REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3661­3662 OF 2020

THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS        ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

PAWAN KUMAR AND OTHERS  ETC.         ...RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Per Court

1.The present appeals challenge the judgment and order

dated   14

th

  October   2020,   passed   by   the   National   Green

Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as

“the   Tribunal”)   in   O.A.   No.   40/2020/EZ   with   O.A.   No.

57/2020/EZ, thereby issuing the following directions:­

1

(i)“Having regard to the findings at (a), (b) and (c)

above, we direct the State to undertake further

exercise for preparation of a fresh DSR for the

Banka district. 

(ii)As   the   DEIAA   is   not   functioning   as   a

consequence of the decision of the Tribunal in

Satendra   Pandey  (supra),   the   DSR   shall   be

prepared through a consultant(s) accredited by

the National Accreditation Board of Education

and Training/Quality Control Council of India

in   terms   of   O.M.   of   MoEF   &   CC   dated

16.03.2010. 

(iii)The DSR so prepared shall be submitted to the

District Magistrate who shall verify the DSR

only in respect of the relevant facts pertaining

to the physical and geographical features of

the district which shall be distinct from the

scientific   findings   based   on   the   parameters

2

prescribed in the SSMMG­ 2016. After such

verification,   the   District   Magistrate   shall

forward   the   DSR   for   examination   and

evaluation   by   the   State   Expert   Appraisal

Committee (SEAC) having regarding to the fact

that   the   SEIAA   comprises   of

technical/scientific   experts.   The   SEAC   after

appraisal of the report shall forward it to the

SEIAA   for   consideration   and   approval   if   it

meets all scientific/technical requirements. 

(iv)While   preparing   the   DSR,   the   MoEF   &   CC

Accredited   Agency/Consultant   shall

scrupulously   follow   the   procedure   and   the

parameters laid down under the SSMMG­2016

and   EMGSM­2020   read   in   sync   with   each

other.”

3

2.The   appellant­State   of   Bihar   has   assailed   the   said

judgment   and   order   dated   14

th

  October   2020,   on   various

grounds.  

3.Shri   Atmaram   Nadkarni,   learned   Senior   Counsel

appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar submitted that the

Tribunal has grossly erred in holding that unless the State

Expert Appraisal Committee (hereinafter referred to as “SEAC”)

and   the   State   Environment   Impact   Assessment   Authority

(hereinafter   referred   to   as   “SEIAA”)   grants   approval   to   the

District Survey Report (hereinafter referred to as “DSR”) for the

purpose of mining of sand, the same cannot be carried out.  He

submitted that the Tribunal has further held that the very

invitation   of   the   tenders   without   preparing   the   DSR   in

accordance with the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of

Satendra Pandey v. Ministry of Environment, Forest  and

Climate Change and Another

1

 could not have been done.  He

submitted that after the tenders are invited in accordance with

the   DSR   prepared   by   the   District   Level   Committee,   the

1 O.A. No. 186 of 2016 (M.A. No. 350/2016)

4

successful bidder will be required to prepare a mining plan and

unless such a mining plan is approved by SEAC and SEIAA, the

Environmental Clearance would not be granted and in turn,

mining activities cannot be carried out.  He submitted that the

finding of the Tribunal is like putting the cart before the horse.

He further submitted that the Tribunal has also grossly erred in

holding that the DSRs prepared by the State were without

following the requisite procedure and without considering the

relevant factors.  He submitted that not only the procedure as

prescribed   under   the   relevant   rules   and   regulations   was

complied with, but the voluminous material in support of the

same   was   also   placed   on   record   before   the   Tribunal.   He

submitted that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration

the said material. He therefore submitted that the judgment

and order passed by the Tribunal dated 14

th

  October 2020,

needs to be set aside and the State needs to be permitted to

finalize the tenders received by it.

4.Shri Nadkarni further submitted that on account of the

orders passed by the Tribunal, the old lessees are continuing

5

with the mining activities by paying a meagre amount to the

State Government.  He therefore submitted that on account of

this, a huge loss would be caused to the public exchequer.  In

the alternative, he submitted that the State, at least, needs to

be permitted to undertake mining activities through Bihar State

Mining Corporation until the DSRs are finalized in accordance

with the judgment of the Tribunal.

5.Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior Counsel appearing on

behalf   of   the   original   applicant   vehemently   opposed   the

appeals.  He submitted that the Tribunal has rightly held that

the DSRs are not prepared in accordance with the relevant

rules as well as policy guidelines.   He submitted that it is

apparently clear that the State has taken into consideration

only   financial   enrichment   without   considering   the

environmental aspects.

6.Though, we have heard the learned counsel for both the

parties at length on merits, we find that it will be appropriate

6

that the appeals are kept pending for further consideration and

till then, certain interim orders are passed.

7.It cannot be in dispute that though the developmental

activities are not stalled, the environmental issues are also

required to be addressed. A balanced approach of sustainable

development ensuring environmental safeguards, needs to be

resorted to.  At the same time, it also cannot be ignored that

when legal mining is banned, it gives rise to mushroom growth

of illegal mining, resulting into clashes between sand mafias,

criminalization   and   at   times,   loss   of   human   lives.     It   also

cannot be disputed that sand is required for construction of

public infrastructural projects as well as public and private

construction activities.  A total ban on legal mining, apart from

giving rise to illegal mining, also causes huge loss to the public

exchequer. 

8.Taking into consideration these aspects of the matter, we

propose to issue certain interim directions.

7

9.The Tribunal, in the case of  Satendra Pandey  (supra),

has found that the notification dated 15

th

 January 2016, which

provided Environmental Clearance to be given by the District

Environment Impact Assessment Authority (hereinafter referred

to as the “DEIAA”) was not in consonance with the judgment of

this Court in the case of Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana

and Others

2

.   The Tribunal therefore in  Satendra Pandey

(supra),   had   directed   Ministry   of   Environment,   Forest   and

Climate Change (hereinafter referred to as “MoEF and CC) to

take steps to revise the procedure laid down in the notification

dated 15

th

 January 2016.  It is to be noted that MoEF and CC,

in accordance with the directions of the Tribunal, had issued

Enforcement   and   Monitoring   Guidelines   for   Sand   Mining

(hereinafter   to   referred   to   as   “the   2020   guidelines”)   in   the

month of January 2020.   Chapter 4 of the 2020 guidelines

deals with identification of possible sand mining sources and

preparation of DSR.  It will be relevant to refer to Clause 4.1.1

(a), (o) and (p) of the 2020 guidelines:­

2 (2012) 4 SCC 629

8

“4.1   Identification   of   possible   sand   mining

sources   and   preparation   of   District   Survey

Report (DSR) 

4.1.1 Preparation of District Survey Report.

a)District Survey Report for sand mining shall be

prepared before the auction/e­auction/grant of the

mining   lease/Letter   of   Intent   (Loi)   by   Mining

department   or   department   dealing   the   mining

activity in respective states.

o) Potential site for mining having its impact on the

forest, protected area, habitation, bridges etc, shall

be   avoided.   For   this,   a   sub­divisional   committee

may be formed which after the site visit shall decide

its suitability for mining. The list of mining lease

after the recommendation of the Committee needs

to be defined in the following format given in as

Annexure­II.   The   Sub­Divisional   Committee   after

the site visit shall make a recommendation on the

site for its suitability of mining and also records the

reason for selecting the mining lease in the Patta

land. The details regarding cluster and contiguous

cluster needs to be provided as in  Annexure­III.

The details of the transportation need to ~e provided

as in Annexure IV. 

p)  Public   consultation­The   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

9

public on the list of mining' lease included in the

DSR.   The   DSR   should   be   placed   in   the   public

domain for at least one month from the date of

publication   of   the   advertisement   for   obtaining

comments of the general public. The comments so

received shall be placed before the sub­divisional

committee for active consideration. The final list of

sand mining areas [leases to be granted on riverbed

& Patta land/Khatedari land, de­siltation location

(ponds/lakes/dams),   M­Sand   Plants   (alternate

source of sand)] after the public hearing needs to be

defined   in   the   final   DSR   in   the   format   as   per

Annexure­V.   The   details   regarding   cluster   and

contiguous   cluster   needs   to   be   provided   in

Annexure­VI. The details of the transportation need

to be provided in Annexure­Vll.”

10.It could thus be seen that in accordance with the 2020

guidelines,   the   DSR   is   required   to   be   prepared   before   the

auction/e­auction/grant of mining lease by Mining Department

or Department dealing with mining activity in the respective

States.  It is further provided that the potential site for mining

having its impact on the forest, protected area, habitation and

bridges should be avoided. For this, a sub­divisional committee

is required to be formed which, after the site visit, is required to

decide regarding the suitability of the sites for mining.   The

10

sub­divisional   committee   is   further   required   to   record   its

reasons   for   selecting   the   mining   lease   in   the   patta   land.

Various   details   are   required   to   be   given   in   the   annexures

appended to the said policy.

11.It is further to be noted that Appendix­X of the notification

dated 15

th

 January 2016, issued by MoEF and CC also provides

for composition of the sub­divisional committee:­

“A   Sub­Divisional   Committee   comprising   of   Sub­

Divisional   Magistrate,   Officers   from   Irrigation

department,   State   Pollution   Control   Board   or

Committee, Forest department, Geology or mining

officer shall visit each site for which environmental

clearance   has   been   applied   for   and   make

recommendation on suitability of site for mining or

prohibition thereof.”

12.It   is   to   be   noted   that   with   the   advent   of   modern

technology,   various   technological   gadgets   like   Drones   and

satellite   imaging   etc.   can   be   used   for   identification   of   the

potential sites and preparation of the DSR and also to check

misuse and unauthorized mining.  

11

13.We further find that when the 2020 guidelines as well as

the notification issued by MoEF and CC of 2016 itself provide

for constitution of sub­divisional committees comprising of the

officers of the State Government from various Departments for

identification of the potential sites for mining, there would be

no   necessity   of   the   DSRs   being   prepared   through   private

consultants as directed by the Tribunal in the impugned order.

The sub­divisional committee consists of various officers from

Revenue   Department,   Irrigation   Department,   State   Pollution

Control   Board,   Forest   Department   and   Geology   Mining

Department of the State Government.  They are better equipped

to visit the sites and prepare the draft DSR for the concerned

district.  Apart from that, preparation of DSR through private

consultants   would   also   unnecessarily   burden   the   public

exchequer.  We are therefore of the view that the direction in

that regard issued by the Tribunal requires to be modified.  We

are further of the considered view that until the DSRs are

finalized   and   granted   approval   by   SEAC   and   SEIAA,   it   is

appropriate that certain necessary arrangements are permitted

12

so that the State can continue with legal mining activities.  This

apart   from   preventing   illegal   mining   activities,   would   also

ensure that the public exchequer is not deprived of its share in

legalized mining. 

14.We   therefore   find   it   appropriate   to   substitute   the

directions   issued   by   the  Tribunal   vide   judgment   and   order

dated 14

th

 October 2020, with the following directions:­

(i)The   exercise   of   preparation   of   DSR   for   the

purpose of mining in the State of Bihar in all the

districts shall be undertaken afresh.  The draft

DSRs shall be prepared by the sub­divisional

committees   consisting   of   the   Sub­Divisional

Magistrate, Officers from Irrigation Department,

State   Pollution   Control   Board   or   Committee,

Forest Department, Geological or mining officer.

The same shall be prepared by undertaking site

visits and also by using modern technology. The

said   draft   DSRs   shall   be   prepared   within   a

13

period of 6 weeks from the date of this order.

After the draft DSRs are prepared, the District

Magistrate   of   the   concerned   District   shall

forward the same for examination and evaluation

by the SEAC.   The same shall be examined by

the SEAC within a period of 6 weeks and its

report shall be forwarded to the SEIAA within

the aforesaid period of 6 weeks from the receipt

of it.   The SEIAA will thereafter consider the

grant of approval to such DSRs within a period

of 6 weeks from the receipt thereon;

(ii)Needless to state that while preparing DSRs and

the  appraisal  thereof  by  SEAC and  SEIAA,  it

should be ensured that a strict adherence to the

procedure   and   parameters   laid   down   in   the

policy of January 2020 should be followed;

(iii)Until   further   orders,   we   permit   the   State

Government   to   carry   on   mining   activities

14

through   Bihar   State   Mining   Corporation   for

which   it   may   employ   the   services   of   the

contractors. However, while doing so, the State

Government shall ensure that all environmental

concerns are taken care of and no damage is

caused to the environment.

15.List the matter after 20 weeks.

……....….......................J.

   [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

…....….......................J.

        [SANJIV KHANNA]

…….........................J.       

[B.R. GAVAI]

NEW DELHI;

NOVEMBER 10, 2021.

15