Mining Waste Dumped into Mahanadi, 400 Acres of Farmland Turn Barren; High Court Seeks Action Report

The matter came up during a hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). A division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal ordered an immediate halt to mining operations being carried out beyond the approved lease area.

The court has also directed the Secretary of the Mining Department to submit a sworn affidavit detailing the current status of the investigation. Additionally, a ₹30 crore penalty notice has been issued to leaseholders found violating environmental norms. The next hearing is scheduled for February 26.

Background of the Case

The PIL was filed by Om Prakash Sen, a resident of Nisda village. According to the petition, mining leases for flagstone and limestone extraction were granted to 15 individuals. However, leaseholders allegedly expanded operations to nearly five times the permitted area, carrying out large-scale excavation.

It is further alleged that the debris and mining waste generated during excavation have been dumped into the Mahanadi River. This has affected the river’s flow and severely damaged surrounding agricultural land, pushing hundreds of acres toward infertility.

Mining Despite Expired Environmental Clearance

The petition also claims that the Environmental Clearance (EC) for the mining activities expired three years ago. Despite this, mining and frequent blasting operations have allegedly continued unchecked.

State Government’s Response

During the hearing, the state government informed the court that an inquiry was conducted by the district administration. The probe found seven leaseholders guilty of continuing mining operations despite expired environmental approvals. Notices imposing a ₹30 crore fine have been issued against them.

Court Questions Action on River Pollution

The High Court has specifically asked authorities to clarify what action has been taken against those responsible for dumping mining waste into the Mahanadi. The court also stated that if any leaseholder challenges the penalty separately, their plea will be heard along with the ongoing PIL.