National Green Tribunal
Akhilesh Kumar vs District Collector Mahoba on 10 February, 2026
Item No. 32 Court No. 1
BEFORE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Original Application No. 75/2025
Akhilesh Kumar Applicant
Versus
District Collector, Mahoba & Ors.. Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 10.02.2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON
HON'BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER
Applicant: Mr. Vaibhav, proxy counsel for Mr. Anshu Shukla, Adv. (Through VC)
Respondents: Mr. Gigi. C. George, Adv. for R - 2 & 3 with Mr. Nayan Sinha, Director
(Through VC), DGMS
Mr. Amit Shukla & Mr. Atul Mishra, Advocates for UPPCB
Mr. Praveen Kumar, Adv. for R - 5
Ms. Priyanka Swami, Adv. for SEIAA, UP
ORDER
1. In this original application, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 5, the Project Proponent does not dispute that lease was granted to the Respondent No. 5 for the mining purposes from 24.05.2001 to 23.05.2011. Thereafter, no mining lease was issued in favour of the Respondent No. 5.
2. The record reflects that the license for the manufacture of Ammonium Nitrate Fuel Oil (ANFO) was granted by the Respondent No. 3 to Respondent No. 5 on 15.06.2016 for premises situated at Gata No. 576 Village Leta, District Mahoba, on the basis of NoC certificate 397 dated 08.09.2015 issued by Director General of Mine Safety (DGMS). This aspect has been made clear by the Respondent No 3 in its reply affidavit dated 07.02.2026, stating as under:
5. That the License No. E/CC/UP/38/4 (E83226) in Form LE-1 under the Explosive Rules, 2008, for manufacture of Ammonium Nitrate Fuel Oil (ANFO), was granted by this department in favour of Respondent No. 5 on 15.06.2016 for the premises situated at Gata No. 576, Village Leta, District Mahoba, on the basis of No Objection Certificate no. 397 dated 08.09.2015 issued by the Directorate General of Mines Safety (DGMS), Gwalior Region. The copy of the said NOC is annexed as 1 Annexure-A. Furthermore, this department does not regulate mining leases/mining activities, which fall within the jurisdiction of the concerned department of the State Government and DGMS. The explosive license was issued strictly on the basis of the NOC granted by DGMS. There is no provision under the Explosives Rules, 2008 requiring submission or verification of mining lease documents at the time of grant or renewal of license for manufacture and use of Ammonium Nitrate Fuel Oil (ANFO) explosives in mines. No records pertaining to the validity of mining lease between 22.05.2011 to 01.11.2021 were available with this department and also not required under Explosives Rules, 2008. Further, at the time of renewal of the license on 01.11.2021, Respondent No. 5 submitted entire documents as mandated under Rule 112 of the Explosives Rules, 2008, and no adverse information regarding non-existence or invalidity of mining lease was brought to the notice of this department by the Applicant or any other authority."
3. One of the NOC issued by the DGMS has been placed on record on page 94, which states the purpose as "to extract of mining stone for road construction". The NOC referred in the reply of the Respondent No. 3 is dated 15.06.2016 for Gata No. 576 of Village Leta, District Mahoba. On that date admittedly, there was no mining lease existing in favour of Respondent No. 5.
4. Mr. Nayan Sinha, Director, DGMS, appearing virtually, has submitted that NOCs are issued on the basis of the disclosure made in the application, and there is no verification done as per Rule 113 of the Explosive Rules, 2008, and on that basis, the license is granted. The license in the present case has been granted by the Respondent No. 3, Joint Chief Controller of Explosive.
5. At the time of grant of the license also there was no lease existing in the favour of Respondent No. 5, yet the explosive license was issued to Respondent No. 5 on the basis of which he obtained the explosives.
6. The reply affidavit filed by Respondent No. 3 dated 29.08.2025 reveals that on inspection, it was found licensee has used Ammonium Nitrate Fuel to unauthorized mines, and accordingly, the license has been cancelled. The stand of the Respondent No. 3 in its reply is as under: 2
"6. That there is no provision of obtaining the lease copy of the mine agreement while renewal of licence. Further, this office received no complaint about illegal mining activities by M/s. Jai Maa Chandrika Enterprises before the renewal of this licence on 01.11.2021. This office noted during inspection on 30.03.2024 that, licensee has used Ammonium Nitrate to unauthorized mines. Further, this office has received a letter no. Nideshak/GhazibadShetra/Mahoba dated 25.11.2024 from DGMS, Ghaziabad regarding cancellation of NOC issued by DGMS and consequently, this office has cancelled the licence no. E/CC/UP/38/4(E83226) vide order dated 03.01.2025. Copy of the letter received from DGMS, Ghaziabad is annexed as Annexure-C. Copy of the letter of cancellation of PESO licence is annexed as Annexure-D."
7. Nothing has been pointed by the Counsel for the Respondents to show that at any stage before the issuance of the license or release of the explosive to the Respondent No. 5, any verification was done by any of the Authority to find out if the Respondent No. 5 had mining lease available with him for which he will use the explosives.
8. Once the explosives have been used in authorized manner, the only action taken by the concerned respondents is to cancel the license. Issuing explosives to a person or entity without verification can have serious consequences such as the explosive can be used even for the purposes endangering the life of the common man. In such a case, not even the verification is done, nor any proportionate action is taken by the authorities for unauthorized use of the explosives.
9. In this case the requisite action was also required to be taken by the Respondent No. 1 -State of Uttar Pradesh through District Collector, Mahoba. But the said respondent is not represented and the applicant has also not filed the affidavit of service therefore, it is not clear if the Respondent No. 1 is served.
10. Thus, we require the applicant to serve the Respondent no. 1. Let a copy of this order be served upon the Respondent no. 1 by the applicant for filing the reply affidavit at least one week before the next date of hearing, 3 reflecting the action taken in the matter. The applicant is also directed to file affidavit of service on the next date of hearing.
11. List on 20.05.2026.
Prakash Shrivastava, CP Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM February 10, 2026 OA No. 75/2025 HB.
4