The Punjab and Haryana High Court directed the Haryana government to present its strategy to remedy severe environmental damage caused by illegal mining in Pichopa Kalan village of Charki Dadri, an Aravalli district. The court sought a clear plan.
PUNJAB: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has instructed the Haryana government to outline its strategy for addressing the significant environmental damage caused by unauthorized mining in Pichopa Kalan village of Charki Dadri, located in one of the Aravalli districts.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor has also mandated the State to submit a plan to halt the rampant exploitation of natural resources under the guise of mining.
The court issued this order on January 31 in response to a petition alleging extensive illegal mining in Pichopa Kalan by a company holding a mining lease. According to the petitioners, mining activities were occurring beyond the permitted areas.
The court stated,
“We may take judicial notice of environmental concerns resulting from worsening air quality as well as depleting water tables, which pose serious concerns. The facts placed on record in this Writ Petition indicate how, in the name of mining, such damage to the environment is being carried out. The mechanism intended to contain destruction and damage to the environment has prima facie failed to check the menace,”
Given the seriousness of the situation, the court has included the Union of India through the Secretary of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change in the matter, requesting that it consider the broader concerns raised. The Central government has been asked to propose measures to rectify the situation.
A report from a mining officer revealed that a hill adjacent to the mining site in Pichopa Kalan village had nearly vanished, leaving behind large pits, eroded trenches, and steep cliffs. An Advocate Commissioner who inspected the site corroborated the allegations made in the petition.
The court observed,
“The Advocate Commissioner, having inspected the site on 06.12.2025, has submitted his report as well as a drone survey report in a Pen Drive, which have been reviewed by us. What is visible to the naked eye is not only disturbing but also bewildering. It prima facie appears to be a case of blatant violation of Environmental norms contained in the Environmental Clearance Certificate as well as the mining plan, causing the theft and exploitation of natural resources,”
The court also criticized the authorities for their “callousness” in performing their duties, suggesting the possibility of collusion among the officers responsible for ensuring compliance with the laws.
Notably, the court remarked that the mining officer only recommended the cancellation of the mining lease after the court took up the writ petition.
The Bench stated,
“Although the District Mining Officer recommended the cancellation of the mining lease granted to respondent No. 9, a careful review raises further questions about the conduct of state officials. The recommendation cites incidents of accidents and non-compliance with Environmental norms and lease conditions, yet the primary reason given for cancellation is the economic unfeasibility of further mining in the area. The Mining Officer stated that ‘taken together, these factors strongly indicate that the continuation of mining operations at the site is becoming increasingly less feasible, both economically and technically,’”
The court noted that, despite this recommendation, no action was taken. Although the Mining Officer orally indicated that the mining lease was canceled later, the court dismissed this claim due to a lack of documentation.
It appeared to be, prima facie, a cover-up on the part of the authorities, the Bench asserted.
It added,
“With utter despair, we note that despite the Mining Officer’s letter dated 01.10.2025, no action has followed from the Director General’s office. It appears that the Director General, Mines and Geology, Haryana, has turned a blind eye to the rampant violations occurring in the mining area,”
A document submitted after the court order was also met with skepticism by the Bench.
The court said,
“The order presented does not acknowledge serious violations of the Environmental Clearance Certificate or mining plan. It concludes that further mining operations are economically and technically unviable. By failing to mention breaches of EC conditions or the mining plan, the order effectively condones all illegalities and seeks to legitimize them by enforcing the mine closure plan,”
Additionally, the court observed that the mining clearance certificate includes numerous safeguards for environmental preservation, yet none were adhered to at the site.
It noted,
“Various newspaper reports have also been attached to the writ petition to demonstrate that villagers have engaged in widespread protests against illegal mining in the village, but all such efforts have fallen on deaf ears,”
The court concluded that a more in-depth investigation is warranted. However, it first decided to allow the state an opportunity to take necessary action.
It ordered,
“To this end, we direct the Chief Secretary of Haryana to examine the entire matter and submit a personal affidavit in response to our observations, detailing how the State plans to address the extensive environmental degradation observed by us. Responsibilities will need to be assigned to both the private individuals involved and those officials tasked with ensuring legal compliance who have failed in their duties,”
The court indicated that it may refer the case to an independent agency if the state fails to provide a satisfactory response. Meanwhile, the entire mining area has been ordered to be sealed.
The matter is scheduled for the next hearing on February 25. The court has instructed the Haryana Space Application Centre to provide satellite imagery of the mining site from 2016 to the present, year by year.
Senior Advocate Shailendra Jain, along with Advocates Ruchi Jain, Vikrant Rana, and Rahul, represented the petitioners.
Additional Advocate Generals Nitin Kaushal and Rajesh Gaur appeared for the State.
Senior Advocate Amit Jhanji, together with Advocates Himanshu Malik, Abhishek Premi, and Jaswinder, represented the private respondents.
Advocate Kanwal Goyal served as the Advocate Commissioner in the case and appeared along with Advocate Sheena Dahiya.
Case Title: Dharampal Stone Crusher and Others v State of Haryana and Others
Read Attachment: