Tribunal seeks independent verification over disputed mining lease distance certificates near Sariska reserve.
The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has ordered an independent inquiry and fresh measurement of the distance between mining leases near Rajasthan’s Sariska Tiger Reserve and the protected area after allegations that the leases were revived on the basis of an allegedly altered distance certificate, permitting mining operations without mandatory clearance from the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL).
In an order passed on 1 July, the Central Zone Bench of the NGT, comprising Judicial Member Justice Sheo Kumar Singh and Expert Member Sudhir Kumar Chaturvedi, held that the application raises a substantial environmental issue, issued notices to the respondents and directed the constitution of a Joint Committee comprising representatives of the Rajasthan Chief Wildlife Warden, the Alwar District Collector and the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board. The Committee has been directed to inspect the site and submit a factual and action taken report within six weeks. The Tribunal also directed the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) to depute two senior officers to independently measure the distance and certify whether the prescribed distance criteria had been violated. The matter has been listed for further hearing on 1 September.
The application, filed by an individual, Pawan Singh, alleges that mining leases situated in village Jhiri and adjoining areas of Thanagazi tehsil in Alwar district had earlier been delisted and closed because they fell within the regulated zone surrounding the protected area and lacked mandatory NBWL clearance. According to the application, the leases were subsequently revived after authorities relied upon an “altered distance certificate by DCF determination”, permitting mining activity without obtaining approval from the National Board for Wildlife.
Recording the submissions made on behalf of the applicant, the Tribunal noted that the mining proposal had earlier been rejected after the distance from the mining lease to the Sariska Wildlife Sanctuary was reported to be less than 10 kilometres. The applicant further alleged that another official subsequently reported the distance to be beyond 10 kilometres, following which the mining lease was granted.
The Tribunal, however, has not expressed any finding on the correctness of these allegations and has ordered an independent verification.
Speaking to The Sunday Guardian, a senior Rajasthan Forest Department official categorically rejected allegations that any official distance certificate had been altered.
“Our role is confined to issuing a distance certificate whenever the Mining Department seeks the distance of a proposed mining lease from a protected area. The certificate is prepared on the basis of GPS coordinates. We neither decide whether mining should be permitted nor issue statutory clearances,” the official said.
Rejecting allegations of manipulation, the official added, “There has been no alteration of any distance certificate. That is not possible because the certificate is based on official GPS coordinates and government records.”
According to the official, the controversy has arisen because separate forest authorities issued certificates relating to different protected areas.
“There are two forest jurisdictions involved. One certificate issued from the Sariska side records distances of around nine to ten kilometres. Another certificate issued by the Wildlife Division relates to a different protected area and records distances of around one to two kilometres. Both certificates are factually correct for the protected areas they relate to,” the official said.
The official maintained that the Forest Department merely certifies the distance and that it is for the competent authorities to determine whether statutory approvals are required.
“The Forest Department only certifies the distance. It is for the competent authorities to examine all applicable statutory requirements. If a mining lease falls within one to ten kilometres of any National Park or Wildlife Sanctuary, National Board for Wildlife clearance is required in accordance with Supreme Court directions and Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change guidelines. Both distance certificates should have been considered during the approval process,” the official said.
The official further alleged that the present proceedings are part of a continuing dispute arising out of action taken against Mining Lease No. 258/89, and that the individual behind the litigation has repeatedly approached different judicial and administrative forums since regulatory action was initiated against the lease. Officials claimed that the petition in the NGT Bhopal was also part of this exercise. According to them, the application was filed by Pawan Singh on behalf of an individual whose mining lease was cancelled by the department.
Documents examined by The Sunday Guardian show that M/s Om Shubham Housing & Construction Pvt. Ltd., the leaseholder of Mining Lease No. 258/89, had, through a Board Resolution dated 30 July 2016, formally authorised Kamlendra Singh, son of Mahendra Singh, to act on behalf of the company in relation to the mining project. The resolution empowered him to purchase land for mining purposes, execute agreements, obtain environmental clearance, consent to establish, consent to operate, secure mining permissions, represent the company before the Mining Department, Revenue Department, Pollution Control Board and other government authorities, and sign all statutory declarations and documents concerning the lease.
The Board Resolution also authorised Kamlendra Singh to apply for and obtain environmental clearance for Mining Lease No. 258/89 at Kalsi Kala Gvada, Jhiri, Alwar, establishing his formal role in securing statutory approvals for the project.
The newspaper also examined official records relating to regulatory action initiated against the same lease.
On 19 February 2026, the Rajasthan Chief Wildlife Warden directed the Department of Mines and Geology to ensure that no mining activity was carried out on the lease until final wildlife clearance was obtained. The communication stated that although the project had received only in-principle approval, the project proponent had not submitted the complete compliance report required for grant of final wildlife clearance. It warned that operating the mine without final approval would amount to a violation of Section 29 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act.
Acting upon that communication, the Department of Mines and Geology on 25 February 2026 ordered immediate suspension of mining operations and transportation of minerals from Mining Lease No. 258/89, held by M/s Om Shubham Housing & Construction Pvt. Ltd. The order recorded that 1,876 square metres of the lease overlapped forest land and noted that although the project had received in-principle approval from the National Board for Wildlife, the conditions attached to that approval had not been fully complied with.
The Sunday Guardian further examined a detailed assessment order issued by the Mining Department relating to the same lease. The assessment records inspections carried out by departmental officials and alleges illegal excavation beyond the sanctioned lease boundary, mining on forest land, excavation outside the approved mining plan, unauthorised extraction of marble and illegal dumping. Based on the inspection, the department quantified the alleged violations and raised a demand of approximately Rs 7.02 crore against M/s Om Shubham Housing & Construction Pvt. Ltd., directing the company to deposit the amount within the stipulated period, failing which recovery proceedings would be initiated in accordance with law.
Forest Department officials contend that it was after these actions that Kamlendra Singh began approaching different forums against departmental action.
The department’s position also finds mention in an interview given by Alwar Divisional Forest Officer Rajendra Kumar Hooda to local media. Hooda alleged that the complainant himself was making false complaints against the Forest Department after action had been initiated against mining operations.
According to Hooda, Kamlendra Singh had complained to the Prime Minister’s Office alleging that his mining lease had been illegally shut down. However, the DFO stated that departmental records showed that the leaseholder of Mining Lease No. 258/89 was Devender Kumar Gupta of Faridabad, while Kamlendra Singh projected himself as the owner. Hooda further alleged that Kamlendra Singh was attempting to exert pressure to prevent action against illegal mining.
The DFO stated that a joint survey conducted on 20 May 2025, on the directions of the Alwar Collector, found illegal mining over 1,876 square metres of forest land. He said mining operations were stopped on 25 February 2026, following directions issued by the Chief Wildlife Warden regarding pending wildlife clearance. He further stated that cases had been registered at Pratapgarh Police Station and the concerned forest outpost over allegations relating to illegal mining and dumping on forest land, while the Mining Department had imposed a penalty of Rs 7.02 crore. Hooda also claimed that Kamlendra Singh is a history-sheeter of Shyam Nagar Police Station, Jaipur, with 78 criminal cases registered against him, and maintained that the Forest Department had acted strictly in accordance with law and that inquiries were continuing.
The Sunday Guardian independently verified police records relating to Kamlendra Gurjar, son of Mahendra Singh, residing at 797, Rani Sati Nagar, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur. The antecedents report records 78 criminal cases registered over the years under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including offences relating to cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery, criminal conspiracy, extortion, theft and assault. The report also records that while some cases have ended in acquittals, closure reports or compromise, others remain pending before different courts.
These matters are separate from the issues presently under adjudication before the National Green Tribunal, which is confined to examining whether the mining leases were revived on the basis of an allegedly altered distance certificate and whether mandatory wildlife clearance requirements were complied with.
When contacted by The Sunday Guardian, the counsel appearing for the petitioner before the NGT’s Bhopal Bench clarified that Pawan Singh, who has filed the present application, neither owns any mining lease nor is the subject of the allegations raised by the Forest Department.
“Pawan Singh does not even own a mining lease. In fact, due to his efforts, 103 mining leases were closed vide an order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,” the counsel said.
The counsel declined to share Pawan Singh’s contact details. When informed that the query related not to Pawan Singh but to the individual whom the Forest Department alleges is behind the present litigation, the counsel asked, “What’s the basis of this?” and did not offer any further response before the time of publication.
