'Callousness, possible connivance': HC raps Haryana over mining violations in Aravallis

Admonishing Haryana for “callousness”, possible “connivance” of officers and a prima facie case of “loot and plunder of natural resources”, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Chief Secretary to personally examine large-scale environmental violations in a mining area in Charkhi Dadri and file an affidavit explaining how the State proposes to deal with “vast extent of environmental plundering”.

The Bench was told that the area falls in Aravallis.

Referring to a report prepared in the matter by an advocate appointed by the court as commissioner, the Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor asserted that he inspected the site on December 6, 2025, before submitted his report. A drone survey report was also placed before the Bench.

“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 was equally unsparing on the administration’s role in the matter. “The other unfortunate aspect noticed by us is the callousness on part of the State authorities in discharge of their duties which has led to such unfortunate situation. At this stage, we cannot rule out connivance on the part of the responsible officers who were entrusted with the duty to ensure compliance of laws.”

The case arises from allegations of indiscriminate illegal mining in Pichopa Kalan village in Charkhi Dadri district, where the petitioners alleged that mining far exceeded approved limits, damaging agricultural land, ecology and the village environment. The Bench was assisted in the matter by senior advocates Shailendra Jain and Amit Jhanji.

Taking a note of the prima facie findings, the Bench directed the Chief Secretary to examine the entire matter and file a personal affidavit, specifying not only how the State intended to deal with the environmental devastation, but also how responsibility of erring officials would be fixed.

“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 said.

The Bench, in its order, noted that the inspection revealed steep cliffs instead of step-wise mining benches, complete absence of topsoil stacking, reclamation or plantation, missing green belt, lack of water sprinkling, no monitoring of groundwater levels or air quality and massive cracks on land — all in clear breach of the mining plan and environmental clearance conditions.

The court also noted with concern that mining was permitted only up to three metres above the water table. But “the level of ground water table is not specified and is left to speculation. Preservation of ground water from contamination and depletion of water table, thus cannot be ensured.”

The Bench also expressed “utter sense of despair” over the inaction of senior officers despite a letter dated October 1, 2025, written by the District Mining Officer to the Director General, Mines and Geology. Although the officer recommended cancellation of the mining lease, the court found the reasoning deeply troubling. The recommendation, it said, focused on economic unviability. Quoting the letter, the court noted the officer had concluded 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 High Court observed that prior to this letter, “there is nothing on record to show that either the mining area was regularly inspected or safeguards envisioned in the environment clearance certificate have been adhered to.” It added that notwithstanding the letter, “no action at the level of the Director General has followed”, and that the office of the Director General “has turned a blind eye to rampant violations committed in the mining area.”

Another disturbing aspect highlighted by the court was the complete disappearance of a metalled road passing through the mining area. While the Mining Department denied the existence of any such road, the petitioners placed on record RTI replies establishing that the road had been constructed by the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board pursuant to a Chief Minister’s announcement. The Bench observed: “Either the HSAMB has siphoned off money to the tune of crores or the mining department is telling a blatant lie to the Court. Either of the exigency is most disturbing.”

The court also noted that the Advocate Commissioner heard repeated blasts during inspection, indicating widespread mining activity.

Flagging the wider public impact, the High Court said: “We may take judicial notice of environmental concerns resulting from worsening air quality as well as depleting water table, which pose serious concerns.” It observed that the case demonstrated how, “in the name of mining, such damage to environment is being carried out” and that the regulatory mechanism had “prima facie failed to check the menace.”

Considering the broader ramifications, the court directed the Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, to be impleaded as a party and asked the Secretary to file an affidavit suggesting corrective measures. It also ordered the Chief Secretary to summon the entire mining record and place it before the Registrar General in sealed cover within a week.