The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has directed regulatory authorities to initiate action against M/s Maa Santoshi Khanij Udhyog after finding that the mining company had constructed and used a temporary access road through the Aravalli Plantation without obtaining the mandatory forest clearance under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
The application was filed by applicant, who alleged that the project proponent had illegally carved out a ‘kacha rasta’ through the Aravalli Plantation to access its mining lease in Village Musnota, District Mahendergarh, Haryana, resulting in damage to the plantation. The applicant also contended that the land was recorded as ‘Gair Mumkin Pahars’ in the revenue records and belonged to the Gram Panchayat.
Pursuant to an earlier order, the Tribunal constituted a Joint Committee comprising representatives of the CPCB, MoEF&CC, Haryana State Pollution Control Board (HSPCB) and the District Magistrate, Mahendergarh. Across three reports, the Committee found that the project proponent was using a temporary road through land forming part of the Aravalli Plantation and had committed several violations, including operating without forest clearance for the access road, failing to maintain the mandatory 7.5-metre safety zone, non-compliance with environmental clearance conditions and instances of illegal mining beyond the lease area.
The Tribunal examined the Joint Committee’s reports, the revenue records and the Forest Department’s findings, and concluded that the temporary road passing through Khasra Nos. 258 and 270 of Village Panchnota forms part of the Aravalli Plantation, that the road had been carved out and used by the project proponent, and that no forest clearance had been obtained for its construction or use. It rejected the company’s contention that the road had existed earlier, noting that the revenue records did not support such a claim.
The Tribunal also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 118, reiterating that mining activity cannot be permitted in areas covered under the Aravalli Project and that any non-forest activity in forest land requires prior approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act. The Tribunal held that the pendency of civil proceedings concerning a different parcel of land did not dilute the statutory environmental requirements applicable in the present case.
Accordingly, the NGT directed SEIAA, Haryana to consider violations of the environmental clearance conditions within three months, HSPCB to examine violations of environmental norms and impose environmental compensation in accordance with law after granting an opportunity of hearing, and the competent authority to initiate action for violations of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, particularly Rule 15 of the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Rules, 2023, as amended in 2025. The Original Application was disposed of with these directions.
