Allowed

Gargi Black Stone Quarry Works v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

NGT14 Aug 2026IA No. 822/2025 in Appeal No. 128/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the SEIAA's order rejecting the Environmental Clearance. The court directed the SEIAA to conduct a fresh consideration after curing the discrepancy in the geographical coordinates between the approved mining plan and the District Survey Report.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned order of SEIAA and directed fresh consideration after curing the discrepancy in geographical coordinates of the mining area.

Gargi Black Stone Quarry Works vs Ministry of Environment… — Company and Corporate | NGT (2026)

¶1

(Pune Bench)

¶2

Item No.1.4

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

[THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)]

¶5

APPEAL NO.128 OF 2025 (WZ) I.A. NO.822 OF 2025 (WZ)

¶6

M/s Gargi Black Stone Quarry Works

…..Appellant

Versus

MoEF&CC & Ors.

….Respondents

Date of hearing: 14.08.2026

¶12

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

¶13

Appellant : Mr. Saurabh Kulkarni and Mr. Adwait Gokhale, Advocates Respondents : Mr. Pushkal Mishra, Advocate for R-1/MoEF&CC Ms. Manvi Damle, Advocate h/f Mr. Maulik Nanavati, Advocate for R-2/SEIAA, Gujarat & R-3/SEAC

¶14

Mr. Parth H. Bhatt, Advocate for R-4

¶15

ORDER

¶16

In compliance with our previous order dated 02.07.2026, the appellant has approached the Respondent No.2- SEIAA, Gujarat for hearing. Thereafter, Respondent No.2 has filed its reply affidavit dated 03.08.2026, wherein in para nos.8 & 9, it is submitted that the primary assertion of the appellant at the hearing before the Regulatory Authority was that the co-ordinates of the mining lease area as appearing in the District Survey Report are not correct, and are different from the correct locational coordinates of the lease area as mentioned in the Mining Plan approved by the District Geologist. In support of the submission, the appellant produced a Google Earth image showing the difference in the

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

location of the mining lease area when marked using the correct coordinates mentioned in the approved mining plan and when marked using the incorrect coordinates mentioned in the approved District Survey Report. This factual aspect has been examined by the Regulatory Authority and it is found that there exists discrepancy in the coordinates of the mining area of the appellant as contained in the approved mining plan and as mentioned in the District Survey Report.

¶19

In view of the above affidavit filed by Respondent No.2, it is quite clear that they have admitted the discrepancy to be there in the coordinates of the mining lease area of the appellant as contained in the approved Mining Plan and as mentioned in the District Survey Report (DSR). Based on this, we hold that the decision taken by Respondent No.2, in respect of rejection of the EC of the appellant to the proposed Project, granted by the DEIAA, is erroneous.

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellant has also produced on record a copy of the order dated 09.12.2025 passed by this Tribunal in Appeal No.33 of 2025 (WZ) along-with other Appeals (total 56 in number), wherein this Tribunal had passed order in identical issue, and prayed that the same order may be passed in this appeal as well. We allow his prayer.

¶21

From the side of Respondent No.4- Commissioner of Geology and Mining, Kheda, Government of Gujarat, reply affidavit dated 12.08.2026 has been filed stating therein that upon re-verification of the records available with the office of the answering respondent, a minor error has crept in the District Survey Report (DSR), with respect to geographical coordinates of the Mahi River.

¶22

It is further mentioned in this affidavit by Respondent No.4 that in a similar matter involving discrepancies in the DSR with respect to the

¶23

Page 2 of 4

¶24

location of the mining lease, this Tribunal had passed order dated 09.04.2026 in Original Application No.12 of 2026 (Dharti Quarry Works vs SEIAA & Ors.) as follows:-

¶25

“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.1SEIAA 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 Environmental 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.

¶26

In view of above, it is prayed by the Respondent No.4 that a similar order may be passed in this matter also.

¶27

We have considered this matter at length vide our earlier orders and in continuation to the same, we are passing this order.

¶28

After considering our earlier orders and the reports/affidavits submitted by the SEIAA, we have arrived on a conclusion that the impugned order needs to be set aside, because of the discrepancy having been found in the geographical location of the leased area, because geographical coordinates in the mining plan and DSR of the area in question are found to be different. Therefore, distance criteria would certainly be affected due to locational discrepancy. No appropriate assessment is possible to be done by the SEIAA of the Environmental

¶29

Page 3 of 4

¶30

Clearance granted by the DEIAA to the appellant unless this discrepancy is removed.

¶31

Therefore, in the result, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order passed by the SEIAA, Gujarat, with a direction to the SEIAA that fresh consideration be made after ensuring that the discrepancy in the geographical locations of the leased area of the appellant i.e. the geographical coordinates (latitude and longitude coordinates) 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 the SEIAA on the Environmental Clearance granted by the DEIAA to the appellant and for that, if any application is required to be moved by the appellant before the SEIAA via PARIVESH, they may move the same.

¶32

Appeal No.128 of 2025 (WZ) stands disposed of.

¶33

I.A. No.822 of 2025 (WZ) also stands disposed of.

¶34

Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶35

Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee, EM

¶36

August 14, 2026 APPEAL NO.128 OF 2025 (WZ) I.A. NO.822 OF 2025 (WZ) P.Kr

¶37

Page 4 of 4

Gargi Black Stone Quarry Works v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gargi Black Stone Quarry Works v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

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

Ankur Sharma vs State of West Bengal through the Chief Secretary

Naval Kishore Bhargav vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Ashok Nadavala vs Ministry of Environment Forests Climate Change

Rajiv Bhagelu Gupta vs District Collector Palghar

Satam Patnaik vs State of Odisha

Ia No. 814/2025 in Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 130/2025 of Vedanta Limited vs State of Tamilnadu

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

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

Mr Gopal Rangnath Kachave vs District Collector Pune

Mr. Shashikant Vitthal Kamble vs Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change (Moef & Cc) New Delhi.

Gargi Black Stone Quarry Works vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Gargi Black Stone Quarry Works vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change