“Rampant Loot Not Allowed Under Mining Garb”: Punjab & Haryana HC Directs State Action On Large-Scale Illegal Mining In Haryana Village
Orders sealing of mining site within 48 hours, flags ecological devastation, seeks Chief Secretary’s affidavit and satellite imagery
Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Justice Rohit Kapoor, Punjab and Haryana High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has passed a stringent interim order in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging rampant illegal mining and environmental destruction at Village Pichopa Kalan in Charkhi Dadri district, Haryana.
The Court directed the State to place material on record disclosing prima facie large-scale violations warranting immediate judicial intervention. The Court noted that rampant loot and plundering of natural resources is not allowed in the name of mining.
Taking note of the gravity of the allegations, the Court directed immediate sealing of the mining site within 48 hours, and restrained any further mining activity. Further directed the State to place on record satellite imagery to ascertain the extent of excavation and land degradation, and called upon the Chief Secretary of Haryana to file a personal affidavit explaining the steps taken to prevent illegal mining and to fix accountability.
A division bench comprising Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor observed, “Prima facie, it appears to us, at this stage, that both the private parties are responsible for causing damage to the ecology. The crusher license of petitioner No.1 is also reported to have been cancelled. They are apparent beneficiaries from the illegal activities carried out at the mining site and around. They have been suitably assisted by the State machinery. These prima facie findings persuade us to probe deeper in the matter. The State authorities, however, have to be first given an opportunity to take stock of the situation and to take necessary steps as may be warranted in law…”.
“…The order produced in Court does not refer to serious violations of EC Certificate/mining plan etc. It proceeds on the premise that further mining operations are economically and technically unviable. By omitting to refer to the breach of EC conditions/mining plan the order virtually condones all illegalities and endeavours to legalise it by enforcing the mine closure plan. Since we are leaving the issues to be examined by the Chief Secretary, State of Haryana, at the first instance, we refrain from expressing any further in the matter. However, in the circumstances noticed above, 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”, the Court further observed.
Senior Advocate Shailendra Jain appeared for the petitioner and Nitin Kaushal, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana, Rajesh Gaur, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana, Senior Advocate Amit Jhanji appeared for the respondents.
In the matter, the Bench observed that photographs and reports placed before it indicated systematic plunder of natural resources, with mining extending far beyond permitted limits. The Court expressed serious concern over the alleged disappearance of natural land formations and the irreversible ecological consequences flowing from unchecked mining activity.
The Court emphasised that natural resources are held by the State in public trust, and failure to enforce environmental and mining regulations cannot be countenanced. It observed that interim protection was necessary to prevent further ecological harm and to ensure that the proceedings do not become infructuous by continued exploitation of the land.
Further in the matter, the State counsel produced an order dated 11-12-2025 issued by the State Mining Engineer on behalf of the Director General, Mines and Geology, Haryana, approving closure of mining operations and execution of restoration and rehabilitation work.
Upon considering the said order, the bench noted that order bears overwriting on the date and was not placed on record despite the matter being under continuous hearing. The Court said that prima facie, it appeared to be a mere cover-up.
Clarifying that the order was purely interim in nature, the Court stated that no final opinion was being expressed on the merits of the allegations. The matter has been directed to be listed for further consideration after the State files its response and relevant records.
“We may also indicate that 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”, the bench further observed.
Cause Title: M/S Dharampal Stone Crusher And Others v. The State Of Haryana And Others CWP-26496-2025 (O&M)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Shailendra Jain, Senior Advocate assisted by Ruchi Jain, Vikrant Rana, Rahul,
Respondents: Nitin Kaushal, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana, Rajesh Gaur, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana assisted by Sanchi, Amit Jhanji, Senior Advocate assisted by Himanshu Malik, Abhishek Premi, Jaswinder, Kanwal Goyal, Advocate Commissioner, Sheena Dahiya, Advocates.