Blatant Violation Of Environmental Norms, Loot And Plunder Of Natural Resources: Punjab And Haryana High Court Orders Sealing Of Mining Site, Seeks Chief Secretary’s Affidavit On Alleged Illegal Mining
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Division Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor has expressed grave concern over allegations of large-scale illegal mining at Village Pichopa Kalan in District Charkhi Dadri, observing that the issue carries wider consequences for ecology, the environment and public interest beyond private disputes. After examining the Advocate Commissioner’s inspection and drone mapping, the Bench recorded that the extent of excavation visible on-site indicated apparent non-compliance with environmental clearance conditions and the approved mining plan. The Court directed the Chief Secretary, Haryana to examine the matter and file a personal affidavit, ordered that the mining area be sealed within 48 hours, and restrained any change to the existing site conditions while impleading the Union Environment Ministry and the Haryana Space Application Centre to assist with remedial measures and imagery.
The writ petition was instituted by residents of a village in Haryana, including a surface right holder operating a stone crusher unit, alleging large-scale illegal mining by a private mining lessee beyond the sanctioned lease area. The petitioners contended that mining activities were carried out not only within the approved lease but also on adjoining lands, resulting in severe ecological damage, destruction of hillocks recorded as gair mumkin pahad, and serious safety hazards. They further alleged denial of rent and compensation payable under applicable mining rules.
The State authorities initially filed a status report asserting closure of mining operations and inability to verify illegal mining due to obstruction at site. Given persistent allegations of collusion and non-compliance, the Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to conduct a site inspection. The Advocate Commissioner inspected the mining area with officials, examined lease plans, boundary pillars, physical conditions of the land, and conducted drone mapping. His report documented missing boundary pillars, unstable terrain, deep pits filled with water, ongoing stone crushing activity, and mining extending far beyond the approved lease boundaries. The report, along with supporting documents including environmental clearance conditions, correspondence from mining officials, and RTI material, formed the evidentiary basis for further judicial scrutiny.
The Court observed that “what is seen with the naked eye, is not only disturbing but is also bewildering”, noting prima facie material indicating “blatant violation of Environmental norms contained in the Environmental Clearance Certificate as well as mining plan causing loot and plunder of natural resources.”
It recorded that “the integrity of the mining block boundary is compromised” and that mining “stretches far beyond the areas earmarked for the mining purposes.” The Court noted missing boundary pillars and stated that “lack of pillar maintenance suggested non-compliance with boundary marking obligations.”
With respect to environmental safeguards, the Court recorded that “over the leased period of ten years, at least 6000 trees ought to have been planted which are not there at all.” It further observed that “there is absolutely nothing available on record which may indicate that such reclamation or plantation would even be possible.”
The Court expressed concern over unsafe mining practices, observing “loose unstable, non-cohesive hill slopes; potential sliding surfaces” and noted that “the terrain was found to be unstable and posed serious safety concerns.”
Regarding the conduct of State authorities, the Court recorded “callousness on part of the State authorities in discharge of their duties” and stated that “at this stage, we cannot rule out connivance on the part of the responsible officers.”
On the purported closure order produced during hearing, the Court observed that “prima facie to us this order is nothing but a cover up” and noted that it “virtually condones all illegalities and endeavours to legalise it by enforcing the mine closure plan.”
The Court further recorded that “either the HSAMB has siphoned off money to the tune of crores or the Mining Department is telling a blatant lie to the Court,” terming the situation “most disturbing.”
The Court directed that “the Chief Secretary to the Government of Haryana” shall “examine the entire matter” and “file his personal affidavit in response to the observations made by us, specifying as to how the State proposes to deal with the vast extent of environmental plundering prima facie observed by us in the matter. Not only the responsibility of the private individuals but also those officials who were entrusted with compliance of laws and have defaulted in doing so, will have to be appropriately determined and dealt with as per law.”
“The State will also have to suggest ways and means that it proposes to take to ensure that such rampant loot and plundering of natural resources is not allowed in the name of mining.”
“The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change” be impleaded as a respondent and called upon the Secretary to “take note of the larger concerns noticed in our order and file an affidavit suggesting measures to be taken to redress the situation.”
“The Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana” shall “forthwith summon the entire record with regard to mining in question and ensure that a copy of it is sent to the Registrar General of this Court within a week from today to be kept in sealed cover.”
“We restrain the parties from altering the status existing on the spot in question. The Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana will ensure that the entire mining area is sealed” and that “the sealing operation will be undertaken within 48 hours by the Deputy Commissioner, Charki Dadri himself and will get the entire process videographed.”
“The Director, Haryana Space Application Centre, Citizen Resources Information Department, Government of Haryana, Hisar” be impleaded as a respondent and called upon him “to place on record the satellite imagery of the mining site in question from 2016 onwards, year wise, till date.”
“Liberty is also reserved to the petitioners and the private respondents to clarify their stand in light of the prima facie observations made by us on the strength of materials placed on record.”
“Pendency of this Writ Petition will not preclude the District Collector from examining the individual claim of the petitioners vis-à-vis the private respondents or the State authorities in respect of payment of rent/compensation in accordance with law and to proceed further as per law.”
“In case if we are not satisfied with the response of the respondents-State, we may consider the question of referring investigation to an appropriate independent agency.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Shailendra Jain, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Ruchi Jain, Advocate; Mr. Vikrant Rana, Advocate; Mr. Rahul, Advocate
For the Respondents:
Mr. Nitin Kaushal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana; Mr. Rajesh Gaur, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, assisted by Ms. Sanchi, Mining Officer; Mr. Amit Jhanji, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Himanshu Malik, Advocate; Mr. Abhishek Premi, Advocate; Mr. Jaswinder, Advocate
Case Title: M/s Dharampal Stone Crusher & Others v. State of Haryana & Others
Case Number: CWP-26496-2025 (O&M)
Bench: Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Justice Rohit Kapoor
