Allowed

Ashapura Quarry Works v. State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority Gujarat

NGT9 Apr 2026Original Application No. 22/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal allowed two original applications challenging District Survey Reports from Banaskantha and Sabarkantha districts. The Tribunal quashed reports relying on incorrect mining coordinates and directed SEIAA to reconsider applications after curing geographical discrepancies, following a prior judgment.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 13.03.2023 and 15.04.2023 set aside. Direction to SEIAA to reconsider applications after curing coordinate discrepancies.

Ashapura Quarry Works vs State Environmental… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No.6 & 7

¶2

(Pune Bench)

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

[THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)]

¶5

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.12/2026 (WZ)

Dharti Quarry Works

…..Applicant

Versus

SEIAA, Gujarat & Ors.

¶10

….Respondents WITH

¶11

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.22/2026 (WZ)

¶12

Ashapura Quarry Works and Anr.

¶13

…..Applicants

¶14

Versus

¶15

SEIAA, Gujarat & Ors.

¶16

….Respondents

¶17

Date of hearing: 09.04.2026

¶18

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. SUJIT KUMAR BAJPAYEE, EXPERT MEMBER Applicant : Mr. Saurabh Kulkarni, Advocate Respondents : Mr. Maulik Nanavati, Advocate for R-1/SEIAA

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Original Applications No.12/2026 & 22/2026

¶21

These two applications are being decided by us by common order

¶22

because the issue involved in both the applications are identical.

¶23

The Original Application No.12/2026 has been filed with the prayer

¶24

that the District Survey Report (DSR) dated 13.03.2023 for Banaskantha District may be quashed and set aside for being in violation of the

¶25

Page 1 of 4

¶26

Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 and Enforcement & Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020 as the coordinates of the mining leases of the applicants are mentioned incorrectly.

¶27

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that Respondent No.1- SEIAA, Gujarat has issued rejection orders on the basis of coordinates, which are stated in the DSR of the Banaskantha District. The coordinates, which are relied upon by Respondent No.1, are incorrect, as they are not in accordance with the coordinates of the mining plan and coordinates of the PARIVESH portal.

¶28

Similarly, the Original Application No.22/2026 has been filed with the prayer that the District Survey Report (DSR) dated 15.04.2023 for Sabarkantha District may be quashed and set aside for being in violation of the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 and Enforcement & Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020 as the coordinates of the mining leases of the applicants are mentioned incorrectly.

¶29

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that Respondent No.1- SEIAA, Gujarat has issued rejection orders on the basis of coordinates, which are stated in the DSR of the Sabarkantha District. The coordinates, which are relied upon by Respondent No.1, are incorrect, as they are not in accordance with the coordinates of the mining plan and coordinates of the PARIVESH portal.

¶30

We find that Respondent No.1- SEIAA, Gujarat in their affidavit dated 07.04.2026 in O.A. No.12/2026 has stated that they have relied upon the District Survey Report and hence are justified in placing reliance upon the DSR, particularly in light of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which states that the DSRs are of seminal importance. Therefore, no

¶31

Page 2 of 4

¶32

fault can be found with the action of the regulatory authority in placing reliance on the DSR.

¶33

Further, it is mentioned that if the contention of the applicant that there is discrepancy in the description of their mining area in the DSR and that such variation has resulted in erroneous plotting of the mining area on the map and brought about a wrong spatial location of the mining area is found acceptable by this Tribunal, the regulatory authority does not have the authority in law to review and revise its own decision. And hence an appropriate order in that regard will have to be passed by this Tribunal.

¶34

Similar is the submission made by Respondent No.1- SEIAA, Gujarat in O.A. No.22/2026 as well, in their affidavit dated 07.04.2026.

¶35

We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties.

¶36

Learned counsel for the Respondent No.1- SEIAA, Gujarat states that the facts of these cases are identical to the facts of Appeal No.35/2025, wherein this Tribunal had passed order on 09.12.2025. Therefore, similar order needs to be passed in both these cases as well.

¶37

Accepting, the argument made by the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1- SEIAA, Gujarat, we allow both these applications in terms of the judgment passed by us on 09.12.2025 in Appeal No.35/2025 and in other connected appeals, to the effect that the impugned orders passed by Respondent No.1-SEIAA dated 13.03.2023 and 15.04.2023 are set aside, with a direction that Respondent No.1-SEIAA, Gujarat shall make fresh consideration after ensuring that the discrepancy in geographical locations of the leased area of the applicants i.e. the geographical coordinates (latitude and longitude coordinates) in the

¶38

Page 3 of 4

¶39

mining area of the applicants is cured by the authority concerned. After such exercise is done, a fresh order shall be passed by Respondent No.1SEIAA on the Environmental Clearances granted by DEIAA to all these applicants and for that, if any application is required to be moved by the applicants before the Respondent No.1-SEIAA via PARIVESH, they may move the same.

¶40

With the above directions, all these applications are allowed and disposed of.

¶41

No order as to costs.

¶42

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶43

Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee, EM

¶44

April 09, 2026 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.12/2026 (WZ) WITH ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.22/2026 (WZ) SAR

¶45

Page 4 of 4

Ashapura Quarry Works v. State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashapura Quarry Works v. State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

News Item Titled Bhojpur Bangrasia Fourlane Sadak Nirmaan Shuru Pedo Ki Shifting Ke Naam Par Ho Rahi Katai Appearing in Nav Duniya News Paper Dated 31ST October 2025 vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Deepak Awasthi vs

Sanu Das vs State of Odisha

Rameez Hassin Warsi vs State of West Bengal

Durai Varathan vs District Collector Tiruvannamalai District

Gaurav Prakash vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Prabhat Pandey vs State of Madhya Pradesh through the Principal Secretary Urban Development & Housing Department

Satyendra Kumar Sharma vs Union of India

Joe Fernandez vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

News Item Titled Maharashtra: 22 Workers Injured in Boiler Explosion at Steel Factory in Jalna Appearing in India Tv Dated 24.08.2024 vs Member Secretary Maharashtra State Pollution Control Board

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan vs Seiaa

Dharti Quarry Works vs State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority Gujarat

Tanaji Balasaheb Gambhiretanaji Balasaheb Gambhire vs Union of India through Secretary Moef & Cc

Kedar Dattatray Gurav vs Ichalkaranji Agro Foods