June 15, 2024 In Uncategorized



The Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal at New Delhi (NGT) comprising of Hon’ble Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi and Hon’ble Justice Afroz Ahmad dismissed Original Application No. 285/2024, vide Order dated 29.04.2024 with necessary conditions imposed on the Respondent-Mining Company for compliance in order to continue scientific mining in Jarur (Village) in accordance with environmental norms.

The Applicant, Mr. Abhishek Shukla, resident of a village in U.P, had reported the ignominious incidents that occurred in the village that were caused by the recent mining operations and that the mining operators were resorting to illegal blasting which resulted in deteriorating health of the residents making them susceptible to diseases like Asthma and other diseases. These operations also affected the old temple on the hills of the village and also the roads that are being used to transport the excavated minerals.

Facts of the case:

The Applicant, Mr. Abhishek Shukla is a resident of Village Jarar in District Banda, Uttar Pradesh and he sent a letter by post to the Ld. National Green Tribunal stating that the village was affected by the recent mining operations and the affects they had on the residents’ health and transportation, thereby, depriving them of basic necessities like fresh water and air. The Letter was treated as a Petition and was registered. NGT directed to file separate applications and Original Application No. 285/ 2024 was filed against Respondent No.1, M/S Eureka Mines and Minerals LLP (Mining Company), a registered mining company that had undertaken mining operations in the village Jarar and also resorted to illegal blasting.  He reported that five crushers had been established in the Village that were operated day and night and as such they did not have any boundary wall. This caused rapid dust and noise pollution which resulted in health problems like Asthma. Illegal blasting had affected the houses of people as well as the temple on the hills. Aside from this, wildlife in the area is also affected. The roads of the Village were damaged by the overloaded vehicles used for transportation of minerals.

The Tribunal took cognizance of the issue as the Application prima face raised questions relating to the environment and constituted a Joint Committee vide Order dated 01.08.2023 to verify the factual position of the issue and recommend appropriate remedial action. A Joint Committee constituting of District Magistrate of Banda, Respondent No. 7, a representative from Geology and Mining, Uttar Pradesh and UP Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) i.e.  Respondent 4 and 6 respectively.

The Joint Committee carried out the field survey on 17.08.23 and 18.08.23 and reported its observations and recommendations to the Tribunal.  The Joint Committee recommended the Mining Department to restrict mining activities in the vicinity of the habitat and temple. They recommended the Mining Company to construct the roads in the Village and recommended that the mining be done only in the authorized time by taking proper safety measures and recommended UPPCB to take action to curb the dust pollution in the Village. The Tribunal directed the Respondents to take appropriate action according to the recommendations of the Joint Committee and sought report on the same.

Pertinent Issues:

I) Is the Tribunal’s decision to consider a letter as a petition, too presumptuous?

II) Do the actions of Respondent 1 curb the mining standards set in place for environment protection?

III) Is it the responsibility of Respondent 1 to monitor the water and air pollution and the maintenance of roads?


1) The Principal Bench of NGT made some observations regarding District Banda, where they held that the district is poor in ground water and also didn’t possess major lakes. Village Jarar has stony topography, and the District of Banda is one of the 250 most backward districts in the country, so this included the District under Backward Regions Grants Fund Programme (BRGF). Hence, utmost importance would have to be given to continue scientific mining in accordance with environmental norms.

2) The Respondent No. 1 submitted as follows:

i) That it had received the necessary mining and environmental clearances from the organizations like the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) and Mines Safety and was abiding Section 25 of Water (Prevention and control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 21 of Air (Prevention and control) Act, 1981.

ii) The Respondent had further proved that it was well within the recommended distance away from the temple as well as dwellings of the villagers. Therefore, permission was not required from the Director General of Mines Safety (DGMS).

iii) According to Metalliferous Mines Regulations (MMR), 1961 if the mine holes are blasted with less than 3 m in depth and a distance of more than 300 m is maintained from any permanent building, then it implies that the project proponent has complied with the statutory requirements.

iv) Further, under Section 17 of the Mines Act, 1952, a person possessing the prescribed qualifications must be appointed as the “Manager of Mine”.

v) Thus, all the necessary requirements were met by the project proponent i.e. Respondent 1 herein.

3) The Tribunal imposed the following conditions on the Respondent No. 1 in order to continue the mining work:

a) The Respondent No.1 has to maintain a separate account for Corporate Environmental Responsibility (CER) activities for social and environmental management goals.

b) The Respondent 1 has to build a three-tier shelter green belt of 7.5 m width and that the Project Proponent has to plant at least 1000 plants/ ha and the Green Belt has to be maintained by the Project Proponent for a period of 5 years and the survival rate of such plants shouldn’t be less than the survival rate notified by the UP Forest Department otherwise it will be considered as the violation of Environmental Committee’s conditions.

b) The Respondent No.1 is responsible for maintenance of roads used for transportation of minerals to be done by the Project Proponent and the road has to be blacktopped from its own expenses.

d) The Respondent No.1 in consultation with the relevant Authorities would prepare a conservation and management plan for rejuvenation and management of water bodies in the vicinity of the mining area as well as in the village.

e) That any ground and surface water within 5 km of the leased land would be regularly monitored for contamination and depletion due to mining activity and reports of the same have to be filed with the UPPCB and compliance should be submitted to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF) and other organizations regularly.

f) The Respondent No. 1 is responsible to enforce effective safeguard measures for prevention and suppression of the dust pollution in the areas that are prone to air pollution like haul roads and loading and unloading points and ensure their suppression by installing required machinery to control it as per the standards of the MoEF and Central Pollution Control Board.

g) The minerals, while they are transported in trucks, the trucks ought to be covered with Tarpaulin, or any other suitable mechanism so avoid spillage of mineral / dust on the way.

h) The blasting ought to be carried out by giving advance intimation to residents of the locality by blowing the siren and requisite precautionary measures have to be taken to avoid any accident in the surrounding areas of habitation.


The Tribunal took a reformative approach in this case and strictly conveyed the importance of environmental protection and any liability that would arise in case of violation to the mining operators. The Tribunal took cognizance of the remote risk that lies ahead for residents of the village and took immediate measures to prevent any further adversities. The Tribunal’s cognizance of the necessity of mining operations was to ensure internal and economic development of the village.

Thus, based on the aforesaid observations, the present Application filed by a resident of the village was dismissed by NGT with the necessary directions given to the Respondent No. 1.


Sumanth Chegudi

5th Year

J C College of Law

Intern, The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services


Edited by

Harini Daliparthy

Lead Senior Associate

The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services

Leave a Reply