Disposed

Narendra Singh Bradwal v. Union of India

NGT29 Apr 2026Original Application No. 204/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal disposed of an application alleging pollution violations by stone processing units. After reviewing site inspection reports and respondent replies, the Tribunal found no actionable violations other than mandatory compliance with specific guidelines. The order directed continued adherence to pollution control norms and assigned ongoing monitoring to the State PCB.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to comply with 2020 pollution guidelines; State PCB directed to monitor conditions; application disposed without other specific orders.

Narendra Singh Bradwal vs Union of India — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No.01

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CENTRAL ZONE BENCH, BHOPAL THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)

¶3

Original Application No.204/2024(CZ)

¶4

IN THE MATTER OF:

¶5

Mr. Narendra Singh Bradwal s/o Bhanwar lal Bardwal, R/o ward no 09, Jaato ka Mohalla, Gram-Akhepura, Post-Gangati kallan, Teh. Mojmabad, District Dudu, Rajasthan.

¶6

Applicant

¶7

The Union of India, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change Impact Assessment Division, Government of India, Indira Paryavaran Bhavan,Jor Bagh Road, Aliganj, New Delhi-110003

¶8

The State of Rajasthan Through the Chief Secretary Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur-302005 Respondent

¶9

RajasthanPollution Control Board, Through Chairperson A-4, Jhalana Institutional Area Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur (Rajasthan) Pin: 302004 4. Department of Water Resourses Through the Chief Engineer, Address:- Sinchai Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302017

¶10

M/S Pacific Quartz Surfaces LLP Through its Partner/Authorized Signatory/Manager Khasra No 772/183, 773/183, Bhojpura Tehsil: Mozmabad, N.H.48 Jaipur-Ajmer Highway,Dudu-303008 Head Office: 16, Karni Colony,Vijaybari path no. 7, Sikar Road, Jaipur-302039.

¶11

M/S Shri Balaji Impex Through its Partner/Authorized Signatory/ManagerNave Khasra No. 192/193/194/195,Naraina Road, Tehsil: (Mozamabad),District:Dudu-303008

¶12

M/S Universal Quartz and Natural Stone Private Limited Through its Partner/Authorized Signatory/Manager

¶13

¶14

O.A. No.204/2024(CZ) Narendra Singh Bradwal Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶15

Village Pallukalan, Tehsil- Mojmabad, Post Mokhampura, Jaipur-303009

¶16

M/S Tirupati Stonex Private Limited Through its Partner/Authorized Signatory/Manager Khasta no. 1226/386, 1223/1218, 388& 400, Village Mokhampura, NH48, Dudu, Rajasthan-303338

¶17

M/S Tripura Stones Private Limited Through its Partner/Authorized Signatory/Manager Khasra no. 228712255, village Gidani, Tehsil- Mojmabad, Dudu-303008

¶18

M/S Shiva Minerals Through its Partner/Authorized Signatory/Manager Khasra no. 1635, Village- Gidani, Tehsil -Mojmabad, Jaipur-303008

¶19

M/S Sparkle Natural Resources LLP Through its Partner/Authorized Signatory/Manager Factory: KHASRA NO 2204/1644 GIDANI Tehsil: Mozamabad, District:Dudu-303008 Head Office: B-22, RIICO Housing Colony, Road No.I-D, VKI Area, Jaipur-302013

¶20

M/S Artino Quartz Private Limited Through its Partner/Authorized Signatory/Manager Khasra No 2285/1511, 2307/2282, Village: Gidani Tehsil: Mozamabad, Dudu-303008 13. M/s JBB Stones India Private Limited Through its Partner/Authorized Signatory/Manager Khasra No. 2224/1614, Village Gidani Tehsil Mozamabad. District: Dudu-303008 14. M/s Miracle Stone Impex Pvt.Ltd Through its Partner/Authorized Signatory/Manager Khasra No.181, 2292/182,183, 2294/184, 2296/185, Village Akhepura, Tehsil Mozmabad Ajmer Road District: Dudu-303008

¶21

M/S Agarwal Natural Stones LLP Through its Partner/Authorized Signatory/Manager Factory: Khasra no. 2204/1644, Village Gidani, Maujamabad, Dudu-303008 Office: 1/1-5 Solitiare Industrial Park, Bagru, Jaipur-303007

¶22

M/S Taj Granites Private Limited Through its Partner/Authorized Signatory/Manager

¶23

¶24

O.A. No.204/2024(CZ) Narendra Singh Bradwal Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶25

Village Gidani, Maujamabad, Dudu-303008

¶26

M/S SBE Stones International Through its Partner/Authorized Signatory/Manager NH48, Village Gidani, Tehsil Maujamabad, Dudu-303008

¶27

M/S Shree Ram Mega Structure Private Limited NH-48, Chandarmool Road, Village Chandarmool, Tehsil- Maujamabad, Dudu-303009

¶28

M/S Magnatix Rocks Private Limited Through its Partner/Authorized Signatory/Manager Khasra no. 2313/632, on highway NH48, Gidani, Tehsil- Maujamabad, Dudu-303008

¶29

M/S Dholpur Business Venture Private Limited Through its Partner/Authorized Signatory/Manager Khasra no. 891, village Gidani, Maujamabad, Dudu-303008

¶30

The District Collector, Dudu As district collector and President of Environment Committee, Dudu Collector Office, Dudu, Rajasthan-303008

¶31

The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dudu SDM office Complex, Tehsil: Dudu, District: Dudu, Rajasthan-303008

¶32

The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mozmabad, SDM office Complex, Tehsil: Mozmabad, District: Dudu, Rajasthan-303009 :- Respondents

¶33

COUNSELS FOR APPLICANT(S):

¶34

Ms. Seema Roj Adv., & Mr. Kamlesh Roj Adv.

¶35

COUNSELS FOR RESPONDENT(S):

¶36

Mr. Shantanoo Saxena, Adv., Ashwin Rastogi Adv., & Kartik Bhatia Adv. for R-,4, 5,12,13,16 & 20 Mr. Om Shrivastava Adv., for R-6,9,10 & 17 Mr. Rohit Sharma Adv. for R-3 & State of Rajasthan Mr. Om Shankar Shrivastava Adv. for R-6,9, 10 & 17 Mr. Dharam Vir Sharma Adv. for R-16

¶37

¶38

O.A. No.204/2024(CZ) Narendra Singh Bradwal Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶39

Mr. Gigi George Adv. for R-24

¶40

CORAM:

¶41

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

¶42

Date of completion of hearing and reserving of order: 24.04.2026 Date of uploading of order on website: 29.04.2026

¶43

JUDGMENT

¶44

Issue raised in this application is discharge of untreated water into the open space, violation of environmental rules, discharging hazardous dust and silica particles into the open space without any remedial measures causing severe air and water pollution.

¶45

Respondents Nos. 5 to 20 are engaged in both quartz manufacturing and natural stone processing. The quartz manufacturing process involves crushing raw quartz into powder, which, along with additives, is used to create slabs. This process generates significant amounts of dust and fine silica particles, contributing to air pollution. Approximately 15% to 25% of the raw material becomes waste, which is released into the atmosphere, creating severe environmental and health issues. Additionally, Respondents Nos. 15 to 20, involved in large-scale stone cutting, discharge contaminated water and dust onto open lands without authorization, further exacerbating environmental degradation.

¶46

The Respondents have violated several regulations, including the "Guidelines for Abatement of Pollution in Mineral Grinding Industry" and specific conditions outlined in their Consents to Establish (CTE) and Operate (CTO). Despite the mandate to maintain zero discharge status and adhere to pollution control guidelines, these units have been found discharging waste into open lands and water 4

¶47

O.A. No.204/2024(CZ) Narendra Singh Bradwal Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶48

bodies. The guidelines also require plantation of trees within the plot area, which the Respondents have failed to implement. Furthermore, they have ignored the prohibition on groundwater use without authorization, leading to groundwater depletion.

¶49

The matter was taken up by the Tribunal and a Committee consisting the Representative of the Secretary Environment, Jaipur, Secretary Forest Jaipur and one representative from Member Secretary Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, was constituted with direction to submit the factual and Action Taken Report. Respondents are directed to submit their reply.

¶50

The Members of the committee visited the site and submitted the report. Objection of the response on the report has been filed.

¶51

Respondents have filed the reply which is on record. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶52

The submission of the learned counsel for the Application are that Respondents Nos. 5 to 20 are discharging substantial quantities of powder waste and contaminated water in the vicinity of their respective units. s

¶53

This practice has resulted in the creation of unauthorized open dump yards. The establishment and maintenance of these open dump yards have been carried out without obtaining the necessary permissions or approvals from the relevant authorities, Respondents Nos. 5 to 20 are discharging substantial quantities of powder waste and contaminated water in the vicinity of their respective units. This practice has resulted in the creation of unauthorized open dump yards. The establishment and maintenance of these open dump yards have been carried out without obtaining the necessary permissions or

¶54

¶55

O.A. No.204/2024(CZ) Narendra Singh Bradwal Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶56

approvals from the relevant authorities, there constituting an illegal act and exacerbating environmental degradation.

¶57

And further that the units operated by Respondents Nos. 5 to 20 are governed by the "Guidelines for Abatement of Pollution in Mineral Grinding Industry" dated 03/11/2011, reference no. F.14(38) Policy/RPCB/PLg./4833-64 issued by Respondent No. 3 (Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board). These guidelines are mandatory in nature. However, Respondents Nos. 5 to 20 have flagrantly violated the provisions stipulated in these guidelines intended to control pollution. Specifically, their units are situated within the abadi areas of various villages. It is explicitly stated in Point 3.1 of the said guidelines that, "The land should not be located within a radius of 1.5 kilometers (aerial distance) from the abadi area of any revenue land as defined under the provisions of the Land Revenue Act." Despite this stipulation, all the units operated by the Respondents fall within the 1.5 km radius of abadi areas. Consequently, these units are not authorized to operate within such proximity to abadi areas. Moreover, the discharge of harmful pollutants from these units is resulting in severe health hazards, including life-threatening diseases, to the local villagers.

¶58

It is further argued that there are discharge of contaminated water on the nearby open lands directly affecting the soil fertility of the land.

¶59

The Members of the Committee after visiting the site submitted the report with the following observations: -

¶60

In pursuance to aforesaid decision, a joint inspection was held on 03.12.2024. Prior to aforesaid joint inspection, committee try to inform to the Application, but due to non-availability of details/contact number it was not possible. It is further

¶61

¶62

O.A. No.204/2024(CZ) Narendra Singh Bradwal Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶63

submitted that, thereafter, a joint inspection was held on 03.12.2024 and it was observed that there are 16 number of units operating, out of them 8 units are engaged in cutting and polishing of Granite/Marble slabs, 6 units are Engineered (Artificial Quartz Slab) and 2 Quartz Slab units are Mineral Grinding. All the units are established on the land duly converted by competent authority for industrial purpose and having valid consent with the State Board. All the units have adopted requisite pollution control measures. Water used in cutting process recycled and no waste water found discharged outside the premises. Slurry generated during cutting process used in land filling and/or sold to use in manufacturing of Ceramic Tiles. No site is allotted by District Administration slurry, Dudu for disposal Industrial Federation of has requested to District Administration to allot the land for disposal of slurry generated from the units. During visit, Joint Committee also observed slurry disposed in factory premises, slurry stored by private land owner at own land to sale and also found stored near NHAI/Village Road/Government land. Joint Committee also visited Peevda Talab, Village Gidhani and no slurry was found disposed nearby water body.

¶64

The committee also took photograph of the site inspection which are annexed along with joint inspection report. A copy of the joint Inspection report dated 03.12.2024 along with Photograph is submitted herewith and marked as Annexure-2.

¶65

i . State Pollution Control Board visited all the 16 units, out of them 8 Marble/Granite units, 6 Quartz units and 2 units are engaged in manufacturing of Mineral Grinding. All 16 units having valid consent pollution control measures. and adopted

¶66

ii. State for Board issued guidelines Abatement of Pollution in Mineral Grinding Industry time to time. Two Mineral Grinding units M/s Shri Balaji Impex and M/s Shiva Mineral were found operative in the area. Consent to establish was granted by the State Pollution Control Board to M/s Shri Balaji Impex on 01.08.2012 as per

¶67

¶68

O.A. No.204/2024(CZ) Narendra Singh Bradwal Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶69

prevailing aiting guidelines dated 17.05.2012 after ensuring no abadi and water body within 500 mtrs. certificate issued by Tehsildar and Water Resource Department and land conversion for industrial use by competent authority and consent to establish to M/s Shiva Mineral granted on 11.06.2021 on converted land by the competent authority as per prevailing guideline dated 21.7.2020. A copy of the Guideline dated 17.05.2012 21.7.2020, land conversion order, Tehsildar and WRD Certificate are submitted herewith and marked as Annexure-3.

¶70

iii. 14 units were compliances like as no Found under non-record of slurry generation and disposal, withdrawal of ground water without CGWA permission and plantation less than 33% of the land area. A show cause notice for intended revocation of consent and closure direction has been issued. Copy of the show cause notice dated 05.12.2024 and site report is submitted herewith and marked as Annexure-4.

¶71

iv. Dudu Industrial Federation has requested to District Administration to allot the land for disposal of slurry, State Board written a letter to ADM, Dudu to submit status of land allotment. SDM, Mojmabad has identified 4 ha. land at khasra no.705/45 village Palukhurd for dumping yard of Marble / Quartz slurry. A letter dated 04.12.2024 & SDM letter 06.12.2024 is submitted herewith and marked 38 Annexure-5.

¶72

v. 14 Units are engaged in withdrawal of ground water and not submitted CGWA Permission. A letter written to Regional Director, CGWA, Jaipur with request to take appropriate action as per law.

¶73

¶74

O.A. No.204/2024(CZ) Narendra Singh Bradwal Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶75

Learned counsel for the State PCB has argued that the State of Rajasthan has issued a notification/office memorandum dated 17.05.2012 named as Guidelines for Abatement of Pollution in Mineral Grinding Industry and it was revised and further guidelines were issued in 2020.

¶76

The guidelines include the following terms: -

¶77

1. GENERAL

¶78

i) New mineral grinding unit may be established on a piece of land or khatedari land "duly converted, for the purpose of establislunent of mineral grinding unit", under relevant provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue (Conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes in rural areas) Rules, 2007 and subsequent amendment rules, 2016 or on piece of land allotted by competent authority of State Government for establishment of mineral grinding unit.

¶79

ii) Mineral grinding units may also be established and operated within a valid mining lease area issued by the Department of Mines & Geology Govt. of Rajasthan. The Project Proponent will be required to apply separately for consent to establish/consent to operate for the mineral grinding unit. However, Consent to Operate to such mineral grinding units will be coterminous with the validity of mining lease deed.

¶80

iii) Renewal of consent to operate to existing mineral grinding unit on land converted/allotted for industrial use or on own Khatedari land up to an area not exceeding one sere (for which conversion is not required under Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Rules, 2007 and subsequent

¶81

¶82

O.A. No.204/2024(CZ) Narendra Singh Bradwal Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶83

Notification of Revenue (Group-6) Department, Government of Rajasthan dated 06/10/2016) shall be considered for establishment and operation of mineral grinding unit subject to adequacy of Pollution Control Measures.

¶84

iv) In case the land is located within the industrial estate developed and maintained by RIICO, District Industries Centers and Industrial Areas developed by other agencies with the approval of competent authority (SEZ etc.) the project proponent shall submit a copy of certificate issued by the concern authority (RIICO, DIC, other developers) that the land has been allotted for setting up a mineral grinding industry on it or the land allotment letter must have a specific mention to this effect.

¶85

v) Mineral Grinding Industries can also be established on a land taken on rent or lease agreement. Such land should meet out the criteria as mentioned at point no. i or iii or iv above, as the case may be.

¶86

vi) In cases where capacity of existing mineral grinding unit is proposed to be enhanced by installing additional plant and machinery or otherwise (except replacement), it will be treated as the case for establishment of new mineral grinding unit. The matters of consent to establish for expansion shall be considered in following manner: -

¶87

(a) The application for expansion of existing mineral grinding unit operating on land converted or allotted for industrial use shall be considered subject to adequacy of Pollution Control Measures.

¶88

¶89

O.A. No.204/2024(CZ) Narendra Singh Bradwal Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶90

(b) The application for expansion of existing mineral grinding unit operating within a valid mining lease shall be considered subject to adequacy of Pollution Control Measures. vii) The mineral grinding unit shall also be required to comply with provisions laid down in all other related laws in force. The Consent to Establish/Consent to Operate issued under the Air Act and Water Act is limited to control of pollution and statutory provisions contained in these acts and does not absolve project proponent from other statutory obligations prescribed under any other law or instrument.

¶91

viii) If competent authority for land conversion, on the basis of distance or any other issue, cancels prevailing land conversion and intimates to the Board about cancellation of land conversion, then consent to establish or operate, as the case may be, shall be revoked and/or refused in accordance with the laws by the Board and the competent authority for land conversion shall be solely responsible to take necessary action for removal of the mineral grinding unit.

¶92

ix) Similarly, in case of cancellation of mining lease, consent to establish or consent to operate, as the case may be, issued under provisions of Air Act, 1981 and/or Water Act, 1974 for adequacy of pollution control measures shall be revoked/refused in accordance with the laws by the State Board after receipt of information from Mining department. The Department of Mines & Geology shall be solely responsible for removal of mineral grinding unit from such mining lease.

¶93

¶94

O.A. No.204/2024(CZ) Narendra Singh Bradwal Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶95

2. POLLUTION CONTROL MEASURES REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED BY MINERAL GRINDING UNIT

¶96

List of measures to be adopted is as under: -

¶97

All jaw crushers, pulverisers, granulators must be installed inside enclosures.

¶98

The enclosures around jaw crushers, pulverisers and granulators must be rigid and fitted with self-closing doors and close-fitting entrances and exits.

¶99

Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board

¶100

4, Institutional Area, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur.

¶101

Where conveyors pass through the enclosures, flexible covers must be installed at entries and exits of the conveyors to the enclosure.

¶102

Outlets of pulverisers must be attached to pulse jet type

¶103

fabric bag filters.

¶104

All rotary screens must be fully enclosed in housing. Screen houses must be rigid and reasonably dust tight.

¶105

Where containment of dust within the screen house structure is not successful, then a dust extraction and collection system, attached to puise jet type fabric bag filters must be provided.

¶106

For better environmental protection practices, the energy efficiency and production efficiency must be maximized. For this purpose, effective belt scraper such as the precleaner blades made of hard-wearing materials and provided with pneumatic tensioner or equivalent device should be installed at the head pulley of designated conveyor as required to dislodge fine dust particles that may adhere to the belt surface and to reduce carry back of fine materials on the return belt. Bottom plates should also be provided for the conveyor unless it has been demonstrated that the corresponding belt scraper is effective and well maintained to prevent falling material from the return belt.

¶107

Except for those transfer points which are placed within a fully enclosed structure such as a screen house, all

¶108

¶109

O.A. No.204/2024(CZ) Narendra Singh Bradwal Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶110

transfer points to and from conveyors must be attached to bag filters or other pollution control equipment.

¶111

Openings for any enclosed structure for the passage of conveyors should be fitted with flexible seal.

¶112

Suitable storage silos of adequate capacity must be constructed for collection and storage of the mineral powder so as to prevent fugitive emissions due to material fall from conveyer belts and during material handling.

¶113

Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board

¶114

4. Institutional Area, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur.

¶115

Wherever feasible, free falling transfer points from conveyors to stockpiles should be fitted with flexible curtains or be enclosed with chutes designed to minimize the drop height.

¶116

All open stockpiles for mineral aggregates of size in excess of 5 mm must be kept sufficiently wet by spraying water(preferably recycled water). The stockpiles of mineral aggregates 5 mm in size or less must be suitably covered to ensure that the same is not carried away(or whipped out) by the wind.

¶117

Scattered piles gathered beneath belt conveyors, inside and around enclosures must be cleared regularly.

¶118

The mineral powder during process within the plant must be transferred pneumatically through chutes.

¶119

The handling and storage of the dust collected by the dust collection system should not cause any fugitive particulate emissions.

¶120

Trucks carrying finished material bags must be covered with tarpaulin.

¶121

A high standard of housekeeping should be maintained. Any piles of materials accumulated on or around the relevant plant shall be cleaned up regularly and disposed off appropriately.

¶122

• The ground within the premises must be cleaned and wetted regularly.

¶123

Following parameter shall be complied with the mineral grinding nits:-

¶124

¶125

O.A. No.204/2024(CZ) Narendra Singh Bradwal Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶126

Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board

¶127

4, Institutional Area, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur.

¶128

Quartz grinding units shall comply with the orders passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Writ Petition No. 110 of 2006, People's Rights & Social Res. Centre & Ors. V/s Union of India & Others. Quartz grinding units shall install additional pollution control measures as per the recommendations of СРСВ. (Аппех. 1)

¶129

3.PLANTATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CARE

¶130

For conserving environment from adverse effect of emissions, the industry must ensure that: -

¶131

Minimum 33% of the land on which industry is established or proposed to be established is covered by plantation.

¶132

At least two rows of tall trees and shrubs of suitable species are planted along the boundary on all the sides. The two rows of plants will also have lower canopy of shrubs and upper canopy of trees.

¶133

The plantation is carried out as per guidelines issued by the Board vide circular dated 15.7.04 (Annexure-II). A typical lay out of the plantation is at Annexure III.

¶134

4. GENERAL CONDITIONS

¶135

A Sign Board showing the name, address and capacity of the industry as well as validity of the consents should be displayed at the entrance of the unit.

¶136

Submission of the learned counsel for the Application are that

¶137

these guidelines are required to be followed by the project proponents.

¶138

¶139

O.A. No.204/2024(CZ) Narendra Singh Bradwal Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶140

In response to the contentions, the submissions of the learned counsel for the Respondent No.5 are that the application is time barred for the reasons that the consent was granted in the year 2019 and original application was filed on 3rd July 24, which represents an inordinate delay of 5 years and 8 months. This delay exceeds the 6- month statutory period, along with the additional 60-day period allowed for delay with sufficient cause, and as such, the present application is barred by limitation.

¶141

The submission of the learned counsel for the Respondent 10 are that the statutory limitation periods under Sections 14 and 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, have been interpreted strictly by courts to ensure adherence to legislative intent. This Hon’ble Tribunal and the Hon’ble Supreme Court have consistently held that delays beyond this statutory period are jurisdictionally barred. In Raza Ahmad v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 2804 of 2014), the Apex Court categorically ruled:

¶142

“10. Section 14 empowers the NGT to exercise jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating to the environment (including enforcement of any legal right relating to the environment) is involved and such a question arises out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I. Sub-Section (3) of Section 14 provides that no application for adjudication of a dispute under the provision shall be entertained unless it is made within a period of six months from the date on which the cause of action for such dispute first arose. Under the proviso, the NGT is empowered to entertain an appeal beyond the prescribed period for sufficient cause, subject to a limit of sixty days. 11. Section 16, which confers appellate jurisdiction on the NGT, contemplates in Clause (h) that an appeal can lie against an order made, on or after the commencement of the NGT Act, granting an EC. Such an appeal has to be filed within thirty days from the date of the communication of the order, decision, direction or determination. The NGT is entrusted with the power to condone a delay of a period not exceeding sixty days, for sufficient cause.”

¶143

Applying this rationale to the present case, the cause of action asper

¶144

¶145

O.A. No.204/2024(CZ) Narendra Singh Bradwal Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶146

the Application's own averments arose on 11/06/2021, when the Consent to Establish was granted. The application, however, was filed on 03/08/2024, an inordinate delay of over three years, which far exceeds the limitation period of six months and the additional sixty days permitted under the NGT Act. Therefore, the present Original Application is barred by limitation.

¶147

In addition to the above objections and grounds, the submission of the learned counsel for the Respondent 11 are that, despite the statutory provisions, the Application has neither placed on record any document to show that they approached the State Pollution Control Board regarding the alleged non-compliances of the answering Respondent, nor availed the prescribed appellate remedy to challenge the consent issued to the Respondents. There is no evidence that the applicant has moved any material to exhaust the statutory remedies.

¶148

All the Respondents (6, 7, 8, 9, 13-20) have filed the same objection and reply.

¶149

The submission of the learned counsel for The State Pollution Control Board Rajasthan are that in pursuance of verifying the replies received from industries were carried the units, re-inspections of all 14 non-compliant 12.02.2025, 06.03.2025, and (07.114.2025. It has been observed that out on out of 14 units engaged in the cutting and polishing of granite/marble slabs and engineered quartz slabs (artificial quartz slabs), one industry was found to be closed as all the plants and machinery of this unit had been dismantled, and the remaining 13 units were found operational.

¶150

a. All 13 operative units have obtained membership from the Ragru Dumping Yard for the disposal of stone slurry. Moreover,

¶151

6 units have submitted slurry receipts from the Bagru Dumping

¶152

¶153

O.A. No.204/2024(CZ) Narendra Singh Bradwal Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶154

Yard for the last 2 to 3 months, while the remaining 7 units have stored slurry within their premises. Out of these 7 units, 4 are using slurry for landfilling in low-lying areas of their premises, while the remaining 3 have stored it in a lagoon inside the premises.

¶155

b. Further, during the last visit, 6 units were tound to have insufficient plantation. In compliance with the State Board's Show Cause Notices, all 6 units have carried out plantations, and unit representatives of the respective units have also been directed to enhance plantations upcoming monsoon season.

¶156

c. Additionally, during the last visit, all 13 units were extracting groundwater without prior permission from the CCWA. In compliance with the State Board's Show Cause Notices, all units have obtained CGWA certificates for the extraction of groundwater.

¶157

Further, the Dudu Industrial Federation has been directed by the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board to remove slurry that was found stored near NHAI/Village Road/government land. In compliance with that, the Dudu Industrial Federation has removed slurry from some of these locations.

¶158

With regard to maintenance of the records, it has been argued on behalf of the learned counsel for the Respondents that they were maintaining the records of slurry generation. And however, during the inspection, these records could not be presented as the person responsible for maintaining them was unavailable and further communicated to the State Pollution Control Board to submit the record whenever required. The Tirupati Stonex Private Limited While communication dated 2nd of January 2025 informed the Regional

¶159

¶160

O.A. No.204/2024(CZ) Narendra Singh Bradwal Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶161

Officers, State Pollution Control Board that they have obtained the permission from the Central Ground Water Authority. A detailed reply has been filed by the Respondents and it is further argued that the concerned condition has been issued by the State PCB and the Applicant never applied and moved any application before the competent authority for revocation of the consent on any ground as mentioned in the application.

¶162

It is further argued that the procedure to revoke consent has been provided under Section 27 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,1974, and Section 21(7) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Under these provisions, the power to revoke or modify consent vests with the State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) and can only be exercised in case of non-compliance with consent conditions or violation of statutory requirements. The Application has neither demonstrated any such non-compliance nor established any statutory ground for revocation in the present Original Application. That, further, Section 31 of the Air Act and Section 28 of the Water Act provide a statutory mechanism for any person aggrieved by an order or inaction of the State Board to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority. However, the Application has not demonstrated any effort to approach the competent authority to challenge the consent orders, nor have they availed the statutory remedy prescribed under these laws. Instead, they have directly approached this Hon'ble Tribunal without exhausting the appropriate legal channels.

¶163

That the Apex Court has consistently held that where a specific statutory remedy is available, an aggrieved party must exhaust such remedy before directly invoking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. This

¶164

¶165

O.A. No.204/2024(CZ) Narendra Singh Bradwal Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶166

principle finds support in judicial precedents emphasizing the doctrine of exhaustion of alternative remedies, which prevents forum shopping and ensures adherence to the statutory appellate mechanisms provided under the law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. T.R. Verma AIR 1957 SC 882 held that when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is available, a litigant must pursue that remedy rather than directly invoking the special jurisdiction of the Court. It was further held that when such a remedy exists, it is a sound exercise of discretion to refuse interference unless exceptional circumstances justify such an intervention.

¶167

In Sohan Lal v. Union of India AIR 1957 SC 529, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that the burden lies on the Application to demonstrate that the alternative remedy is inadequate or inefficacious. In the present case, the Application has failed to place on record any material to establish that approaching the Rajasthan Pollution Control Board or the statutory appellate authority under the Air Act and Water Act was not a viable remedy. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Veerappa v. Raman 1952 AIR 192, 1952 SCR 583 held that when a statute creates a right and also prescribes a specific remedy for its enforcement, then the party must avail itself of that remedy before seeking judicial intervention. The present application, having been filed without first resorting to the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 31 of the Air Act and Section 28 of the Water Act, is therefore not maintainable.

¶168

That the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P. Civil Appeal No. 1155 of 2021 reaffirmed the wellsettled principle that while courts and tribunals retain jurisdiction to entertain matters, they generally do not interfere where an effective

¶169

¶170

O.A. No.204/2024(CZ) Narendra Singh Bradwal Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶171

alternative remedy is available. The ruling emphasized that statutory remedies must be exhausted as a matter of judicial policy unless exceptional circumstances warrant immediate intervention. The Application, in the present case, has prematurely approached this Hon'ble Tribunal without demonstrating any such exceptional circumstances, thereby bypassing the statutory framework.

¶172

It is further argued that the answering Respondent is a complying unit operating with all requisite permissions and adhering to all conditions imposed by the competent authorities. No specific violation has been pleaded against the answering Respondent, nor has the Application provided any material to establish any alleged environmental damage caused by the answering Respondent. In the absence of specific allegations, evidence, or a demonstrable nexus between the answering Respondent and the alleged environmental harm, the claim for environmental compensation is vague, speculative, and not tenable before this Hon'ble Tribunal. Mere assertions without substantiating material cannot substitute the statutory requirement of locus standi and the burden of proof under the NGT Act.

¶173

That, regarding the allegation of operating within a 1.5 km radius of residential areas, the Application has not placed any record or survey report to establish this claim. Even the "Guidelines for Abatement of Pollution in Mineral Grinding Industry" do not provide an automatic ground for revocation of consent without due verification by the competent authority. If the Application believed that the answering Respondent was in violation of such guidelines, the proper course of action would have been to approach the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (RSPCB) and seek

¶174

¶175

O.A. No.204/2024(CZ) Narendra Singh Bradwal Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶176

appropriate action. However, the Application has not placed on record any document to show that they have approached RSPCB with such a grievance, nor have they provided any official communication or complaint filed before the said authority. The failure to exhaust statutory remedies further demonstrates the speculative nature of the claim.

¶177

The submission of the learned counsel is that the applications are baseless, misleading, and unsupported by any credible evidence. It is categorically denied that the answering Respondent’s unit is located within a 1.5 km radius of any abadi area, as alleged. The claim is speculative and not substantiated by any documentary evidence or authoritative reports placed on record by the Application. The guidelines for abatement of pollution in the mineral grinding industry, dated 03/11/2011, issued by the Rajasthan Pollution Control Board, are well understood and adhered to by the answering Respondent. The location of the answering Respondent’s unit fully complies with the prescribed distance norms under point 3.1 of these guidelines. The sweeping assertion that all Respondent units are operating within the prohibited radius is an unverified generalization devoid of any factual basis specific to the answering Respondent.

¶178

With regard to alleged encroachment upon village pathway, local roads, talab, gochar land and government revenue land it is submitted that the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, is not a scheduled act under Schedule 1 of the National Green Tribunal Act 2010 and anyone aggrieved in case of violation of revenue laws, then they have to approach the Revenue Courts in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rajasthan Land Revenue Act 1956 and on this point, the application is not maintainable.

¶179

¶180

O.A. No.204/2024(CZ) Narendra Singh Bradwal Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶181

It is further argued that under section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 the appropriate authority to deal with alleged encroachments upon government or common land is the revenue department, which is empowered to take necessary action, including removal of the encroachment and imposition of penalties. The Applicant has not adopted the remedy which is available under the state law.

¶182

The District Administration was also issued notice to reply on these points, and in response thereof, reply has been filed by the district Dadu, Rajasthan, and learned counsel for the state has argued that the members of the joint committee visited the site and submitted the report.

¶183

During the visit, it was observed that a total of 16 processing units were inspected, including 8 stone cutting/polishing, 6 engineered quartz, and 2 mineral grinding units. Each unit was found to be operating on land formally converted for industrial use under prevailing State rules, and held valid Consents to Operate/Establish from the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board. Most units had installed pollution control devices as per RSPCB’s directions (including recycling tanks, water sprinklers, and bag filters), with the generated slurry generally utilized for landfilling in the premises, temporarily stored for onward sale/use, or, in a few cases, dumped on privately owned adjacent land. No evidence of disposal directly into water bodies such as the Peevda Talab was observed.

¶184

That the Committee, however, observed deficiencies, including the absence of proper record-keeping in 14 of 16 units (pertaining to slurry generation and disposal), unauthorized use of groundwater without sanction from the Central Ground Water Authority, and less

¶185

¶186

O.A. No.204/2024(CZ) Narendra Singh Bradwal Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶187

than the mandated 33% plantation. Accordingly, the Pollution Control Board has issued show cause notices to concerned units with regard to revocation of consents.

¶188

That a proposal for earmarking specific land for dumping of marble/quartz powder waste, in accordance with applicable rules, has been prepared and duly forwarded vide letter dated 06.12.2024 to the competent authority for further necessary action. This proposal pertains to the lands located in village Palukhard, Tehsil Mauzamabad, and includes Khasra No. 705/45 (6.6766 hectares) and steps have been taken for identification and allocation of suitable land for disposal of marble and quartz slurry waste, and the matter is pending consideration before the competent authority.

¶189

The report and argument advanced on behalf of the state of Rajasthan discloses that the state has taken action and land has been identified to earmark for the above purposes.

¶190

Next issue raised by the Applicant is with regard to the extraction of ground water and NOC/permission from the Central Ground Water Authority. On this point the Central Ground Water Board Western Region Rajasthan has argued that:

¶191

1. In total 16 units were inspected by the joint committee during its inspection out of which 14 units were found withdrawing groundwater without permission from CGWA. Show Cause Notices were issued to all the units mentioned in the Annexure-4 of the joint committee inspection report. Copy of the Show Cause Notice issued in annexed as

¶192

Annexure-1.

¶193

2. 14 units out of the 16 units obtained the Self Exemption Certificate from CGWA through online NOCAP/BHUNEER portal. Copy of the Self Exemption Certificate is annexed as Annexure-2

¶194

¶195

O.A. No.204/2024(CZ) Narendra Singh Bradwal Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶196

3. Unit M/s Agrawal Natural Stones LLP Replay replied to the Show Cause Notice via email dated 11/04/2025 and claimed it was their stock yard and don't have any groundwater extraction source present in it. Copy of the Email is annexed as Annexure-3

¶197

4. Unit M/s Shri Balaji Impex neither replied to the Show Cause Notice nor obtained self-exemption letter from CGWA. Therefore, letter to DM was issued for the sealing the groundwater extraction source. Copy of the DM letter is annexed as Annexure-4.

¶198

5. To verify the compliances of the self-exemption certificate obtained online by various units and claims made by M/s Agrawal Natural Stones LLP Replay field inspection was carried out by the CGWA. True copy of the inspection. report is annexed as Annexure-5.

¶199

6. During the inspection 2 units namely M/s Universal Quartz and Natural Stone Private Limited and Shree Ram Mega Structure Private Limited were found abstracting groundwater more than the quantity mentioned on the selfexemption certificate. Show cause notices have been issued to these units. The true copy of the show cause notice is annexed as Annexure-6

¶200

7. Three units, namely Tripura Stone Private Limited, Shiva Minerals and SBE Stones International and Artino Quartz Private Limited were found in non-compliance/ only partial compliance of the conditions of the self-exemption certificate. The nature of non-compliance/ partial compliance pertains to the non-installation of digital water flow meters on all common outlet points/ faulty flow meters and/or non-maintenance of groundwater abstraction logbooks.

¶201

A question has been further raised by learned counsel for the Application that industrial waste is thrown openly in the Jhalragra land due to which animals died after consuming such harmful

¶202

¶203

O.A. No.204/2024(CZ) Narendra Singh Bradwal Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶204

chemical thrown openly without any permit, which is harmful for the environment as well as for the human and animals at large.

¶205

In response to the above contention, it is argued by the State and the State Pollution Control Board that the First Information Report has been lodged about the above incident which is pending in the competent court. So far as the revenue land is concerned, the Applicant may file appropriate application before the Revenue Court.

¶206

The matter of the extraction of the groundwater, has been taken by the Central Ground Water Board and necessary action has been taken and it is reported that the units are exempted and exemption certificate has been issued and necessary NOC have been issued in favour of the Respondent.

¶207

In view of the above discussion and report submitted by the Central Ground Water Authority, the matter of extraction of ground water has been taken by the Central Ground Water Authority and NOC have been properly issued in accordance with law. However, it is responsibility of the Central Ground Water Authority to take necessary action according to rules if it is found that any unit is extracting the ground water without authority. The use of gochar land or the encroachment of the gochar land are purely revenue matter and the Applicant may approach to the appropriate forum.

¶208

The report submitted by the District Administration and District Magistrate makes it clear that the land has been allocated for the use of the collection of waste at present there are no violations found and

¶209

In view of the above facts, we direct as follows:

¶210

i. The Respondents are directed to comply the guidelines for abatement and control of pollution in mineral grinding industries issued by the Rajasthan State Pollution Control

¶211

¶212

O.A. No.204/2024(CZ) Narendra Singh Bradwal Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶213

Board in 2020 in light of the rother notification issued by the MoEF&CC and CPCB.

¶214

ii. No other violations have been found against the units; thus, no action is required on the part of the Tribunal. However, the State PCB is directed to periodically monitor the environmental conditions and environmental rules and in case of any violations, to take necessary actions according to rules.

¶215