनामशीनो़ों ( र्थाजे०सी०बी० / पोकलैण्ड ) कीसहार्र्ासेधकर्ाजानासम्भव नही़ोंहै र्थामा०राष्टरीर्हररर्अधिकरणर्थाधजलाधिकारीमहोदर्केआदेशो़ोंकेकममेंखनन कार्तप्रधर्बप्तन्धर्होनेकेकारण उक्तसुरक्षा दीवार का धनमातण नही़ोंधकर्ा जा सका। कार्तप्रारम्भकरनेर्थामशीनो़ोंकीअनुमधर्प्रािहोनेपरसवतप्रथमउक्तसुरक्षादीवार का धनमातण कर धलर्ा जार्ेगा। प‌ट्टािारक द्वारा प्रस्तुर्नोटराईज्डशपथ पत्रस़ोंलग्नहै। फोटोग्राफस़ोंलग्नहै। ( स़ोंलग्नक -8)

¶69

5.5.8 प‌ट्टािारक द्वारा खनन क्षेत्रसेढालदार भूभाग कीओर धगरेमलवेसेप्रभाधवर् / बन्द पैदल मागतएव़ोंधस़ोंचाईगूल कीमरम्मर्कीगईहै। धनरीक्षण केसमर्मागतएव़ोंधस़ोंचाई गूलसुचारुपाईगई।फोटोग्राफस़ोंलग्नहै। ( स़ोंलग्नक -9).”

¶70

The respondent no.4 subsequently on 21.11.2024, had withdrawn the above Civil Appeal. The order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 21.11.2024 granting permission to withdraw the appeal is as under:-

¶71

“Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellant, seeks permission to withdraw the present appeals which are directed against interim orders. He states that he will raise all pleas and contentions before the National Green Tribunal.

¶72

Permission granted.

¶73

The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn.”

¶74

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-project proponent has submitted that in term of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, respondent no.4-project proponent had deposited a sum of Rs. 80 lakhs with the respondent no.8-District Collector, Pithoragarh. He submits that respondent no.4 is not claiming refund of the said amount and this amount can be utilised for ecological restoration of the subject area. He has also pointed out that Tribunal in the earlier order dated 26.10.2021 had wrongly calculated the quantum of mining by respondent no.4 while levying the interim compensation.

¶75

In view of the above, we dispose of this O.A., directing the respondent no.7-Member Secretary, UKPCB and respondent no.8-Deputy Collector-

¶76

¶77

Pithoragarh to jointly frame a scheme for ecological restoration of the area within two months and implement the scheme within eight months by utilising the amount of Rs. 80 lakhs already deposited by respondent no.4.

¶78

All pending I.As are also disposed of.

¶79

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶80

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶81

July 15, 2026 Original Application No. 995/2019 (IA No 585/2025, IA No 662/2019, IA No 663/2019) JG.

¶82

Chander Singh v. 1. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chander Singh v. 1. Union of India

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

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

Dharampal vs State of Haryana

Jatinder Singh and Ors. vs Modulus Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd.

Jatinder Singh and Ors. vs Modulus Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd.

Charan Singh vs

Adil Ansari vs M/S. Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. Asmoli

Varun vs Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi

Paryavaran Vikash Sangh through Parmanand Rana vs State of Haryana

Dharampal vs State of Haryana

Dharampal vs State of Haryana

Jatinder Singh and Ors. vs Modulus Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd.

Chander Singh vs 1. Union of India

Omaxe Buildhome Ltd. vs Punjab Pollution Control Board

Shankarlal Prajapat vs State of Madhya Pradesh