Disposed

Ratan Lal Agarwal v. Chhattishgarh Environment Conservation Board

NGT6 May 2026Original Application No. 16/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants challenged an order permitting a stone crusher operation, alleging illegal mining and environmental pollution. The Tribunal held the application was not maintainable as the challenge to the Collector's order required exhausting the statutory appeal remedy under State Mining Rules. No violation of siting criteria was found.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ratan Lal Agarwal vs Chhattishgarh Environment… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No.1

¶2

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

¶3

Original Application No.16/2026(CZ)

¶4

IN THE MATTER OF:

¶5

1. Ratan lal Agarwal, S/o Late Ram Vilas Garg , aged about- 52 years, R/o- ward no 3, Shivandanpur, Bishrampur, Tehsil and District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh Current Resident of ward no 15 Village Keshavnagar, Tehsil and District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh Pin 497229,

¶6

2. Kamal singh, S/o Sardar Singh , age About 62 Years, R/o House no 177/1 ward no 09 Village Keshavnagar,, Tehsil and District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh, Pin 497229,

¶7

3. Manish Markam, S/o Parsuram Markam , Age About 35 years, R/o House no 177, ward no 15, Village Keshavnagar, Tehsil and District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh Pin 497229,

¶8

4. Jaglal, S/o Ranjeet Rajwadi , Age about 65 years, R/o ward no 15 Village Keshavnagar,, Tehsil and District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh Pin 497229,

¶9

Applicants

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

1. Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board Through Member Secretary, Office at: Paryavas Bhavan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar DistRaipur. Chhattisgarh, 492002

¶12

Respondent No. 1

¶13

2. Secretary, Housing and Environment, Government of Chhattisgarh Office at: Mahanadi Bhawan. Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492002

¶14

¶15

O.A. No.16/2026(CZ) Ratan Lal Agarwal & Ors. Vs Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board & Ors.

¶16

Respondent No. 2

¶17

3. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Chief Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh Office at: Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492002 Respondent No. 3 4. Regional Office, Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board, AMBIAPUR, CG ., Through its Regional Officer, RO CECB Ambikapur, Kanya Parisar Road, Near Govt. Aayurvedic Hospital, Namnakala Gangapur. Ambikapur (C.G.) 497001 Respondent No. 4 5. District Collector / District Magistrate, Surajpur, District-Surajpur (C.G.) 497229.The District Mining Officer,Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) Respondent No. 5 6. The District Mining Officer, Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) 497229 Respondent No. 6 7. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change,Government of India, Office at: Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Aliganj, Jor Bagh Road, New Delhi110003 Respondent No. 7 8. Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India Office at: Nirman Bhawan, Maulana Azad Road, New Delhi-110011. Respondent No. 8 9. Secretary, Mineral Resources Department, Government of Chhattisgarh Office at: Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492002 Respondent No. 9 10. M/s Swain Stone Crusher operated by Shri Shitikant Swai, Village Keshavnagar, Khasra No. 1417/2, admeasuring 0.44 Hectares, P.H.

¶18

¶19

O.A. No.16/2026(CZ) Ratan Lal Agarwal & Ors. Vs Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board & Ors.

¶20

No. 25, Revenue Circle Pilkha, Tehsil and District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 49722

¶21

Respondent No. 10

¶22

COUNSELS FOR APPLICANT(S):

¶23

Ms. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Adv.

¶24

COUNSELS FOR RESPONDENT(S):

¶25

Mr. Om Shankar Shrivastava, Adv. for MoEF&CC Ms. Aditi Joshi, Adv. for R-10 Ms. Parul Bhadoria, Adv. & Mr. Gaurvanit Jain, Adv. for CECB

¶26

CORAM:

¶27

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

¶28

Date of completion of hearing and reserving of order : 04.05.2026 Date of uploading of order on website : 06.05.2026

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

The grievance of the petitioner/applicant are against the illegal, unauthorized and environmentally hazardous operation of a stone crusher, namely M/s Swain Stone Crusher, owned and operated by Respondent No. 10. The said stone crusher is operating without mandatory statutory permissions such as Environmental Clearance, Consent to Establish, and Consent to Operate, and is situated in close proximity to residential habitation as well as adjacent to the Renuka River, which is a vital source of drinking water and irrigation for approximately 18 surrounding villages. The illegal stone-crushing activities have resulted in severe air and noise pollution, contamination of water sources, degradation of agricultural land, and serious health

¶31

¶32

O.A. No.16/2026(CZ) Ratan Lal Agarwal & Ors. Vs Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board & Ors.

¶33

hazards to villagers, including children, elderly persons, and livestock. Despite repeated complaints and representations made to the concerned authorities, including the District Administration and 2 O.A. No.16/2026(CZ) Ratan Lal Agarwal & Ors. Vs. Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board & Ors. Pollution Control Board, no effective action has been taken, demonstrating gross inaction and failure of statutory duties.

¶34

The continuous operation of the stone crusher violates environmental laws, the precautionary principle, polluter pays principle, and the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The present application raises substantial questions relating to environment and enforcement of environmental laws, squarely attracting the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

¶35

Notices were issued to the respondents with direction to submit the reply. Reply has been filed. During the course of proceedings, the State PCB was directed to visit the site and submit the factual and action taken report. The Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board and the representative of the District Magistrate visited the site and the submitted the report. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶36

Contention of the applicant are that the village consists of around 30 households, with the majority of residents primarily engaged in agricultural activities. The illegal stone-crushing

¶37

¶38

O.A. No.16/2026(CZ) Ratan Lal Agarwal & Ors. Vs Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board & Ors.

¶39

operations have severely affected the life, health, agricultural produce, livestock, and access to clean air and potable water of the entire village population. The villagers, including children, elderly persons, women and domestic animals, are being constantly exposed to excessive dust pollution and noise pollution generated by the unauthorized stone crusher, which has been operating for several years without any regulatory oversight.

¶40

The said stone crusher is functioning without any valid licence, permit, Environmental Clearance, Consent to Establish (CTE) or Consent to Operate (CTO) from the competent authorities, including the State Pollution Control Board and the local administration. Despite the absence of these mandatory statutory approvals, the operator continues to run large-scale crushing activities, thereby blatantly violating the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981; the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; and the applicable rules, guidelines and notifications issued by the Central Government and the State Government from time to time. And further that the continuous release of dense dust clouds from the stone crusher has resulted in the deposition of fine particulate matter over agricultural fields, residential houses, drinking water sources and vegetation. This has led to a significant decline in crop quality and agricultural yield, directly impacting the sole source of livelihood of the villagers. Several residents have developed serious health issues, including respiratory disorders,

¶41

¶42

O.A. No.16/2026(CZ) Ratan Lal Agarwal & Ors. Vs Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board & Ors.

¶43

skin infections, eye irritation, allergies and breathing difficulties due to prolonged exposure to airborne dust pollution.

¶44

It is argued that crusher is situated dangerously close to the Renuka river and waste material, stone dust and slurry generated from the stone crusher activity are regularly dumped into and around the river bed resulting in contamination increased turbidity and degradation of water quality. Members of the committee visited the site and submitted the report as follows :

¶45

As per the order, the committee visited the site (M/s Swain Stone Crushing Industry, Vill. Keshawnagar, P.H. No. 04, KH. No. 1417/2, Post-Bishrampur, Distt. Surajpur (C.G.) and following observation has been made:-

¶46

1. M/s Swain Stone Crushing Industry, Vill.Keshawnagar, P.H. No. 04, KH. No. 1417/2, PostBishrampur, Distt. Surajpur (C.G.) (Proprietor-Mr. Shitikant Swain) has received Consent to operate u/s 21 of Air (Prevention and control of pollution) Act, 1981 & Water u/s 25/26 of Air (Prevention and control of pollution) Act, 1974 from C.E.C.B. Ambikapur, Distt.-Surguja vide letter No. 1286, 1288, dated 31/12/2006, Product and Production capacity -Various size of stone chips-5040 Cubic Meter/Annum and the same consent renewal valid up to 14/03/2027.

¶47

2. During the inspection, there is no residential settlement/habitation currently where the crusher is operating however a under construction house was seen adjacent to the crusher premises. There were no farming is being done nearby but during the inspection approx 300 meters away from the crusher, Rabi crops like wheat, gram, mustard etc. have been sown in village Satpata. A nearby village road connecting village Keshavnagar to the main

¶48

¶49

O.A. No.16/2026(CZ) Ratan Lal Agarwal & Ors. Vs Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board & Ors.

¶50

road is also approx 100 meters away from crusher. Nearby river is Rihand river which is approx 400 meters away on the south side of the crusher.

¶51

3. During the inspection day the industry was not in operation so proprietor of the crusher was asked to start the crusher so that actual situation of the pollution can be examined. During the inspection the vibrating screens were covered and water sprinkling facilities i.e. water tanker and water tank were provided to control fugitive dust emissions.

¶52

4. On the day of inspection air monitoring is also done by C.E.С.В. officials and all result are within permissible limit (result enclosed).

¶53

5. During the inspection there were no impact on agriculture land, on water, on air due to crusher activity is observed in surrounding vicinity/nearby area .

¶54

7 Perusal of the report discloses that the applicant has valid consent to operate from the competent authority and river is more than 400 meters away on the South side of the crusher unit. It is further submitted that there were no farming done nearby but it is approximately 300 meters away from the unit.

¶55

The submission of the Learned Counsel for the respondent no. 10 are that the present Original Application is not maintainable in view of the availability of an efficacious statutory alternate remedy under the applicable mining laws of the State of Chhattisgarh. The Applicants have attempted to question the legality of the order dated 13.07.2021 issued by the Office of the Collector, Surajpur (Mining Branch), granting permission for mineral storage/processing activity on land bearing Khasra No.

¶56

¶57

O.A. No.16/2026(CZ) Ratan Lal Agarwal & Ors. Vs Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board & Ors.

¶58

1417/2 admeasuring 0.44 hectare under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Minerals (Mining Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2009.

¶59

Under the amended provisions of the Chhattisgarh Minerals (Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2009, as amended in the year 2015, Chapter IV-A (Rule 17-4) specifically provides that appeal or revision against every order passed under the sand Rules shall be governed by the provisions contained in Chapter XIV of the Chhattisgarh Minor Mineral Res 1996 (as amended) In terms of Rule 77(2) of Chapter XIV of the Chhattisgarh Minor Mineral Rules, 1996, where any power is exercised by the Collector under the said Rules, an appeal against such order lies before the Director, Geology and Mining, Chhattisgarh

¶60

Rule 17 A of Chhattisgarh Minerals (Mining Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2009 provides as follows :

¶61

Chapter-IVA APPEAL AND REVISION

¶62

17 A. Appeal or revision- Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, appeal or revision against every order passed in respect of any subject under these rules shall be made in accordance with the provisions of Chapter -XIV of the Chhattisgarh Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (as amended)”

¶63

Rule 77 of the Chhattisgarh Moor Mineral Rules, 1996 provides

¶64

that :

¶65

CHAPTER XIV

¶66

APPEAL, REVISION AND REVIEW

¶67

77. Appeal appellate authorities (1) Where any power exercisable by Gram Panchayat, Janpad Panchayat or Panchayat, under these rules in relation to any matter, an appeal shall the from every such order to the authority mentioned in the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 and in the same manner as prescribed therein

¶68

¶69

O.A. No.16/2026(CZ) Ratan Lal Agarwal & Ors. Vs Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board & Ors.

¶70

(2) Where any power is exercisable by the Collector under these rules, in relation to any matter, an appeal shall the from every such order to the Director, Geology and Mining. Chhattisgarh.

¶71

(3) Where any power in exercisable by the Director under these rules, in relation to any matter, an appeal shall lie from order passed under these rules to the State Government

¶72

Since the order relied upon by the Applicants has been issued under the authority of the Collector, the Applicants had a specific statutory remedy of appeal before the Director, Geology and Mining, Chhattisgarh. Without exhausting the said statutory remedy, the Applicants have directly approached this Hon'ble Tribunal. The present Application, to the extent it seeks to question the said order, is therefore liable to be rejected in view of the availability of an efficacious statutory alternate remedy.

¶73

Respondent is in lawful possession of the land comprised in Khasra No. 1417/2 admeasuring 0.44 hectare, pursuant to a validly executed lease/patta granted under the Chhattisgarh Minor Mineral Rules, 2015 as evidenced from the registered lease documents. The said lease was granted by the competent authority after due compliance of statutory procedure, and the Respondent's possession is neither unauthorized nor irregular.

¶74

The land has been earmarked for mining and allied activities in accordance with applicable regulations.

¶75

Most recently, the Regional Office of the Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board renewed the Consent to Operate vide order dated 29.05.2025 (pursuant to earlier renewal dated 18.08.2022) and the same remains valid up to 14.03.2026. This continuous chain of consent, extending from the inception of operations in

¶76

¶77

O.A. No.16/2026(CZ) Ratan Lal Agarwal & Ors. Vs Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board & Ors.

¶78

2006 to the present validity period, unequivocally establishes that the answering Respondent has never operated in defiance of statutory requirements.

¶79

The project of the answering Respondent was also subjected to environmental appraisal at the State level, as reflected in the communication dated 04.02.2021 issued by the competent authority. The said document demonstrates that the project was examined within the statutory framework of the EIA Notification, 2006, and considered by the appropriate environmental authority, including the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Chhattisgarh. The appraisal involved scrutiny of production capacity, District Survey Report, environmental safeguards, Environmental Management Plan (EMP), Corporate Environmental Responsibility (CER) commitments, and compliance with statutory norms under the Water Act, Air Act, and Environment (Protection) Act. The project was not rejected or prohibited but was permitted subject to conditions, thereby evidencing regulatory satisfaction. The issuance of the said communication unequivocally establishes that the unit was operating within the knowledge and supervision of the environmental authorities and not in contravention of environmental law.

¶80

The order dated 13.07.2021 Issued by the Office of the Collector, Surajpur, clearly reflects that the answering Respondent had duly moved an application seeking approval for storage and processing activity, and the same was considered and approved in accordance with law.

¶81

¶82

O.A. No.16/2026(CZ) Ratan Lal Agarwal & Ors. Vs Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board & Ors.

¶83

The said order delineates the boundaries of the leased land, specifies permissible activity, and imposes regulatory conditions. Far from evidencing illegality, the document affirms lawful authorization. An inspection was conducted at the local level on 08.06.2023, wherein it was recorded that four crusher units are operating within the same geographical area and that no crop damage or agricultural loss has been observed due to such operations. The inspection report does not attribute any environmental degradation, agricultural loss, or public health impact to the answering Respondent. On the contrary, it negates the allegation that the unit is singularly responsible for environmental harm. The proceedings of the Gram Panchayat meeting dated 23.01.2026 further record that upon local inspection and deliberation, no damage to agricultural crops or adverse impact attributable to the operation of the crusher units was found in the area, thereby reaffirming the earlier factual position recorded by the Panchayat authorities.

¶84

The photographs annexed along with the present reply clearly demonstrate that the unit is enclosed within a defined boundary and is not operating in an unregulated or exposed manner. Adequate plantation has been developed around the premises forming a green belt, which acts as a natural dust and sound barrier. The internal roads within the unit are maintained to prevent dispersion of particulate matter, and systematic water sprinkling arrangements are in place for effective dust suppression. The storage of raw material and finished products is carried out in an organized and controlled manner within the

¶85

¶86

O.A. No.16/2026(CZ) Ratan Lal Agarwal & Ors. Vs Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board & Ors.

¶87

leased premises The visual record further shows that the unit is neither discharging any untreated effluent nor permitting any slurry or waste material to flow into any adjoining land or water body. There exists no channel, pipeline, or discharge point leading toward the Renuka River. The allegation that slurry is being dumped into the river is therefore speculative, imaginary, and unsupported by any technical material. The photograph placed on record indicates that the principal Applicant is engaged in commercial land dealings in the vicinity. The proximity of proposed residential plotting activity to an existing industrial zone provides context to the present proceedings. It is respectfully submitted that environmental jurisdiction ought not to be converted into an instrument for advancing private commercial rivalry or land value enhancement.

¶88

Main thrust of the Learned Counsel for the applicant are with regard to the legality of the order passed by the Collector granting permission for Mineral Storage and on that point the submission of the respondent are that in accordance with the provisions of Chhattisgarh Minerals (Mining Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2009, the appeal and revision is applicable under rule 17 A of the Chhattisgarh Mineral Rules, 2009 and proper remedy available to the applicant is to file an appeal or revision before the appropriate forum in accordance with law under the State Mineral Rules and in place of filing the appeal or revision he has filed this Original Application, which is a technically not maintainable. The copy of the order of the authorities/mining department has been filed in which in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Minerals

¶89

¶90

O.A. No.16/2026(CZ) Ratan Lal Agarwal & Ors. Vs Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board & Ors.

¶91

(Mining Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2009 the necessary permissions have been granted to the applicant.

¶92

The copy of the consent order has been issued by the Regional Office, Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board and a contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the unit was operating without any consent condition is not tenable. Annexure-R-10/4 is the authority issued by the SEIAA in accordance with the rules, and accordingly the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents are that necessary permissions and EC have been granted by the competent authority, which has not been challenged by the applicant.

¶93

Submission of the Learned Counsel for the MoEF&CC are that the regulatory authority is the State PCB and it is the responsibility of the State PCB to monitor the violations, however no violations have been found.

¶94

Larned Counsel for the applicant has filed the counter reply on the inspection report and submitted that the land in question is recorded as agriculture land in revenue record, but it has been diverted for industrial purposes and siting criteria has not been followed.

¶95

On this point the submissions of the respondents are that the change of land use is subject matter of the revenue courts and the applicant has alternate remedy to file appropriate application according to the Land Revenue Act or the Chhattisgarh Minerals (Mining Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2009.

¶96

¶97

O.A. No.16/2026(CZ) Ratan Lal Agarwal & Ors. Vs Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board & Ors.

¶98

We have also examined the siting criteria with regard to the site as analysed with the report submitted by the joint committee and found that there are no violations. On this point a report was also called from the Mining Department and the Department of Mines, vide letter dated.02.04.2026 has communicated that there are no violations of siting criteria. Copy of the lease deed for permission for storage which is valid upto 14.03.2026 has been field by the department of Mines.

¶99

Submission of the Learned Counsel for the respondents are that the application for further renewal is pending before the concerned State PCB and due to pending application (present Original Application) the State PCB has withheld it for consideration. We have also examined the joint committee report since there are no violation, thus, no further action is required on part of this Tribunal. However, against the order of the Collector granting the permission under the Mining Mineral Rules the applicant has alternate and efficacious remedy to file an appeal or revision as quoted above.

¶100

With these obversions, the Original Application No.

¶101

16/2026(CZ) stands disposed of.

¶102

Sheo Kumar Singh, JM

¶103

Sudhir Kumar Chaturvedi, EM

¶104

6^th May, 2026,

¶105

Original Application No.16/2026(CZ) K

¶106

¶107

O.A. No.16/2026(CZ) Ratan Lal Agarwal & Ors. Vs Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board & Ors.

Ratan Lal Agarwal v. Chhattishgarh Environment Conservation Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ratan Lal Agarwal v. Chhattishgarh Environment Conservation Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Gosia Khatoon vs

Pradeep Ahirwar vs State of Madhya Pradesh through Principal Secretary (Forest)

Indrajit Mondal vs State of Jharkhand

Public Action Committee through Its Member Er Kapil Dev vs the State of Punjab through the Principal Secretary

Subhash Chandrawanshi vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Gajendra Singh Rajpoot vs Union of India Ministry of Enviornment Forest & Climate Change through Regional Director

Smt Preeti Maitra vs West Bengal Pollution Control Borad

Nadeem Akhtar vs State of Odisha

Universal Resources through Partner Subash Chand Bansal vs Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact Assessment Authority)

Universal Resources through Partner Subash Chand Bansal vs Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact Assessment Authority)

Bakir Ali Rangwala S O Haji Ghulam Ali vs State of Madhya Pradesh through Principal Secretary

Nitin Singhvi vs State of Chhattisgarh through- Secretary Mineral Resources Department Government of Chhattisgarh

Hemraj Meena vs State of Rajasthan

Hemraj Meena vs State of Rajasthan