Disposed

Lakhan Singh v. the State of Madhya Pradesh

NGT5 Feb 2026Original Application No. 102/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The NGT examined complaints regarding illegal mining and environmental harm by a stone crusher unit in MP. A joint committee report found no violations, noted non-operation, and confirmed no crop damage. The court observed that the complaint of lost crops lacked cogent evidence and the issue of environmental clearance remained with the SEIAA, leading to disposal.

What did the court decide?

The application was disposed of as the relevant environmental clearance authority (MPSEIAA) was competent to decide the matter and no further action was required by the Tribunal.

Lakhan Singh vs the State of Madhya Pradesh — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No.01

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CENTRAL ZONE BENCH, BHOPAL (Through Video Conferencing)

¶3

Original Application No.102/2025(CZ)

¶4

IN THE MATTER OF :

¶5

LAKHAN SINGH

¶6

S/o Shri Naru Ji R/o Khedi Kushalpura, Biaora Rajgarh, Madhya Pradesh.

¶7

Applicant(s)

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1 The State of Madhya Pradesh Through, its Secretary, Department of Mining, Mantralay Vallabh Bhawan Bhopal 462016

¶10

2 Krishna Pal Singh Sondhiya Proprietor, M/s Pari Stone Crusher R/o Khedi Kushalpura, Biaora, Rajgarh, Madhya Pradesh

¶11

Respondent No. 1

¶12

Respondent No. 2

¶13

3 Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board Through its Member Secretary, E-5, Arera Colony, Bhopal - 462016, Madhya Pradesh.

¶14

Respondent No. 3

¶15

4 Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (MPSEIAA) through its Member Secretary, Paryavaran parisar E-5, Arera Colony, Bhopal 462016, Madhya Pradesh.

¶16

Respondent No. 4

¶17

5 Director, Geology and Mining, Madhya Pradesh 29-A, Khanij Bhawan, Arera Hills, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh)

¶18

(Madhya Pradesh) Respondent No. 5

¶19

6 District Collector District Rajgarh, Madhya Pradesh. Respondent No. 6

¶20

COUNSELS FOR APPLICANT(S):

¶21

Mr. Ayush Dev Bajpai, Adv. (with Mr. Kanishk Devesh, Adv. Mr. Deepak Kumar Kori, Adv. & Mr. Raja Ujjwal, Adv)

¶22

¶23

O.A. No.102/2025(CZ) Lakhan Sinhg Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

¶24

COUNSELS FOR RESPONDENT(S):

¶25

Mr. Prashant M. Harne, Adv. for State of M.P. Mr. Prashant Sthapak, Adv. for R-2 Mr. Manav Tanwani, Adv. for R-2 Ms. Parul Bhadoria, Adv. for R-3 Mr. Sachin K. Verma, Adv. for R-4

¶26

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MR. SUDHIR KUMAR CHATURVEDI, EXPERT MEMBER

¶27

Date of completion of hearing and reserving of order : 03.02.2026 Date of uploading of order on website : 05.02.2026

¶28

JUDGEMENT

¶29

The grievance of the applicant is illegal and environmentally hazardous mining and stone crushing operations conducted by the Respondent No. 2 without obtaining the Environmental Clearance from SEIAA under the EIA notification 2006 as mandated by the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal in the matter of OA 142/2022 Jayant Kumar Vs MoEF&CC & Ors (Jayant Kumar-II). The said mining and crushing activities are being carried out in blatant violation of the conditions prescribed in the Consent to Operate granted to the respondent no.2 and are situated in dangerously close proximity to a natural Nallah (recorded in Revenue) which is tributary to the Parvati River, thereby damaging the natural source of irrigation for the adjacent farmers and polluting the eco system of Parvati river. The blasting and excavating of minerals has also resulted in the debris being accumulated on the standing crops damaging the entire farm produce of the adjoining farmers. The respondent no. 2 has also encroached upon other areas not mentioned in the mining plan and their large scale mining and crushing activities are posing economic and health hazards to the residents of Village Khedi Kushalpura, Tehsil Biaora, Tehsil Rajgarh.

¶30

¶31

O.A. No.102/2025(CZ) Lakhan Sinhg Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

¶32

The matter was taken up by this Tribunal and notices were issued to the respondents with direction to submit the reply. The reply has been filed. A joint committee was constituted vide previous order with direction to submit the factual and action taken report. The members of the committee visited the site and submitted the report. We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶33

Contention of the learned counsel for the applicant are that there are violations of environmental norms on the points of close proximity to natural nala, environmental clearance, excavation beyond permissible limits, and permissible depth, and damage of crop. On these points a report has been called from the joint committee consisting representative of the Collector Rajgarh and one representative from the Member Secretary, State Pollution Control Board who visited the site and submitted the report with the following observations:-

¶34

1) “Joint committee conducted a visit of the stone crusher “M/s Pari Stone Crushers” situated in Village Khedi Kushalpura, Tehsil Bioara, District Rajgarh (M.P.) on dated 25/09/2025. During site visit, Mr. D S Yadav, RI, Bioara, Mr. Ramsingh, Patwari, Halka-94, Biaora were also present during inspection. The representatives of the stone crusher Mr. Krishna Pal and Mr. Ram Karam were also present during the inspection. Also, the geographical location of the stone crusher as well as natural nalla are measured using mobile based application and duly marked on Google Earth Map. The observations recorded during inspection are as under:

¶35

i. The stone crusher “M/s Pari Stone Crusher” is located at Survey no. 44 and 47, Village Khedi Kushalpura, Tehsil Biaora, District Rajgarh. The

¶36

¶37

O.A. No.102/2025(CZ) Lakhan Sinhg Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

¶38

geographical location of the site is latitude

¶39

23°50'18.57"N and longitude 77° 1'17.26"E.

¶40

ii. The stone crusher is small scale crusher.

¶41

iii. The crusher was not in operation during the inspection. It was later operated for the purpose of ambient air quality monitoring. The 24-hour ambient air quality monitoring was carried out by MPPCB in both windward and leeward directions at the stone crusher unit from 25/09/2025 to 26/09/2025.

¶42

iv. As per the mining plan, the mining lease area of the crusher unit is approximately 1.0 hectare.

¶43

v. The stone boulder mining lease area was found to be filled with rainwater and not properly marked with permanent boundary pillars (pucca munare).

¶44

vi. A natural nalla (drainage) passes along the southeast side of the crusher. The distance between the crusher's centre and the government nalla is approximately 50 metres.

¶45

vii. A wind-breaking wall made of GI sheets, approximately 4 meters in height, is installed on three sides of the crusher.

¶46

viii. There are water sprinklers installed at the site for dust control.

¶47

ix. The water required for operations is sourced from tube wells located within the premises of the stone crusher.

¶48

x. There is plantation present within the premises of the stone crusher.

¶49

¶50

O.A. No.102/2025(CZ) Lakhan Sinhg Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

¶51

xi. The crusher is surrounded by agricultural fields. The committee visited agricultural fields nearby stone crusher and currently the crops are in good and healthy condition.

¶52

xii. The habitation located is 1.0 km away from of the stone crusher unit.

¶53

xiii. PP (M/s Pari Stone Crusher) obtained EC from DIEAA vide letter no. 1240 dated 03/10/2018.

¶54

xiv. The activities of issuing EC by DEIAA/DEAC were suspended as per order dated 13/09/2018 of Hon’ble NGT in OA 186/2016(PB) “Satendra Pandey Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change & Anr.”

¶55

xv. As per the order dated 06.11.2023 of NGT in OA 36/2023 (CZ), EC must be issued by the SEIAA and only such mining leases may be continued which have been on re-appraisal granted Environmental Clearance by SEIAA.

¶56

xvi. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal 3799-3800/2019 “Union of India Vs Rajeev Suri” vide order dated 12/11/2024 had allowed the operation of mines by granting interim relief of the project proponents having EC from DEIAA. The interim relief has been extended by subsequent orders(27.03.2025, 26.05.2025 and 31.07.2025) passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India until further orders.

¶57

¶58

O.A. No.102/2025(CZ) Lakhan Sinhg Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

¶59

xvii. PP has applied for EC in SIEAA and providedthe SEIAA application submitted on the SEIAA online portal, dated 10/09/2025 to the joint committee during inspection.

¶60

xviii. The mining lease of the project proponent is valid from 05/06/2018 to 04/06/2028.

¶61

2) INFORMATION BY SDM, TEHSIL- BIAORA, DISTRICT –

¶62

RAJGARH: -

¶63

SDM, Biaora has provided the information. The main points of the letter are as under: -

¶64

i. The crusher machine is installed on land bearing Survey No. 44, having an area of 0.883 hectare.

¶65

ii. There is a government drain located on Survey No. 43 to the south of the crusher machine. The agricultural land bearing Survey No. 46, measuring 2.251 hectares, recorded in the name of Shri Krishnapal S/o Mangilal Sondhia is on the west side of the crusher machine. which has been occupied by Shri Dashrath Singh S/o Naru, who has cultivated crops on it.

¶66

iii. The crusher machine is situated at a distance of 50 meters from the government drain towards the south and 28 meters from the nearest agricultural field.

¶67

¶68

O.A. No.102/2025(CZ) Lakhan Sinhg Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

¶69

iv. The lands bearing Survey Nos. 44 and 47, where the crusher is installed, do not have diversion of the said land.

¶70

v. As per statements from nearby farmers, Shri Narayan Singh Sondhiya and Shri Heeralal Mehar, the crops in the adjoining fields are not affected by dust generated from the stone crusher.

¶71

vi. As per the Mining Department, the stone boulder mining lease area was found filled with rainwater at the time of inspection, due to which depth measurement could not be carried out.

¶72

3) AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS REPORT: -

¶73

i. The 24-hour ambient air quality monitoring was carried out by MPPCB, Bhopal in both windward and leeward directions from 25/09/2025 to 26/09/2025 at the stone crusher unit "M/s Pari Stone Crushers," located at Village Khedi Kushalpura, Tehsil Biaora, District Rajgarh. The wind direction was from North-east to Southwest. As per the result of the air quality, the parameters were within the prescribed limits. “

¶74

A report from the Tehsildar Pargana, Biaora has been filed with the facts that the nala is situated at a distance of more than 50 meters and the

¶75

¶76

O.A. No.102/2025(CZ) Lakhan Sinhg Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

¶77

distance from the alleged agricultural field is more than 28 meters. The statement of Mr. Heeralal Mehar and some of the agricultural persons have been recorded where they have stated that there is no damage from the operation of the crusher machine.

¶78

Contention of the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 are that the Applicant's true objective is not the redressal of environmental harm but the coercion and extortion of the Respondent No. 2, thereby subverting the fundamental environmental jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Tribunal established under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. The Applicant is clearly devoid of the clean hands and bona fides required to seek equitable relief from this Tribunal.

¶79

That a stationary non-functioning unit even if required to possess certain permits, cannot, by its very nature, be the source of active environmental violations, such as generating dust pollution, discharging effluents, or engaging in illegal mining activities like over-extraction or exceeding operational boundaries. Since the primary source of the alleged harm, the stone crushing activity was demonstrably halted, the entire substratum of the Applicant's environmental grievance collapses.

¶80

The Respondent possessed a valid Environmental Clearance, which is a mandatory legal precursor and prerequisite to commencing operational activities. This permit which R-2 obtained after substantial compliance and due process, clearly demonstrates that the Respondent was progressing through the prescribed sequential process of compliance before seeking final clearance from authorities such as the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA). The possession of this Consent to operate (Consent No: AW-132691), combined with the proven non-operational status, entirely negates the allegation that R-2 was acting in flagrant disregard of environmental law, R-2 remains fully committed to operating in

¶81

¶82

O.A. No.102/2025(CZ) Lakhan Sinhg Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

¶83

strict compliance with the Environmental Clearance once operations are legitimately commenced.

¶84

It is further submitted that a soil test was duly conducted with all the necessary requirements and the results of the analysis were found to be satisfactory and within the permissible limits prescribed under the relevant law.

¶85

Learned counsel for the applicant has filed the objections and written submissions containing the facts that geotagged distance is within 100 meters in violation of the environmental rules and in reply thereof, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the geotagging distance is not relevant and not admissible evidence unless and until it is approved by the scientific method. Second point which has been raised by the Learned counsel for the applicant is with regard to the EC and in reply thereof, the submission of Learned counsel for the SEIAA are that the project proponent has applied for EC before the MPSEIAA in accordance with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed in the writ petitions but the same has been delisted by the MPSEAC on account of nonsubmission of the essential document in support of the EC application by the project proponent within a stipulated period.

¶86

Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the mining is not in operation and it cannot be continued without due permission and EC granted by the SEIAA which is either pending or delisted, which is subject matter of the Competent Statutory Authority and the MPSEIAA may take appropriate decision according to rules. A rejoinder to the reply of the respondent no. 2 has been filed with the facts that there are many civil and criminal disputes between the parties pertaining to the stone crusher unit and obstruction of the natural water stream which is pending in the competent court and those disputes are not within the domain of the NGT

¶87

¶88

O.A. No.102/2025(CZ) Lakhan Sinhg Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

¶89

and it is further argued that as per joint committee report there are no violation of environmental rules.

¶90

Learned counsel for the applicant has raised the issue that the depth of the mining lease area was not measured by the inspection committee and inference can be drawn that the leaseholder has violated the environmental rules. The inference can be drawn in a positive way not in a negative way and if there are no specific allegations with cogent evidence that the rules have been violated, it cannot be inferred with regard to criminality or liability of any person. The applicant has not proved by any cogent evidence with regard to violations of distance criteria or violation of depth criteria

¶91

With regard to the EC conditions, it is settled in Deepak Kumar versus State of Haryana (2012) (4) SCC 629 and order passed in Original Application No. 186/2016, in Satyendra Pandey versus Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change that no mining be permitted without fresh EC granted by the SEIAA, the Competent Authority in accordance with EIA Notification, 2006.

¶92

The Learned Counsel for the applicant has relied on the order dated 06.11.2023 passed in O.A. No. 36/2023 relevant para are quoted below:-

¶93

1) “We quote Para 3 of the notification dated 28.04.2023 issued by the MoEF&CC-

¶94

"Subsequently, Hon'ble NGT vide its order dated 07.12.2022 in O.A.142 of 2022 in the matter of Jayant Kumar vs. Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change inter-alia observed that "mining lenses in which environmental clearance was granted by DEIAA in view of amendment notification dated 15.01.2016 are still continuing even after passing of

¶95

¶96

O.A. No.102/2025(CZ) Lakhan Sinhg Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

¶97

order dated 13.09.2018 by this Tribunal in Sutendra Pandey (supra) and issuance of OM dated 12.12.2018 by MoEF&CC without any re-appraisal by SEIAA and appropriate remedial action on the basis of such re-appraisal. All such mining leases in which environmental clearance was granted by DEIAA need to be brought in consonance with the directions given by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar (supra) and order dated 13.09.2018 by this Tribunal in Satendra Pandey (supra) by re-appraisal by SEIAA and only such mining lenses may be continued which have been on re-appraisal granted environmental clearance by SEIAA. MoEF&CC is, therefore, directed to take appropriate steps for compliance in this regard by issuance of requisite directions in exercise of the statutory powers under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986."

¶98

2) Respondents as well as the applicant pressed these lines to clarify though this Tribunal is not meant to clarify but since the application has been placed, thus, we are quoting the lines as below:-

¶99

i. mining leases in which environmental clearance was granted by DEIAA in view of amendment notification dated 15.01.2016 are still continuing............ means "that it should not be continued.

¶100

¶101

O.A. No.102/2025(CZ) Lakhan Sinhg Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

¶102

ii. even after passing of order dated 13.09.2018 by this Tribunal in Satendra Pandey (supra) and issuance of OM dated 12.12.2018 by MoEF&CC means "it should not be continued after these orders and notification."

¶103

iii. without any re-appraisal by SEIAA means "the mandatory provisions up EIA 14.09.2006 must be complied with and prior environmental clearance must be obtained and required by the SEIAA."

¶104

iv. An appropriate remedial action on the basis of such re-appraisal means "after the re-appraisal remedial action is required."

¶105

v. All such mining leases in which environmental clearance was granted by DEIAA need to be brought in consonance with the directions given by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Deepak Kumar (supra) and order dated 13.09.2018 by this Tribunal in Satendra Pandey (supra) by reappraisal by SEIAA means "This must be in consonance with the Deepak Kumar Case and re-appraisal by SEIAA."

¶106

vi. And only such mining leases may be continued which have been on re-appraisal granted environmental clearance by SEIAA means "the matters in which the environmental clearance was not granted by SEIAA may not be continued and it also means only such mining

¶107

¶108

O.A. No.102/2025(CZ) Lakhan Sinhg Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

¶109

activities leases may be continued which have been re-appraised granted environmental clearance by SEIAA."

¶110

vii. Para 4 of the notification says, "in view of the above, it is hereby directed that all concerned SEIAA shall re-appraised the issued by the DEIAA between 15.01.2016 and 13.09.2018 including both dates and all fresh ECs in this regard shall be granted only by SEIAAs based on such appraisal." That means all such ECs should be appraised by SEIAA and fresh EC shall be issued.

¶111

3) In view of the above lines used, it is mandatory provision that in all such cases fresh EC must be issued by the SEIAA and only such mining leases may be continued which have been on re-appraisal granted Environmental Clearance by SEIAA. In the matter where the EC has not been granted by the SEIAA must not be permitted to continue.”

¶112

The applicant has filed this application with regard to environmental clearance, encroachment and restoration of nallah in the prayer clause of the application.

¶113

In the joint committee report and on the basis of a reply and averment made in the plaint and the relevant document encroachment has not been proved, thus, relief 2 & 3 are not maintainable. So far as the, compensation with regard to the loss of the produce are concerned the members of the committee has submitted that there are no loss of crops and statement of the villagers has also been recorded in which it has been stated that there is no loss of the crops. Nothing has been produced by the applicant to prove 13

¶114

O.A. No.102/2025(CZ) Lakhan Sinhg Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

¶115

that there are loss of the crops or the exact amount of loss of production per year of the crops and loss. Without a specific evidence on the point conclusion cannot be drawn that there are encroachments or there are any loss to the crops. Accordingly, relief number 2, 3 and, 4, are not maintainable. So far as, relief no. 1 is concerned the matter with regard to the grant of environmental clearance is pending before MPSEIAA and being the statutory body the MPSEIAA is competent to pass an order and decide the application in accordance with law.

¶116

However, at present since the members of joint committee has found no violations and the mining is not in operation at present and could not be operated without valid environmental clearance, thus, no further action is required on part of this Tribunal. However, the MPSEIAA may proceed in accordance with law. It is made clear that no mining be permitted without the grant/approval by the competent authority SEIAA in accordance with law.

¶117

With these observations Original Application No. 102/2025 the application stands disposed of .

¶118

Sheo Kumar Singh, JM

¶119

Sudhir Kumar Chaturvedi, EM

¶120

05^th February, 2026, OA No. 102/2025(CZ) PN

¶121

¶122

O.A. No.102/2025(CZ) Lakhan Sinhg Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

Lakhan Singh v. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakhan Singh v. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Chandra Kumawat vs State of Rajasthan

Deepak Singh vs

Sakhubai Patil vs Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (Kspcb)

Sou Moto Newspeaper Article Published on People Samachar Dated 16TH April 2025 vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Venkateshwaran. S vs Vimal Raj M

Sunil Kumar vs Union of India

Suo Moto News Item Titled 22 Coloniyon Mai Zehar Ghol Raha Pani Ganda Itna Ki Nahane Par Sharir Se Aati Hai Badbu Appearing in Patrika News Paper Dated 6TH January 2026 vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Suo Moto Titled 70 Ekad Ke Mor Van Mai Pedon Ki Jagah Jhhugiyan Chandan Ki Chori Dated 5TH January 2026 vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Ramesh Chandra Kumawat vs State of Rajasthan

Sou Moto Newspeaper Article Published on People Samachar Dated 16TH April 2025 vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Ravinder Raghu Yadav vs Shree Cement through Chif Executive Officer

Suo Moto News Item Titled Hazardous Unsafe Drinking Water Puts 15 Percent of City S Population at Risk Appearing Infree Press Newspaper Dated 5TH January 2026 vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Shri Sandeep Mishra vs State of Madhya Pradesh through Its Principal Secretary