BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI. Accordingly, the appeal [Appeal No.61 of 2024 (SZ)] is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.04.2024, issued vide Letter No. SEIAA-TN/F.No.10525/2024 by the SEIAA – Tamil Nadu, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the SEIAA – Tamil Nadu for fresh consideration. The authority shall afford an opportunity of a personal hearing to the appellant and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks.
Item No.5:-
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 28th day of January, 2026.
[Through Physical Hearing (Hybrid Option)]
Appeal No.61 of 2024 (SZ)
IN THE MATTER OF
K. Ravikumar S/o. Kandasamy
No.3/320, Kottamettupatti Village, Mettupatti Post, Omalur Taluk, Salem District – 363 455.
…Appellant(s)
Versus
State Environment Impact Assessment Authority
(SEIAA), Tamil Nadu
Though the Member Secretary
3rd Floor, Panagal Maaligai, No.1, Jeenis Road, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.
…Respondent(s)
For Appellant (s):
Mr. G. Vignesh.
For Respondent(s):
Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith.
Judgment Reserved on: 22nd January, 2026.
CORAM:
HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON’BLE Dr. PRASHANT GARGAVA, EXPERT MEMBER
J U D G M E N T
Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member
1. The above appeal is directed against the order dated
16.04.2024 of the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) – Tamil Nadu, rejecting the proposal made by the Project Proponent/ Appellant herein for a rough stone and gravel quarry over an extent of 2.31.0 Hectares in Kendenahalli Village, Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District.
2. The appellant is the owner of the patta land situated in Sy. Nos.887/1 and 887/6 of Kendenahalli Village and he was granted with the mining lease for a period of ten years by the Department of Geology and Mining vide proceedings dated 27.10.2023 for extraction of rough stone and gravel to a total production capacity of 2,27,183 Cu.M. Out of which, rough stone is 1,59,471 Cu.M. and gravel is 67,712 Cu.M. up to a depth of 47 Meters (27 meters above the ground level and 20 meters below the ground level).
3. Based on the same, the appellant had applied for prior
Environmental Clearance on 07.11.2023 before the SIEAA – Tamil
Nadu under “B2” category of Item 1 (a) ‘Mining of Minerals’ of Schedule to the EIA Notification, 2006, for the extraction of rough stone and gravel in an extent of 2.31.0 Hectare in the abovereferred survey numbers.
4. According to the appellant, there is no other quarry functioning within a 500-meter radius of the project site, as per the letter issued by the Department of Geology and Mining dated 27.10.2023. As per the approved mining plan, the proposed quarry operation would be an opencast semi-mechanized method and the bench height should not exceed 5 meters and the bench width should not be less than 5 meters. The groundwater table is to be reported at a depth of 75 meters in summer and 70 meters in the rainy season. The production aquifers are excepted at a depth of 60 to 65 meters below the ground level.
5. The appellant, by way of abundant caution, has stated that the project site does not attract the general conditions as per the EIA Notification, 2006, HACA region, CRZ area within a radius of 10 Km from the project site. There is also no interstate boundary, Western Ghats boundaries, National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuary within a radius of 10 Km. There is no critically polluted area, as notified by the CPCB, within a radius of 10 Kms. Besides, it is also not a protected area, Eco Sensitive Area and Eco Sensitive Zone.
6. While so, the proposal was placed before the State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) – Tamil Nadu for consideration in the absence of the Project Proponent in the 438th Meeting held on 05.01.2024. Again, the proposal was placed in the 449th Meeting held on 07.03.2024, and the appellant also had submitted the mandatory documents and made a detailed presentation for the grant of Environmental Clearance before the SEAC – Tamil Nadu. However, the SEAC – Tamil Nadu made a recommendation for rejection of the proposal and subsequently, the SEIAA – Tamil Nadu also rejected the proposal by order dated
16.04.2024, which is impugned in the appeal.
7. It is further stated that the appellant has also obtained the Consent to Establish for the crusher unit under the Water and Air Acts, on 26.12.2023. The No Objection Certificate (NOC) was also obtained from the Block Development Officer (BDO) – Eriyur, to substantiate that there are no approved habitations, government buildings, village natham, schools, colleges, archaeological sites, High Tension line, overhead water tank, government land, government scheme land and highway within a distance of 500 meters. The District Forest Officer (DFO) – Dharmapuri has also certified that the proposed site is not located within the wildlife sanctuary, reserved forest, elephant corridor, by letter dated 05.10.2023.
8. The appellant has assailed the order of rejection, contending that the appraisal was not done as per the provisions of the EIA Notification, 2006. The appellant further states that in spite of satisfying all the criteria for doing a rough stone and gravel quarry, the SEIAA– Tamil Nadu rejected the same, based on the recommendations of the SEAC – Tamil Nadu.
9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant as well as the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.
10. The question that arises for consideration is whether the reasons cited by the SEAC – Tamil Nadu for rejecting the Environmental Clearance proposal, and the subsequent rejection order issued by the SEIAA – Tamil Nadu incorporating two additional grounds, are legally sustainable.
Quarry site located within the catchment area of River Cauvery:
11. The quarry site is found to be located within the catchment area of river Cauvery and the tributary canal leading to Mettur Dam. The word ‘catchment area’ is defined in P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s Advanced Law Lexicon, as “the entire area from which drainage is received by a body of water (as a reservoir, lake or river) and the land area from which all rainfall eventually flows into the specified river”. In other words, catchment area is a region of land where water from rain collects and drains into a common outlet like a river or lake.
12. The SEAC – Tamil Nadu has stated that the details of the water spread area of the Mettur Dam are not indicated in the report furnished by the Project Proponent. However, the KML (Keyhole Markup Language) file reveals that the same is part of or very close to the water spread area.
13. The KML file itself is a format for displaying geographical data in applications like Google Maps. Besides, the KML file can contain data from various sources and the accuracy of the data depends on the source and how it is integrated. Therefore, if the ground truthing or physical inspection is not done, relying only on the KML file may not be accurate.
14. According to the appellant, the Mettur Dam is approximately 20 Km away from the project site and no impact would be caused due to the proposed quarry activity. The tributary canal existing at 1.24 km, which leads to the catchment area of the Mettur Dam and is located 1.8 km south of the project area, cannot be the reason. The proposed site is 5 km away from the Mettur Dam, and even if there are any structures in between the project site and the Mettur Dam, the location of the project site in the upstream cannot be a reason.
Dharmapuri District-an Upland Plateau Region:
15. The next ground of rejection is that the Dharmapuri District is an upland plateau region of Tamil Nadu with many hill ranges and undulating plains. The reason that the applied area is a fresh one and located in hilly undulated terrain cannot be the reason for rejecting the proposal, as it is a patta land of the appellant and he is entitled to do any permitted activity.
16. The rejection of a proposal for grant of Environmental Clearance by the SEAC – Tamil Nadu on the ground that the proposed project site is a “fresh one” is neither legally tenable nor scientifically justified, in the absence of any site-specific assessment demonstrating adverse environmental impact. This Tribunal has consistently held that apprehensions based merely on the novelty of the site or the possibility of setting a precedent cannot substitute for a detailed, scientific evaluation of the project’s actual environmental implications. The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process mandates consideration of each proposal on its own merits, supported by objective data and expert analysis. Without such evidence, rejection on the ground of “fresh one” amounts to an arbitrary exercise of power and fails to meet the statutory requirements under the EIA Notification, 2006.
Top Soil:
17. The SEAC – Tamil Nadu, relying on the Baseline Study Report and Approved Mining Plan, noted that the site’s topsoil comprises red gravel/laterite soil (2.0–4.0 m thick), which supports Tropical Dry Evergreen Forests—an endangered vegetation type—along with medicinal plants, economic crops, and endemic species. It is concluded that disturbing this virgin soil would be ill-advised. While topsoil is certainly a critical resource for mine rehabilitation and ecological balance, the SEAC’s conclusion appears to be a generalised concern unsupported by scientific study or empirical data specific to the site. Consistent with earlier decisions of this Tribunal, the focus should have been on assessing whether adequate measures for removal, storage, conservation, and reuse of topsoil were proposed, rather than imposing a blanket prohibition without a reasoned, scientific appraisal. Hence, the removal of topsoil cannot be the reason for not granting the Environmental Clearance.
Elephant Corridor:
18. The next ground for rejection is that the area is known to be sensitive, as wild elephants generally pass through the terrain in search of water and fodder.
19. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellant would point out that the District Forest Officer (DFO), Dharmapuri, has specifically stated that there is no elephant corridor through the project survey numbers and the wildlife sanctuary is situated 23 Kms away from the project site. The said communication of the (DFO), Dharmapuri, dated 05.12.2023, which was produced before the SEIAA/SEAC – Tamil Nadu, was not made note of by them. It is admitted that the project site is not a notified elephant corridor but animal movements are there, as stated by the learned counsel for the respondent. In the absence of a notified wildlife corridor and considering that the quarrying is proposed on private land, rejection on the said ground is baseless.
Gneissic Rock:
20. The impugned order states that, geologically, it appears to be boulders and outcrops of Gneissic rock existing in the hilly terrain and such terrains are potentially for ground water resource. The problem caused due to intensive groundwater extraction and intensive mining will lead to drastic depletion in groundwater resources only. The Gneissic rocks are only sedimentary rocks, a common rock type, which has been used in construction as building stone. Merely because rough stone is not a rare mineral, that cannot be the reason for rejection.
Groundwater:
21. The next reason for rejection is that the proposed mining activity will disturb the environment of the area through changes in the landscape, flora and fauna of the area. The proposed site falls in a critical zone, as stipulated by TWAD, where there should be intensive monitoring and evaluation and future groundwater development should be linked with water conservation measures.
22. In this regard, as per the Hydrogeological Report for Kendehalli Village pertaining to the proposed quarry, prepared by the Hydrologist of M/s. Geo Technical Mining Solutions, a NABETaccredited agency, the proposed project site is assessed to have average groundwater potential. The productive aquifers are expected at depths between 60 and 65 meters below the ground level. The proposed depth as per the approved mining plan is only 47 meters (20 meters above the ground level and 27 meters below the ground level). Therefore, it is concluded that there will be no impact on both the quality and quantity of groundwater. The said hydrological report is not considered by the SEAC/SEIAA – Tamil Nadu.
23. The reasoning of the SEAC – Tamil Nadu that the use of groundwater by anybody should in no way cause adverse impacts on realization of other person’s fundamental right to safe water for life and that the ‘Precautionary Principle’ and ‘Polluter Pay Principle’ only to conserve and recharge the groundwater, may not apply to the given case, as the nearby water sources include the Mettur Dam (2.12 km southwest), Mathalapallam Dam (12.07 km northwest), Cauvery River (1.266 km west), and Thoppaiyaru River (5.04 km southwest).
24. The learned counsel for the respondent invited our attention to the G.O. (Ms.) No.15 Water Resources (R1) Department dated 28.03.2023, wherein the Government of Tamil Nadu has categorized areas based on the groundwater assessment as Over Exploited, Critical, Semi-Critical, Safe and Saline/Poor Quality. A subsequent G.O. (Ms.) No.36 Water Resources (R1) Department dated 18.07.2025 is also issued in this regard, which relates to groundwater extraction and not quarrying.
25. The remarks that the quarrying would reduce the carrying capacity of the natural canals and drains are without any scientific study or basis, except stating that the project site is in a high-slope region.
Other Grounds:
26. When it is a patta land of the appellant, which is only an extent of 2.31.0 Hectares, out of the 40 Acres owned by him, the apprehension by the SEAC – Tamil Nadu that the proposed mining activity will remove all vegetation, flora and fauna from the area, surface drainage, etc. seem to be a remote possibility. The dust in the atmosphere contributed by mining and associated activities may retard their plant life and growth, is also without any application of mind, as the appellant himself has got the crusher unit operating on the adjacent land with the consent of the Board.
27. The SEIAA – Tamil Nadu further observed that, upon reviewing the KML file and assessing the ecological conditions surrounding the proposed mining site, the project is likely to adversely impact the ecology and environment. Secondly, it was noted that the proposed mining activity would also affect environmental safety and security.
28. The learned counsel appearing for the SEIAA – Tamil Nadu would submit that the appellant had not alleged any violation of law. The actual site visit was not required to be done because of the advanced technology available. Since the proposed site is a water spread area and the site is in the upstream, the proposal was not considered.
29. It is also admitted by the learned counsel for the SEIAA – Tamil Nadu that though it is not a notified elephant corridor, animal movements are there. Hence, by way of caution, the proposal was rejected to avoid the man-animal conflict. It is only based on the groundwater table that the said region is overexploited; the proposal was rejected. The above arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the SEIAA – Tamil Nadu cannot be accepted in view of the discussions above on the same issues.
30. In the event there is any doubt or clarification required from the Project Proponent, before rejecting the same, it would be appropriate for the authorities to get clarification from the Project Proponent in person and resolve any issues. Only if it is beyond any resolution or any impermissible in terms of the prohibition, it is open to the SEIAA – Tamil Nadu to reject the proposal.
31. Hence, we feel it appropriate to remit the matter back to the SEIAA – Tamil Nadu for fresh consideration and it is open to them to impose any additional stringent conditions in the event the proposal is considered and Environmental Clearance is granted.
32. Accordingly, the appeal [Appeal No.61 of 2024 (SZ)] is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.04.2024, issued vide Letter No. SEIAA-TN/F.No.10525/2024 by the SEIAA – Tamil Nadu, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the SEIAA – Tamil Nadu for fresh consideration. The authority shall afford an opportunity of a personal hearing to the appellant and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks.
Sd/-
Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM
Sd/-
Dr. Prashant Gargava, EM
Internet – Yes/No
All India NGT Reporter – Yes/No
Appeal No.61/2024 (SZ) 28th January, 2026. Mn.
