1

AFR

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:43599-DB

RESERVED

Court No. - 3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15023 of 2024

Petitioner :- M/S Anandeshwar Agro Foods Private Ltd

Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Sr. Advocate,Utkarsh Prasad

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.

Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

(Per: Hon. Jayant Banerji,J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the

demand notice/ order dated 19.2.2024 and the order cancelling the

mining lease dated 27.2.2024 both passed by the District Magistrate,

Kanpur Dehat. Also under challenge is the order of 18.4.2024 passed

by the Special Secretary, Geology and Mining, U.P. in Revision No.

33(R)/G&M/(U.P)/2024, M/s. Anandeshwar Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd.

vs. District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat (Annexure-1 to the writ

petition) filed by the petitioner whereby his revision has been

rejected. A further prayer seeks direction to the respondents not to

demand any monthly installments specified in the lease deed for the

months of October, November and December, 2023, and, January

and February, 2024.

2

2. An advertisement/auction notice dated 3.12.2018 was issued

by the District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat for grant of mining leases

of sand/morrum under Chapter IV of the U.P. Minor Mineral

(Concession) Rules, 1963

1

by e-tender cum e-auction for a period of

five years for all vacant mining areas in Kanpur Dehat district. The

bid of the petitioner, in respect of plot No.58 measuring 08.275

hectares at Village-Bilaspur Kachhar, Tehsil-Sikanda, District-

Kanpur Dehat, of Rs.264 per cubic meter, being the highest bid, was

approved by the District Magistrate and a Letter of Intent was issued

to the petitioner on 5.2.2019. The petitioner applied for a mining

plan which was sanctioned by the competent authority and thereafter

the petitioner applied for obtaining an Environment Clearance

Certificate, which was granted to the petitioner on 15.1.2021.

Thereafter, a lease-deed was executed in favour of the petitioner on

12.3.2021 for a period of five years permitting winning of 1,10,057

cubic meters per annum of sand/morrum with the installments

(excluding the security amount) for the first year totaling

Rs.2,90,55,048.00 and for each successive year, the royalty payable

would be increased by 10% on the royalty payable in the previous

year. An amount of Rs.2,20,31,460.00 was deposited by the

petitioner as security.

3.It is stated that the petitioner had carried out mining operations

and paid the entire installments due upto 30.6.2023 as per the

payment schedule specified in the lease-deed. A notice dated

2.6.2023 was issued by the Additional District Magistrate

(Administration), Kanpur Dehat directing the petitioner to get the

pre-monsoon and post-monsoon replenishment study done of his

mining area. The petitioner got the replenishment study of pre-

1Rules, 1963

3

monsoon done on 25.6.2023. It is stated that even after post-

monsoon, the leased area was completely submerged and, hence, it

was not possible to carry out post-monsoon survey and no mining

operations were possible and, therefore, the petitioner moved an

application on 5.10.2023 before the District Magistrate requesting

him not to compel the petitioner to deposit the lease amount post-

monsoon till the replenishment study was done. It is stated that the

post-monsoon survey was done on 29.10.2023 and a combined

report of pre-monsoon and post-monsoon was submitted before the

District Magistrate. The Mines Officer issued a demand notice dated

25.11.2023 demanding the installment of October and November

2023. The petitioner moved an application dated 28.11.2023 stating

that the entire leased area is submerged and a very small patch of

surface was seen which belonged to the restricted area. Again, a

request was made by the petitioner to the District Magistrate to

waive off the installment for the period starting from 1.10.2023 till

actual commencement of the mining operations.

4. Again, the Mines Officer issued a demand notice to the

petitioner on 4.12.2023 demanding the due installments. The

petitioner sent an application dated 11.12.2023 to the District

Magistrate requesting him to waive off the installments for the

period with a further request that the petitioner be allowed to get the

leased area re-assessed by the competent agency for proper

compliance and verification of the actual mineable reserve.

5. By a letter dated 21.12.2023, the District Magistrate rejected

the aforesaid applications of the petitioner on the ground that it is the

responsibility of the petitioner to pay the installments stated in the

lease-deed. The petitioner again on 8.1.2024 got the leased area re-

inspected for post-monsoon replenishment study for assessing the

4

quantity of available mineral. It is stated that the new replenishment

study report of 08.01.2024 reflected no significant replenishment of

river bed mineral and the replenished mineral on the leased land on

that date was 16,380 cubic meters. The opinion in this replenishment

study was that the mineral quantity may increase in future once the

water recedes.

Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application dated

27.1.2024 indicating his willingness to initiate mining operations

provided the installments for the disrupted period from 1.10.2021 till

the actual commencement of mining operations be waived and

further installments be 're-evaluated' as per the actual mineral

recharge/replenished quantity as found in the post-monsoon

replenishment study report. This application of the petitioner was

rejected by the District Magistrate by means of a demand

notice/order dated 19.2.2024. It is stated that the impugned order

dated 27.2.2024 was received by the petitioner on 29.2.2024 by

email canceling the mining lease of the petitioner. The petitioner

then filed a revision before the State Government which was

dismissed by the impugned order dated 18.4.2024.

6.It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

the cancellation of the mining lease and the rejection of the revision

of the petitioner is without consideration of the evidence and against

the statutory provisions. It is stated that once an area is declared by

the State Government to be leased out by e-tender/e-auction/e-tender

cum e-auction, the District Officer is mandated to get that declared

area evaluated for the quality and quantity of mineral for fixing

minimum bid or offer which is to be done by the Director, Geology

and Mining, Uttar Pradesh or by an officer authorised by him; that

the replenishment study is required to be conducted as per the orders

5

of the National Green Tribunal

2

; that it was incumbent on the State

Government to make available the quantity of mineral required for

excavation on the basis of which the petitioner would pay the

installments of lease amount, otherwise the petitioner would be

entitled for refund or remission of the installments; that if the State

Government fails to provide mineral for excavation, then no lease

instalment amount is payable; and that the notice issued under Rule

59 of the U.P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 2021

3

is required

to be issued by the District Magistrate and not by the Mines Officer.

In this view of the matter, it is contended that the District Magistrate

having given the last notice on 19.2.2024, and the order canceling

the lease having been passed on 27.2.2024, there is violation of Rule

59 of the Rules, 2021 which mandates 30+15 days notice.

In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner

has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dharmendra

Kumar Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

4

; a judgment dated

10.4.2018 passed by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Planet

Steel Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Haryana & Ors.

5

; a decision of a

coordinate Bench of this Court dated 11.1.2021 in the case of Vipul

Tyagi vs. State of U.P. & 6 Ors.

6

and a decision of this Court dated

24.10.2019 in the case of Ranjana Singh vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

7

.

7.A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents

stating that the lease-deed was executed on 12.3.2021 in respect of

the leased area for excavation of 110057 cubic meters of

sand/morrum per annum at the rate of Rs.264/-. The amount of

security, the annual amount payable and the installments due and

2NGT

3Rules, 2021

4(2021) 1 SCC 93

5Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.19619-19620/2017

6Writ-C No.17258 of 2020

7Writ-C No.32486 of 2019

6

payable were specified in the lease-deed itself. It has been stated that

material facts have been concealed in the instant writ petition

inasmuch as Writ-C No.9186 of 2022 was filed by the petitioner

before the Lucknow Bench of this Court seeking the following

reliefs:-

“1. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari

quashing the Government Order dated 9.11.2022 issued by

the State Government i.e. Respondent no.1, contained as

Annexure No.1 to this writ petition.

2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of

mandamus directing the respondents to waive of the liability

of deposit of the royalty amount of the month of October

2022 & November 2022 so far it relates to the mining lease

of the petitioner and do not compel to the petitioner to

deposit the royalty amount for the aforesaid two months as

no mining activity has taken place in the aforesaid months.

3. to issue any other writ, order or direction which this

Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances

of the case.

4.to award cost of the petition to the petitioner.”

In response to aforesaid petition, a counter affidavit was filed

by the respondents opposing the writ petition and that petition is

pending before the Lucknow Bench of this Court.

8.It is stated in the counter affidavit to the present petition that

the notices dated 25.11.2023 and 4.12.2023 as well as the notices

dated 21.12.2023 and 19.2.2024 were issued to the petitioner; that

the representations filed by the petitioner were rejected on

21.12.2023 on the ground that nine months' time was available to the

petitioner for mining for excavating the annual quantity of sand and

sell it as per the market rate available and accordingly upload Form

eMM-11 to the extent of the carried forward quantity in the

preceding month that could not have been mined; that the pre-

monsoon and post-monsoon replenishment study reports are

7

contradictory and cannot be relied upon for any purpose by this

Court; that post-monsoon replenishment report reflects a quantity of

16380 cubic meters of mineral available for mining which may

further increase in future; that the amount of mineral could be

excavated by the petitioner but he chose not to carry out any mining

operations; that a surrender application for surrendering the mining

lease as per Rule 30 of the Rules 2021 could have been filed by him

but no such application was filed; that the petitioner has not brought

on record the inspection report dated 13.2.2023; that illegal mining

was being done in violation of Rule 42h(1) of the Rules, 2021,

whereafter a notice dated 21.2.2023 was given to the petitioner

imposing a penalty of Rs.5 lacs which notice has not been replied by

the petitioner. In paragraph nos.18 and 19 of the counter affidavit, it

is stated as follows:-

“18. That it is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court

that in case the lease holder is unable to extract the quantity

of sand in a particular month then upon payment of the

royalty amount the quantity not excavated is carried forward

on the portal of the department automatically. It is also

submitted herein that the practice and procedure is that in

case the lease holder is to extract an additional quantity of

sand, that he is unable to in a particular month, he has to pay

the royalty amount of the succeeding month and extract the

carried forward quantity (that was not extracted) of sand to

be excavated in the next month. The said amount of sand has

to be excavated keeping in view the annual quantity of sand

to be extracted as per the amount mentioned in the

Environmental Clearance Certificate.

19. That in the facts of the present case the amount of sand

that could have been extracted in a particular year by the

petitioner herein is 1,10,0057 cubic meter (sic, 110057) and

12,228.55 cubic meter per month. If the amount of

12,228.55 cubic meter could not be extracted by the

petitioner in a particular month then the left over amount

could be carried forward by him in the next month and

extracted accordingly. The petitioner herein from Jan. 2023

to June 2023 has extracted sand in excess of 12,228.55 cubic

meter and the generated EMM-11 form alongwith the

8

production quantity bearing lease ID No. 313623 bearing

Lease ID No. 313623090133 is being brought on record and

is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.CA-9 to

this Affidavit.”

9.In the enclosure mentioned in paragraph no.19 of the counter

affidavit, a table showing the production month, generated eMM-11

form and the production quantity in cubic meters is reflected, which

has not been denied in the rejoinder affidavit and is as follows:-

Sr.

No.

Lease Holder

Name

Production

Month

Generated

eMM 11

Production

Quantity

(Cubic

meter)

01

Sunil Kumar

Gupta

Lease ID-

313623090133

January, 2023711 14750

02 February, 2023769 15926

03 March, 2023581 11907

04 April 826 16990

05 May, 2023 707 13864

06 June, 2023605 12373

It is, therefore, contended that the orders passed by the District

Magistrate as well as the State Government are justified.

10.In the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has relied upon a

Government Order dated 12.11.2021 while stating that the relaxation

was granted by the State Government in the payment of the lease

amount proportionate to the quantity of mineral which the petitioner

could not lift and the Government Order directed that the quantity

which could not be lifted could be deducted from the annual quantity.

As regards the table filed alongwith the counter affidavit

showing the Form eMM-11 generated by the petitioner and the

amount of production of the mineral, it has been stated that the

calculations were for the period from January 2023 to June 2023,

when there was sufficient mineral available in the mining area and

9

the petitioner had paid the entire lease amount uptil June. It is stated

that in the present case, the entire area was submerged and,

therefore, there was no occasion for carrying forward the minerals to

be excavated. The dispute relates to the period commencing October

2023.

ANALYSIS

11.The emphasis of the petitioner is on the loss being suffered by

the petitioner despite his every attempt to bonafide work the mining

lease granted to him, due to lack of proper evaluation of the mining

area and want of preparation of a District Survey Report

8

which is

mandated to be prepared after a replenishment study is conducted as

per the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines-2016

9

,

which was supplemented with the Enforcement and Monitoring

Guidelines for Sand Mining-2020

10

. It has also been stated that the

State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Uttar

Pradesh, in its meeting held on 31.12.2022, had directed the Mines

Department to ensure that no mining is carried out beyond the

quantity mentioned in the replenishment study report.

12.The EMGSM-2020 was formulated by the Ministry of

Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India. The

Ministry had earlier formulated the SSMMG-2016 which focuses on

the management of sand mining in the country. However, while

observing in the EMGSM-2020 that apart from management and

systematic mining practices, there is an urgent need to have

guidelines for effective enforcement of regulatory provisions and

their monitoring, the rampant and illegal mining, transportation and

storage of minerals were noted with concern. The guidelines focus

8DSR

9SSMMG-2016

10EMGSM-2020

10

on the effective monitoring of sand mining from identification of

sand mineral sources, its dispatch and end-use by consumers and the

general public. It was felt necessary to identify the minimum

requirements across all geographical regions to have a uniform

protocol for monitoring and enforcement of regulatory provision

prescribed for sustainable sand and gravel mining.

13.After noting various directions issued by the NGT and the

Supreme Court from time to time, the EMGSM-2020 narrates the

necessity of complying with the directions of the NGT. Though

several requirements for monitoring and enforcement are mentioned,

however, certain important requirements are extracted below:-

“ii) The mining lease auctioned by State government as

per their Minor Mineral Concession Rules are granted of

Letter of Intent (Lol), but it has been observed that many of

the sites are not suitable w.r.t environmental aspects. In most

of the cases, the unplanned grant of mining lease leads to

formation of cluster and/or contiguous cluster of small

mining leases which sometimes is difficult to regulate and

monitor. In order to address such issues, more emphasis is

required on the preparation of District Survey Report and its

format for reporting.

iii) Mining Plan is an important document to assist the

mine owner to operate the mine in a scientific manner. States

have their own format for preparation of mining plan and it

is observed that recording of the initial level of mining lease

at shorter interval say 25m X 25 m grid interval is not

present.

iv) There is no practice for regular replenishment study

to ascertain the rate of depositing, plan and section needs to

be prepared based on the restrictions provided in letter of

intent and provisions of Sustainable Sand Mining

Management Guidelines 2016.

v) Environmental Clearance is a process wherein the

regulatory authorities after considering the potential

11

environment impact of mining clearance is granted with a

set of specific & standard conditions to carry out mining

operations, but often it is observed that letter of intent is

granted for a location which has less potential for mining

and not feasible for environment-friendly mining. This leads

to an unnecessary financial burden on the mine owners and

litigations. Thus, Lol should be preferably granted for those

locations which have the least possibility of an impact on the

environment and nearby habitation.

vi) It is the responsibility of the mine owner to obtain all

the statutory clearance and comply with the conditions

stipulated in the clearance letter. Mining should be carried

out within the mining lease area as per approved mining plan

or mining plan concurred by other regulatory authorities.

…..................

viii) The river reaches with sand provide the resource and

thus it is necessary to ascertain the rate of replenishment of

the mineral. Regular replenishment study needs to be carried

out to keep a balance between deposition and extraction.

This document provides the procedure to be followed for

conducting replenishment study.

14.The EMGSM-2020 highlights that preparation of the DSR is a

very important step and that sustainable sand mining in any part of

the country would depend on the quality of DSR. The DSR is

required to be prepared under the SSMMG-2016. The guidelines

emphasize detailed procedure to be followed for the purpose of

identification of areas of aggradation/deposition where mining can

be allowed and identification of areas of erosion and proximity to

infrastructural structures and installation where mining should be

prohibited. Calculation of annual rate of replenishment, allowing

time for replenishment after mining, identification of ways of

scientific and systematic mining; identifying measures for protection

of environment and ecology and determining measures for protection

of bank erosion, bench mark (BM) with respect to Mean Sea Level

12

(MSL) should be made essential in mining channel reaches (MCR)

below which no mining would be allowed. The judgment of the

NGT of 8.12.2017 in the matter of Anjani Kumar vs. State of U.P.

& Ors.

11

is referred in the guidelines in this regard, in which

judgment/order the following observation was made:

“It states that the main object of preparation of District Survey

Report is to ensure identification of areas of aggradation/deposition

where mining can be allowed and identification of areas of erosion

and proximity to infrastructural structures and installation where

mining should be prohibited and calculation of annual rate of

replenishment and allowing time for replenishment after mining

area. Thus, the environmental protection requires a strictly

regulated mining in terms of area, quantity as well as most

importantly replenishment thereof.”

Then, inter alia, the following order/direction was passed:

“The data collection and declared for preparation of DSR shall take

precedence over other data and would form the foundation for

providing mining lease in terms of Appendix- x to the Notification

dated 15th January 2016 must be prepared by the statutory

authority stated therein i.e. DEIAA prior to awarding of permits for

carrying on mining activity in any part of the State of UP.”

(emphasis supplied)

15.Considering the importance of DSR, for purpose of

preparation of comprehensive DSR for sand mining, certain

guidelines were formulated, which are encapsulated below :-

(a)District Survey Report for sand mining shall be

prepared before the auction/e-auction/grant of the mining

lease/Letter of Intent (LoI) by Mining department or

department dealing the mining activity in respective states.

(b)The first step is to develop the inventory of the River

Bed Material and Other sand sources in the District. In order

to make the inventory of River Bed Material, a detailed survey

of the district needs to be carried out, to identify the source of

River Bed Material and alternative source of sand (M-Sand).

11Original Application No. 557 of 2017

13

The source will include rivers, de-siltation of reservoir/dams,

Patta lands/Khatedari Land, M-sand etc. It was proposed that

for preparation of district survey report, the auditing of rivers

needs to be carried out.

(c)District Survey Report is to be prepared in such a way

that it not only identifies the mineral-bearing area but also

define the mining and no mining zones considering various

environmental and social factors.

(d)Identification of the source of Sand & M-Sand. The

sources may be from Rivers, Lakes, Ponds, Dams, De-silting

locations, Patta land/Khatedari lands.

(e)Defining the sources of Sand/M-Sand in the district is

the next step for identification of the potential area of

deposition/aggradation wherein mining lease could be granted.

Detailed survey needs to be carried out for quantification of

minerals. The purpose of mining in the river bed is for

channelization of rivers so as to avoid the possibility of

flooding and to maintain the flow of the rivers. For this, the

entire river stretch needs to be surveyed and original ground

level (OGL) to be recorded and area of aggradation/deposition

needs to be ascertained by comparing the level difference

between the outside riverbed OGL and water level.

(f)The permanent boundary pillars need to be erected after

identification of an area of aggradation and deposition outside

the bank of the river at a safe location for future surveying.

The distance between boundary pillars on each side of the

bank shall not be more than 100 meters.

(g)Identifying the mining and no mining zone shall follow

with defining the area of sensitivity by ascertaining the

distance of the mining area from the protected area, forest,

14

bridges, important structures, habitation etc. and based on the

sensitivity the area needs to be defined in sensitive and non-

sensitive area.

(h)Demand and supply of the Riverbed Material through

market survey needs to be carried out. In addition to this

future demand for the next 5 years also needs to be

considered.

(i)It is suggested that as far as possible the sensitive areas

should be avoided for mining, unless local safety condition

arises. Such deviation shall be temporary & shall not be a

permanent feature.

(j)The final area selected for the mining should be then

divided into mining lease as per the requirement of State

Government. It is suggested the mining lease area should be so

selected as to cover the entire deposition area. Dividing a large

area of deposition/aggradation into smaller mining leases

should be avoided as it leads to loss of mineral and indirectly

promote illegal mining.

(k)Cluster situation shall be examined. A cluster is formed

when one mining lease of homogenous mineral is within 500

meters of the other mining lease. In order to reduce the cluster

formation mining lease size should be defined in such a way

that distance between any two clusters preferably should not

be less than 2.5 Km. Mining lease should be defined in such a

way that the total area of the mining leases in a cluster should

not be more than 10 Ha.

(l)The number of a contiguous cluster needs to be

ascertained. Contiguous cluster is formed when one cluster is

at a distance of 2.5 Km from the other cluster.

(m)The mining outside the riverbed on Patta land/Khatedari

15

land be granted when there is possibility of replenishment of

material. In case, there is no replenishment then mining lease

shall only be granted when there is no riverbed mining

possibility within 5 KM of the Patta land/Khatedari land. For

government projects, mining could be allowed on Patta

land/Khatedari land but the mining should only be done by the

Government agency and material should not be used for sale

in the open market. Cluster situation as mentioned in para k

above is also applicable for the mining in Patta land/Khatedari

land.

(n)The State Government should define the transportation

route from the mining lease considering the maximum

production from the mines as at this stage the size of mining

leases, their location, the quantity of mineral that can be mined

safely etc. is available with the State Government. It is

suggested that the transportation route should be selected in

such a way that the movement of trucks/tippers/tractors from

the villages having habitation should be avoided. The

transportation route so selected should be verified by the State

Government for its carrying capacity.

(o) Potential site for mining having its impact on the forest,

protected area, habitation, bridges etc, shall be avoided. For

this, a sub-divisional committee may be formed which after

the site visit shall decide its suitability for mining.

(p)Public consultation-The comments of the various

stakeholders may be sought on the list of mining lease to be

auctioned. The State Government shall give an advertisement

in the local and national newspaper for seeking comments of

the general public on the list of mining lease included in the

DSR.

16

16.Para 4.2 of the EMGSM-2020 relates to grant of Letter of

Intent to those mining leases which are falling in potential mining

zones. It reads as under :-

“The State Government shall issue letter of intent as per

procedure laid down in their Minor Mineral Concession

Rules with due consideration of final district survey report.

The State Government shall ensure that all the letter of intent

shall have complete details of the mining lease including

geo- coordinate of the corner points, the involvement of

forest land, distance from the forest land, distance from the

protected area, distance from other sites of archaeological

importance, details of the cluster situation etc. The

demarcation of the boundaries of LoI/Lease area shall be

placed in public domain along with LoI/lease deed details.

The LOI should not be granted for mining area falling

on both riverbed and outside riverbed. Therefore, in the

same lease, both types of area should not be included.

The authority responsible for grant of lease for sand

mining shall ensure that annual audit of the sand mining

process, production and compliance of the imposed

conditions by regulatory authority (Environmental clearance

or mine plan) shall be one of the essential condition of the

lease agreement. The annual audit report shall be submitted

to the district administration, which shall be put in public

domain through the district website. Any deviation observed

shall be appropriately and in accordance with applicable law

shall be dealt by the concerned authority and corrective

measures shall also be taken to restoration of

ecological/environmental damage, if observed.”

17.Para 4.3 deals with preparation of mining plan which reads as

follows:-

“The preparation of Mining Plan is also very

important. The mining plan should include the original

ground level recorded at an interval not more than 10M x

10M along & across the length of the river. In addition to

this levels, outside the mining lease and bank of the river up

to meters needs to be recorded. In the mining plan, there

should be 3 plates for each year production & development

planning (pre-monsoon, monsoon and post-monsoon). The

time period of monsoon should be defined in the DSR. At

the time of review of the mining plan, the details of the

replenishment study conducted for all the years needs to be

included in the mining plan. The Mining Plan should include

17

the certificate from PCCF on forest land, distance from the

protected area, past production details for mining leases

seeking expansion.”

18.The considerations that are required to be kept in mind for

sand/gravel mining for approving mining plan have been specified,

relevant provisions of which, for purpose of this case are mentioned

below:-

(i)Parts of the river reach that experience deposition or

aggradation shall be identified. The Leaseholder/

Environmental Clearance holder may be allowed to extract the

sand and gravel deposit in these locations to manage

aggradation problem.

(ii) The distance between sites for sand and gravel mining

shall depend on the replenishment rate of the river. Sediment

rating curve for the potential sites shall be developed and

checked against the extracted volumes of sand and gravel.

(iii)Sand and gravel may be extracted across the entire

active channel during the dry season.

(iv)Abandoned stream channels on the terrace and inactive

floodplains be preferred rather than active channels and their

deltas and flood plains. Stream should not be diverted to form

inactive channel.

(v)Layers of sand and gravel which could be removed from

the river bed shall depend on the width of the river and

replenishment rate of the river.

(vi)The sediment sampling should include the bed material

and bed material load before, during and after the extraction

period. Develop a sediment rating curve at the upstream end of

the potential reach using the surveyed cross-section. Using the

historical or gauged flow rating curve, determine the suitable

period of high flow that can replenish the extracted volume.

18

Calculate the extraction volume based on the sediment rating

curve and high flow period after determining the allowable

mining depth.

(vii)Mining depth should be restricted to 3 meters and

distance from the bank should be 1/4

th

or river width and

should not be less than 7.5 meters.

19. Para 5 of the EMGSM-2020 provides for replenishment study,

which reads as follows:-

“5.0 Replenishment Study

The need for replenishment study for river bed sand is

required in order to nullify the adverse impacts arising due

to excessing sand extraction. Mining within or near riverbed

has a direct impact on the stream's physical characteristics,

such as channel geometry, bed elevation, substratum

composition and stability, in-stream roughness of the bed,

flow velocity, discharge capacity, sediment transport

capacity, turbidity, temperature etc. Alteration or

modification of the above attributes may cause an impact on

the ecological equilibrium of the riverine regime,

disturbance in channel configuration and flow-paths. This

may also cause an adverse impact on in-stream biota and

riparian habitats. It is assumed that the riparian habitat

disturbance is minimum if the replenishment is equal to

excavation for a given stretch. Therefore, to minimize the

adverse impact arising out of sand mining in a given river

stretch, it is imperative to have a study of replenishment of

material during the defined period.

5.1Generic Structure of Replenishment Study

Initially replenishment study requires four surveys.

The first survey needs to be carried out in the month of April

for recording the level of mining lease before the monsoon.

The second survey is at the time of closing of mines for

monsoon season. This survey will provide the quantity of the

material excavated before the offset of monsoon. The third

survey needs to be carried out after the monsoon to know the

quantum of material deposited/replenished in the mining

lease. The fourth survey at the end of March to know the

quantity of material excavated during the financial year. For

the subsequent years, there will be a requirement of only

three surveys. The results of year-wise surveys help the state

government to establish the replenishment rate of the river.

Based on the replenishment rate future auction may be

19

planned.

The replenishment period may vary on nature of the

channel and season of deposition arising due to variation in

the flow. Such period and season may vary on the

geographical and precipitation characteristic of the region

and requires to be defined by the local agencies preferable

with the help of the Central Water Commission and Indian

Meteorological Department. The excavation will, therefore,

be limited to estimated replenishment estimated with

consideration of other regulatory provisions.”

(emphasis supplied)

20.Paragraph 6 of the EMGSM-2020 provides for enforcement.

The mining operation and post environment clearance monitoring

are being below for purpose of this case :-

“6.1 Mining Operation:

The mining operations should be strictly carried out

in accordance with the approved mining plan and after

complying with all the conditions stipulated in

Environmental & Other Statutory Clearance. Mine owner

shall follow the operational procedure (for sale, dispatch,

storage, reserve reconciliation and transportation) as may be

defined by the concerned state government in its monitoring

guidelines. Mine owner should comply with the

recommendation and suggestion made by the High Power

Committee as applicable.

6.2 Post Environment Clearance Monitoring:

It's the responsibility of the EC Holder to comply

with the Environmental Clearance conditions and upload the

six-monthly EC compliance report on the website of the

Ministry. For the category, ‘A' mines (>100 Ha individual &

cluster) Regional Office of the MoEF&CC are entrusted to

carry out EC Monitoring and for the Category ‘B' Mines by

SEIAA. The monitoring shall be carried out as per the

procedure/schedule suggested by MoEF&CC from time to

time. MOEF&CC vide its notification S.O. 637(E) dated

28.02.2014 has delegated the power to State/Union Territory

Environmental Impact Assessment Authority to issue show

cause notice to project proponent in case of violation of

Conditions of Environmental Clearance issued by the said

authority and to issue direction for keeping the said EC in

abeyance or withdrawing it. Thus, for category ‘B’ (0 to 100

Ha) projects SEIAAs are responsible for EC monitoring.

21.Paragraph 8, and particularly Paragraph 8.1 deal with the

20

general approach to sustainable sand mining and prerequisite for

starting sand mining operation and are as follows:-

“8.0General Approach to Sustainable Sand Mining

8.1Pre-requisite for starting sand mining operation

i)All district to prepare a comprehensive mining plan

for the district as per the provision of District Survey Report.

These reports shall be put on the website of District

Administration. No mining shall be allowed in the area

which has not been identified in the comprehensive mining

plan of the District.

ii)Replenishment study should be conducted on regular

basis.

iii)All potential rivers mining zone/area shall be

identified and put for auction with proper geo-tagged details

by the auctioning authority concerned.

iv)The latitude and longitude of each mining lease shall

be clearly mentioned in Letter of Intent issued to the

potential mine lease. Such information shall be provided on

the website of the district administration.

v)The provision of these guidelines shall be considered

while identifying the potential stretches /locations and

boundaries of the leases for the minable area.

vi)The LoI holder shall seek Environmental Clearance

as per the provision of EIA Notification, and the regulatory

authority shall ensure that the provision suggested in

“Sustainable Sand Mining & Management 2016" and in this

documents, as applicable are part of the clearance

conditions.

vii)There shall be no river bed mining operation allowed

in monsoon period. The period as defined by IMD Nagpur

for each state shall be adhered with.

viii) The monitoring infrastructures including weighbridge

and adequate fencing of the lease area, CCTV, Transport

permits, etc, as suggested in this document shall be ensured

in order to reduce unrecorded dispatch.

ix) Regular monitoring of mined minerals and its

transportation and storage shall be ensured and all

information shall be captured at centralized database so that

easy tracking of illegal material can be done.

x) Annual audit of each mining lease shall be carried out

wherein three independent member of repute, nominated by

District administration shall also participate.”

22.Thus, perusal of the EMGSM-2020 guidelines reflects that the

Central Government has made provisions for undertaking detailed

21

exercise by taking into account several environmental factors with

regard to enforcement and monitoring of sand mining.

23.The concerns of the Central Government as reflected in the

aforesaid guidelines also find echo in Rules 10, 17 of Chapter II,

Rule 23 of Chapter IV, Rules 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42, 45 of Chapter V

and other provisions of Rules, 2021. It is pertinent to mention here

that the State Government also made the U.P. Minerals (Prevention

of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2018.

24.It is pertinent to mention here that a defining moment for

environmentally sustainable and socially responsible mining of sand

and gravel occurred when the Supreme Court expressed its opinion

in this regard in the case of Deepak Kumar & Ors. vs. State of

Haryana & Ors.

12

wherein a direction was issued to the State

Governments to follow the guidelines issued by the Central

Government by framing appropriate rules. Pursuant to the order in

Deepak Kumar, after extended deliberations and study, a draft

Notification

13

was issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and

Climate Change on 15.1.2016 bearing S.O. 141(E) under the

provision of sub-section (1) and clause (v) of sub-section (2) of

Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. This draft

Notification of 2016 was for the express purpose for making certain

amendments to the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification,

2006 issued vide number S.O. 1533(E) dated 14.9.2006 which was

published under sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection)

Rules, 1986 vide number S.O. 2588(E) dated 22.9.2015. The aforesaid

Notification was also issued in compliance of certain observations

made by the National Green Tribunal vide its order dated 13.1.2015

in the matter of sand mining wherein a direction was issued for

12(2012) 4 SCC 629

13Notification of 2016

22

making a policy on environmental clearance for mining leases in

cluster for minor mineral.

25.It is important to note that in the case of Deepak Kumar

(supra), a Committee was directed by the Supreme Court to examine

whether there had been an attempt to flout the aforesaid Notification

dated 14.9.2006 by breaking the homogeneous area into pieces of

less than 5 hectares, and that whether the activities going on in that

area had any adverse environmental impact.

The Supreme Court recorded a finding that it was without

conducting any study on the possible environmental impact on/in the

river beds and elsewhere, the auction notices had been issued. The

Supreme Court was of the considered view that when faced with a

situation where extraction of alluvial material within or near a river

bed has an impact on the river’s physical habitat characteristics, like

river stability, flood risk, environmental degradation, loss of habitat,

decline in biodiversity, it was not an answer to say that the extraction

(of sand etc.) was in blocks of less than 5 hectares, separated by 1

km., because their collective impact may be significant, hence

necessity of a proper environmental assessment plan.

26.In the case of Deepak Kumar (supra), the issues and

recommendations made by the Ministry were considered which

provided for, inter alia, that the States and Union Territories would

see that mining of minor minerals is subjected to simpler but strict

regulatory regime after taking into account the various factors. For

evolving model guidelines, draft Model Guidelines regarding

Environmental Aspect of Quarrying and of Minor Minerals was sent

by a communication from the Ministry of Mines, calling for inputs.

Accordingly, directions were issued to the Central and States

Governments regarding compliance to the recommendations made

23

by the Ministry in its report of March 2010 and the Model

Guidelines framed by the Ministry of Mines.

27.By the Notification of 2016, an amendment was sought to be

incorporated in the Notification of 2006 regarding preparation of

DSR for sand mining or river bed mining and mining of other minor

minerals. An elaborate procedure prescribed for preparation of DSR

for sand mining or river bed mining and mining of other minor

minerals\ has been given in Appendix X thereof.

Needless to state that the Notification of 2016 issued by the

Ministry is binding on the State Government.

28.In view of the aforesaid background, after a declaration has

been made by the State Government under sub-rule (1) of Rule 23 of

the Rules, 2021, the District Officer is mandatorily required to get

the area or areas so declared evaluated for quality and quantity of

minerals for fixing the minimum bid or offer by the Director,

Geology and Mining, Uttar Pradesh or by an officer authorised by

him before the date fixed for e-tender/e-auction/e tender-cum-e

auction. Such an evaluation is mandatory and has to be done after

taking into account the various factors mentioned in Rule 10 of the

Rules, 2021. The guidelines in the EMGSM-2020 for preparation of

DSR are also factors for such evaluation.

29.As stated above, pre- & post- monsoon replenishment studies

are mandated in the EMGSM-2020 guidelines and the same are an

extension of the survey, demarcation and evaluation of the area or

areas declared under Rule 23. The purpose of the survey and the

evaluation that are requisites under the provisions of Chapter II and

Chapter IV of the Rules, 2021 are to inform the prospective bidders

at the auction/tender mining leases for minor minerals (sand and

24

morrum in this case) so that the prospective bidders are well aware

as to the quantity and quality of the minerals available in the

declared area before they place their bids. The State Government

cannot put the onus on the prospective bidders by stating that it is the

bidders who should undertake an inspection of the area and satisfy

themselves as to the quality and quantity of the minerals available at

the area proposed to be leased, when the Rules, 2021 and the

EMGSM-2020 guidelines require the State Government to undertake

that exercise.

30.The guidelines contained in the SSMMG-2016 and in the

EMGSM-2020 have been framed taking into account the judgments

of the Supreme Court, the High Courts and the NGT. These

guidelines appear to have been issued by the Central Government in

purported exercise of power to issue directions under Section 20-A

of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act,

1957

14

. The importance of the survey/evaluation by the State

authorities in the interest of the ecology and environment in respect

of the areas proposed to be leased under the Rules, 2021 cannot be

over-emphasized. It is the only available and prescribed manner by

which the State Government can make a realistic assessment as to

the extent to which mining can be permitted in the leased area after

taking into account the fragility of the ecology, the flora and fauna

and the rivers, as well as the impact on the environment.

31.As mentioned above, both a pre-monsoon survey and a post-

monsoon survey were got done by the petitioner as per the

instructions received from the State authorities. Without getting the

replenishment studies done, the petitioner could not re-commence

mining operations. As a matter of fact, the petitioner had submitted a

14Act, 1957

25

second post-monsoon replenishment study report on 8.1.2024 that

reflected replenished minerals on the said lease as 16380 cubic

meters. It was also stated in that replenishment study report that this

mineral quantity may increase in future once water recedes down

(sic). The State-respondents, in their counter affidavit, have sought

to dismiss a replenishment study report by a baseless statement, in

their counter affidavit, that analysis and conclusion of the

replenishment study report dated 29.10.2023 that no mining activity

can be done at all, is unworthy of being relied upon.

32.It is is not the case of the respondents that the replenishment

studies that were got done by the petitioner were by an agency not

accredited to NAPET/QCI, or that the agency was not empanelled as

an Exploration Agency by the Department, or that the replenishment

studies were made contrary to guidelines. It has also not been stated

that the DSR/ evaluation for the leased area was available for being

accessed by the petitioner. As a matter of fact the EMGSM-2020

guidelines reflect that often it is observed that letter of intent is

granted for a location which has less potential for mining and not

feasible for environment-friendly mining; that this leads to

unnecessary financial burden on the mine owners and litigations;

that thus, letter of intent should be preferably granted for those

locations which have the least possibility of an impact on the

environment and nearby habitation.

33.In the counter affidavit, the respondents have also stated that

the petitioner could have surrendered the lease under the provisions

of Rule 30 of the Rules, 2021 which it did not do. In our opinion,

such objections and defences cannot be taken by the respondents to

gloss over their inability in producing any evidence before this Court

that a survey and evaluation was undertaken in respect of the area

26

granted for mining lease to the petitioner and a DSR relating to the

area of mining lease to the petitioner was made by the respondents in

compliance of the Notification of 2016/SSMMG-2016 / EMGSM-

2020 which DSR was accessible to the petitioner prior to submitting

its bid.

34.Moreover, the notice of the Officer Incharge, Mines dated

2.6.2023 that is enclosed as Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition gives

a categorical direction to the petitioner to get the requisite

replenishment studies done and submit the same, failing which legal

proceedings would be initiated against the petitioner. It is not

demonstrated by the respondents that the petitioner did not intend to

work the mines under the mining lease.

35.In paragraph 39 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated

that without the replenishment study report, no mining can be

conducted in the mining area after monsoon and, moreover, the first

post-monsoon replenishment study report clearly showed that the

mining area was submerged.

Further, in paragraph 40 of the writ petition, it has been stated

that the revisional authority as well as the District Magistrate had

failed to consider that the quantity of mineral to be excavated during

the period of lease is fixed by the State Government and the

petitioner has no control over the quantity and, therefore, it is the

State Government which fixes the quality and quantity to be

excavated by the lease-holder during the period of lease.

36.In reply to the aforesaid paragraphs of the writ petitions, the

respondents have referred to the statutory provisions referred

elsewhere in the counter affidavit and the conditions of lease-deed as

well as the obligation of the lease-holder to perform his part of the

contract. It has been stated that the petitioner cannot change or alter

27

the terms of the lease-deed according to his own convenience

thereby causing loss to the State exchequer.

Moreover, this Court finds that in the reply, references have

only been made to the Rule 29 of the Rules, 1963 and to Rule 30 of

the Rules, 2021. Rule 29 of the Rules, 1963 deals with the execution

of the lease-deed, while Section 30 of the Rules, 2021 deals with

surrender of the mining lease. We fail to understand how this meets

the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. The respondents

allege that the petitioner is trying to “wriggle out of a contract at his

own mood swings, inasmuch as according to the own replenishment

report to the petitioner at one place he says that no amount of sand

is available for mining purposes and on the other hand in the second

report estimates 16380 cubic meter is available for mining

purposes”. Such a statement, in our opinion, is misplaced, uncalled

for and without proper understanding of the EMGSM-2020.

37.In paragraph 44 of the writ petition, it is stated as follows:-

“44.That, in the above-mentioned guidelines it was clearly

stated that the object and purpose of DSR was to identify a

minable area and thereby assessment of the minable quantity

and quality of the minerals, which was supposed to be

ascertained prior to the invitation to offer (E-auction/E-

tender /Advertisement) which was not acted in compliance

by the respondent authority.”

38.In reply thereto, it has been stated in the counter affidavit as

follows:-

“32. That the averments made in paragraph no. 43, 44, 45,

46, 47, 48, 49 and 50 of the writ petition are legal in nature

and hence need no specific reply however it is humbly

submitted that the said cases as cited by the petitioner are

not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present

case and shall be duly distinguished at the time of hearing of

the present writ petition. The principles laid down in the writ

petition are based on mis-appreciation of facts and the legal

28

principles and do not provide for and shall suitably been

distinguished at the time of hearing of the present writ

petition.”

39.It is pertinent to mention here that it has not been stated in the

counter affidavit filed by the respondents that any DSR was prepared

after due survey and evaluation of the area sought to be auctioned.

No DSR has been produced. Therefore, we cannot but conclude that

the State Government has failed to demonstrate preparation of the

DSR in due compliance of the Notification of 2016/SSMMG-2016

and EMGSM-2020 guidelines. Moreover, the respondents have

openly rejected the first post-monsoon replenishment study report

submitted by the petitioner without ascribing any cogent reason for

such rejection.

40. The object of preparation of DSR is to ensure identification of

areas of aggradation/deposition where mining can be allowed;

identification of areas of erosion and proximity to infrastructural

structures and installation where mining should be prohibited; and

calculation of annual rate of replenishment and allowing time for

replenishment after mining in the area. Thus, environmental

protection requires strictly regulated mining in terms of area,

quantity of mineral as well as, and very importantly, replenishment

thereof.

41.The mining lease was granted in the land described in Part-I of

the Schedule to the lease deed, in Village-Bilaspur Kachhar, Plot

No.58 area 8.275 hectares for which the security amount was

deposited. The boundaries of Plot No.58 are shown as follows:-

North - Remaining part of Plot No.58, river Yamuna

South - Border of Plot No.58 thereafter river Yamuna in

village -Bichhavali

29

East - Remaining part of Plot No.58, thereafter agricultural

land of Plot Nos.42 to 56 and Plot No.57

West - Remaining part of Plot No.58, river Yamuna

Though the map has not been enclosed alongwith the

photocopy of the mining lease, it appears from the boundaries that

mining area under the lease granted to the petitioner may include the

river bed of the Yamuna river.

Given the EMGSM-2020 guidelines, it is not only the

availability of mineral after its replenishment as would be reflected

in the post monsoon replenishment study, but also the fact that at

which part of the river bed/bank, has the replenishment occurred.

42.Thus, the annual audit envisaged under the aforesaid

EMGSM-2020 guidelines and the replenishment study, both pre-

monsoon and post-monsoon, assume great importance keeping in

view the environment and ecology of the mining area. Mining within

or near river-beds has a direct impact on the stream's physical

characteristics, such as channel geometry, bed elevation, substratum

composition and stability, in-stream roughness of the bed, flow

velocity, discharge capacity, sediment transport capacity, turbidity,

temperature etc. Alteration or modification of the above attributes

may cause an impact on the ecological equilibrium of the riverine

regime, disturbance in channel configuration and flow-paths. This

may also cause an adverse impact on in-stream biota and riparian

habitats. It is assumed that the riparian habitat disturbance is

minimum if the replenishment is equal to excavation for a given

stretch. Therefore, the EMGSM-2020 guidelines recommends that it

is imperative to have a study of replenishment of material during the

defined period to minimize the adverse impact arising out of sand

mining in a given river stretch. The EMGSM-2020 guidelines

provides that the excavation will be limited to estimated

30

replenishment estimated with consideration of other regulatory

provisions.

43.Therefore, the fact that the second post-monsoon

replenishment study dated 8.1.2024 reflects replenishment of 16380

cubic meters of sand available for mining purpose has to be read in

light of the location where this deposit/replenishment has taken place

in the given river stretch. Then, it has to be ascertained in the light

of EMGSM-2020, whether such replenishment is minable.

44.The respondents seem to be quite oblivious of the importance

of proper replenishment, the mining plan and the DSR when they

seek to raise demands and make claims without addressing the

ecological concerns that are reflected in the EMGSM-2020

guidelines that also address the aspect of sustainable mining.

45.The respondents have sought to demonstrate the excavation of

85810 cubic meters of sand between January 2023 to June 2023

made by the petitioner during mining operations in the mining lease

area only to seek to contend that the petitioner is short by 24247

cubic meters of the total mining of 110057 cubic meters permissible

per annum under the terms of the lease which can be made good by

the petitioner once the water level of the recedes down. However,

such an assertion is made on the presumption that adequate

replenishment will take place in the area, without due regard to the

ecological aspects that require consideration during mining

operations and thereafter as reflected in the EMGSM-2020

guidelines.

46. In case no adequate replenishment takes place even after water

of river recedes down, then any advance payment of installments by

the petitioner would result in serious loss to it which eventuality is

31

neither contemplated in the lease deed nor in the Rules, 2021.

Therefore the contention sought to be made that payment of

installment should be made by the petitioner and eMM-11 forms be

uploaded to the extent of carried forward quantity of minerals which

could not have been mined in the preceding months till March 2024,

is fallacious.

47.There appears to be an effort to extract revenue from mining

operations for benefit of the State exchequer without empathy and

consideration of ecology, and sustainable mining, which aspects

have to be balanced with the imperatives of development and

earnings for the State exchequer.

48. No doubt, there is a contract, the lease-deed, entered into

between the respondents and the petitioner, the terms of which bind

them both. However, the terms of the lease-deed cannot override the

aforesaid Notification of 2016, the SSMMG-2016, EMGSM-2020

guidelines and the Act and Rules.

49.It is pertinent to mention here that in the counter affidavit, the

respondents harp on the availability of 16380 cubic meter of

replenished sand and that the second replenishment study report

reflects that after water recedes in the post-monsoon season, the

mineral quantity may increase in future once the water recedes

down.

Apart from the fact that this statement in the counter affidavit

is based upon without fully appreciating the opinion expressed in the

post monsoon replenishment study conducted on 8.1.2024 which

also stated that no significant replenishment of RBM was found as

no turbulent flooding was observed in that year, the post monsoon

replenishment study on 29.10.2023 reflects that the entire leased area

was submerged under active stream of river Yamuna and a very

32

small patch of surface was seen which belonged to the replenished

area. It was highly recommended that the lease holder shall await

receding of water for further survey. Whereafter the leased area

could be re-investigated for DGPS data in order to establish

replenished sand minerals. It was, therefore, stated that mining

activity was, therefore, not feasible in compliance of the

recommendation of SSMMG-2016.

50.Due and timely payment of installments under the terms of a

mining lease is based on winning existing minerals for which the

lease is granted which corresponds to the quality and quantity

contemplated in the DSR and the replenishment studies, particularly,

the post-monsoon replenishment study. If the post-monsoon

replenishment study does not reflect adequate replenishment in the

manner and to the extent envisaged in the EMGSM-2020, no mining

can be permitted in the area pertaining to the mining lease. As a

corollary, for want of adequate replenishment of the mineral or non-

availability of mineral in the requisite quantity in various other parts

of the area for which lease has been granted, neither can any mining

activity be permitted nor, consequently, can any claim for

installments be sustained unless there is actual replenishment or

availability. It is for these circumstances that preparation of proper

DSR and conducting audit assumes importance.

51.In the aforesaid background, we find that the case of the

petitioner has merit. The petitioner could not have been forced to

mine the relatively meagre amount of 16380 cubic meters of

replenished sand that was reflected in the last replenishment study

report submitted by the petitioner without ascertaining whether the

replenishment that had taken place in the stretch of land/river was

such that mining of the same could be permitted in the backdrop of

33

sustainable mining. There is no DSR shown to have been prepared.

52.As far as filing of Writ-C No.9186 of 2022 by the petitioner

before the Lucknow Bench of this Court is concerned, the same is

for a different cause of action. However, the petitioner’s choosing

both the Lucknow Bench of this Court as well as at Allahabad to file

different petitions, is not proper. Be that as it may.

53. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned orders dated

18.4.2024, 27.2.2024 and 19.2.2024 cannot be sustained and are

hereby quashed.

54.However, since, by means of an affidavit filed alongwith a

stay application on 9.12.2024, we are informed that steps have been

taken by the State Government for fresh auction of the mining area

that was granted to the petitioner, we direct that the petitioner is not

liable to deposit any installment after the stoppage of mining

operations for the period from 1.7.2023 onwards. If any amount has

been deposited/recovered/confiscated by/against the petitioner, the

same shall be refunded within a period of one month from today

alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum calculated from the date

of such deposit/recovery/confiscation till the actual payment.

55.Subject to the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is

allowed.

56.However, before parting, we deem it fit to direct the

respondents to ensure preparation of DSR in respect of every area

sought to be auctioned for mining of sand/gravel/morrum in

compliance of the Notification of 2006, as amended by the

Notification of 2016, the SSMMG-2016 and EMGSM-2020.

Order Date :- 26.3.2025

SK