The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Haryana government to explain how it proposes to deal with the vast extent of environmental plunder caused by unauthorized mining in Pichopa Kalan village of Charki Dadri, one of the Aravalli districts.

A Division Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor also directed the State to submit a plan to curb such rampant loot and plundering of natural resources in the name of mining. 

The Court passed the order on January 31 in a plea alleging indiscriminate illegal mining in the Pichopa Kalan village by a company holding a mining lease. The petitioners stated that mining was taking place even beyond permissible areas.

“We may take judicial notice of environmental concerns resulting from worsening air quality as well as depleting water table, which pose serious concerns. The facts placed on record in this Writ Petition indicate as to how in the name of mining, such damage to environment is being carried out. The mechanism contemplated to contain destruction and damage to environment has prima facie failed to check the menace,” the Court said.

Considering the seriousness of the matter, the Court impleaded the Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, in the matter and asked it to take note of the larger concerns expressed by it. The Central government has been asked to suggest measures to redress the situation. 

A mining officer’s report had revealed that a hill adjoining the mining site in Pichopa Kalan village had virtually disappeared, leaving behind huge pits, shaven trenches and downward cliffs. An Advocate Commissioner, who visited the site, also substantiated the allegations made in the plea before the Court.

“The Advocate Commissioner, having inspected the site on 06.12.2025 has submitted his report as well as Drone survey report in a Pen Drive which have been perused by us. What is seen with the naked eye, is not only disturbing but is 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 mining plan causing loot and plunder of natural resources,” the Court said.

It also called out the authorities for their “callousness” in the discharge of their duties, stating that it cannot rule out connivance of the officers who were entrusted with the duty to ensure compliance with laws.

Pertinently, the Court noted that the mining officer intervened and recommended the cancellation of the mining lease only after the Court entertained the writ plea.

“Although, by this communication, the District Mining Officer, has recommended cancellation of mining lease granted in favour of respondent No.9 but a careful perusal of it raises more questions about the conduct of the state officials. The recommendation made refers to instances of accidents and lack of adherence to Environmental norms and terms of lease, yet, the primary reason for cancellation is the economic unviability of further mining in the area. The exact reason for recommending cancellation, in the words of the Mining Officer is ‘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 Bench said.

The Court added that despite the recommendation, no action followed. Though the Mining Officer orally submitted that the mining lease was cancelled later, the Court rejected the claim for want of a document.

It prima facie appeared to be nothing but a cover-up on the part of the authorities, the Bench said.

“It is with utter sense of despair that we record that notwithstanding the letter of the Mining Officer dated 01.10.2025, no action at the level of the Director General has followed. It appears that the office of the Director General Mines and Geology, Haryana has turned a blind eye to rampant violations committed in the mining area,” it added.

A document produced subsequent to the passing of a Court order was also doubted by the Bench.

“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,” it said.  

The Court further observed that the mining clearance certificate contains a large number of protections for the preservation of the environment, but nothing of it was observed as being followed at the site.  

“Various newspapers reports have also been annexed with the Writ Petition to show that the villagers have resorted to a wide spread protest on account of illegal mining in the Village but all such attempts have landed on deaf ears,” it added.

The Court concluded that a deeper probe was required in the matter. However, it decided to first give an opportunity for necessary action by the State. 

“For such purposes, we direct the Chief Secretary to the Government of Haryana to examine the entire matter and to 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 that 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,” it ordered.

The Court warned that it may send the case to an appropriate independent agency if the State fails to submit a satisfactory response. In the meantime, the entire mining area has been ordered to be sealed.

The matter will be heard next on February 25. The Court has directed Haryana Space Application Centre to place on record a satellite imagery of the mining site in question from 2016 onwards, year-wise, till date.

Senior Advocate Shailendra Jain with Advocates Ruchi Jain, Vikrant Rana and Rahul appeared for the petitioners.

Additional Advocate Generals Nitin Kaushal and Rajesh Gaur appeared for the State.

Senior Advocate Amit Jhanji with Advocates Himanshu Malik, Abhishek Premi and Jaswinder appeared for private respondents.

Advocate Kanwal Goyal was the Advocate Commissioner in the case. He appeared along with Advocate Sheena Dahiya.  

[Read Order]