Disposed

V Bharathkumar v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Its Secretary

NGT9 Feb 2026Original Application No. 23/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal Southern Zone, Chennai, considered an application alleging illegal operation of M-sand crushing units by two individuals without requisite environmental clearances. Despite being barred by limitation, the Tribunal directed the TNPCB to inspect and take appropriate action before disposing of the application.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to conduct an inspection and take appropriate action in accordance with law.

V Bharathkumar vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by Its Secretary — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No.01:

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

¶3

Monday, the 09^th day of February, 2026.

¶4

[Through Physical Hearing (Hybrid Option)]

¶5

Original Application No.23 of 2026(SZ)

¶6

IN THE MATTER OF:

¶7

V.Bharathkumar,

¶8

S/o. Venugopal, No.2/149, Periyaelasagiri Nallur, Begapalli Post, Hosur,Krishnagiri – 635126.

¶9

Versus

¶10

1. The State of Tamil Nadu,

¶11

Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Environment and Forest Department, Fort St. George, Chennai -9.

¶12

2. The Chairperson

¶13

Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, No. 76, Mount Salai, Guindy, Chennai – 32.

¶14

3. The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, No. 76, Mount Salai, Guindy, Chennai -32.

¶15

4. The Commissioner, Geology and Mining Department, Guindy Industrial Estate Area, Guindy, Chennai -32.

¶16

5. The District Collector, Collectorate Office, Kirshnagiri – 635115.

¶17

6. The Deputy Director, Geology and Mining Department, Krishnagiri – 635115.

¶18

7. The District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Hosur, Krishnagiri – 635126.

¶19

8. G. Ashoka (age not known) S/o. Gunannappa D.No. 141, 4^th Floor, SV Paradise Apartment, Ramkrishna Nagar, Dinnur, Hosur, Krishnagiri – 635109.

¶20

Page 1 of 3

¶21

9. P.Mallikarjuna (age not known) S/o. Y. Parthasarathi, No. 12, Naga Nayakkanahalli, KasabaHobli, Marsur, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore – 562106.

¶22

...Respondent(s)

¶23

For Applicant(s): M/s. H. Lucia Priyadharshini, S. Vinod pandiyan.

¶24

For Respondent(s): Dr. D. Shanmuganathan for State of Tamil Nadu. Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for Tamil Nadu PCB.

¶25

CORAM :

¶26

HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE Dr. PRASHANT GARGAVA, EXPERT MEMBER

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

1. The above application has been filed by the applicant alleging that Respondents Nos.8 and 9 are illegally operating crushing units under the name “Sri Adhi Bhairava Blue Metals” for the production of M-sand.

¶29

2. The applicant alleges that the operations have been carried on since 2019 without any approvals or licences. However, it is stated that a ‘Consent to Establish’ was obtained by them in the year 2022.

¶30

3. The applicant had not approached this Tribunal in respect of the alleged illegal operations between 2019 and 2022. However, the applicant is now before us alleging that, after obtaining the ‘Consent to Establish’ in 2023, the unit was operated without securing the required ‘Consent to Operate’, and that operations commenced within a month of obtaining the ‘Consent to Establish’. Consequently, the applicant submitted a representation dated 23.03.2023 to the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) as well as to the Department of Mines and Geology.

¶31

Page 2 of 3

¶32

4. Though it is alleged that no action was taken by the authorities, it is admitted that the applicant also remained silent thereafter. Only after a lapse of three years, the present application has been filed, seeking action against Respondents Nos.8 and 9 for violation of the mining lease conditions and for operating without the requisite consent.

¶33

5. It is also evident that the application is barred by limitation, as no steps were taken by the applicant after 2023. Nevertheless, considering the allegations that Respondents Nos.8 and 9 are operating illegally and noting that the TNPCB had earlier issued a closure order, the matter warrants consideration.

¶34

6. We direct the TNPCB to conduct an inspection and take appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶35

7. With the above directions, the Original

¶36

Application [O.A. No. 23 of 2026 (SZ)] stands disposed of.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

Smt.Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM Sd/Dr. Prashant Gargava, EM

¶39

O.A. No.23/2026(SZ) 09^th February, 2026.AD.

¶40

Page 3 of 3

V Bharathkumar v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V Bharathkumar v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Mamta Sharma vs Gram Sabha

Abhishek Chaurasia vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Imtiyaz Ahmed vs State of Madhya Pradesh through Chief Secretary

News Item Titled "Gurgaon a Groundwater ,Dark Zone, But Extraction Over 2 Times the Limit" Appearing in Times of India Dated 05.08.2025 vs

Venkateshwaran. S vs Vimal Raj M

Suo Motu Activists Local Residents Question Legality of Tourism Development Work at Ooty Lake vs the District Collector Nilgiris

Sakhubai Patil vs Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (Kspcb)

K.S. Mohan vs the Corporation of Coimbatore

K.S. Mohan vs the Corporation of Coimbatore

K. Balamurugan vs the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority