Renewal of stone-crusher permission must be considered in accordance with law, subject to NGT environmental conditions.

The petitioner operated a stone-crusher unit under Registration No. NKD/STONE CRUSHER/150 of 2024.

The permission, granted by the Divisional Forest Officer, North Kamrup Division, expired on 31 December 2024 and was not renewed.

The petitioner challenged the non-renewal before the Gauhati High Court.

During the pendency of the matter, the National Green Tribunal, Eastern Zone Bench, in O.A. No. 46/2025/EZ, directed the Assam State Pollution Control Board to verify the petitioner’s compliance with siting criteria, CPCB/ASPCB guidelines and environmental norms before continuing or granting Consent to Operate (CTO).

The Tribunal further directed the District Magistrate, Nalbari, to consider the petitioner’s objection to the assertion that the area constituted an elephant corridor.

It ordered that the petitioner’s unit could not operate without the requisite NOC, CTO and compliance with applicable environmental requirements.

The Forest Department contended that the petitioner’s unit was situated within an elephant corridor, but the High Court noted that no contemporary documentary material establishing that fact had been produced, apart from an affidavit and photographs.

The permission was found to be renewable.

Whether the petitioner’s permission for operating the stone-crusher unit was renewable under the applicable permission/registration framework.

Whether the concerned forest authority should be directed to consider the petitioner’s application for renewal notwithstanding the environmental and elephant-corridor objections.

Whether such consideration would be inconsistent with the directions issued by the National Green Tribunal concerning NOC, CTO and environmental compliance.

The Court applied the principles embodied in Sections 14, 19 and 20 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, including the precautionary principle and the principle of sustainable development, which require environmentally sensitive activities to proceed only upon compliance with applicable environmental norms.

It relied on the National Green Tribunal’s directions requiring verification of compliance with CPCB/ASPCB siting criteria and guidelines, grant of the requisite NOC and CTO, and adherence to environmental norms before operation of the unit.

The Court further applied the administrative-law principle that a renewable permission must be considered for renewal in accordance with law, rather than being left undecided, while preserving the binding environmental safeguards imposed by the Tribunal.

The Court held that the petitioner’s permission was expressly renewable and therefore the renewal application required consideration by the competent authority.

Although the Forest Department asserted that the unit lay within an elephant corridor, the Court found that the assertion was not supported by contemporary documentary records.

Moreover, the National Green Tribunal had already directed the District Magistrate to determine the petitioner’s objection concerning the alleged elephant corridor.

Consequently, the High Court considered it appropriate to direct consideration of the renewal application rather than itself determine the environmental or factual issues.

The direction to consider renewal did not authorise operation of the unit independently of the NOC, CTO, CPCB/ASPCB guidelines, environmental norms and other safeguards mandated by the National Green Tribunal.

The Court clarified that this direction would not affect or dilute the National Green Tribunal’s order dated 24 July 2026, particularly the requirements of obtaining the requisite NOC and CTO and complying with CPCB/ASPCB guidelines and environmental norms.