As per case facts, the Environmental Clearance for sand mining projects was granted by the authorities despite the District Survey Report (DSR) being expressly noted as deficient for lacking a ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
2025 INSC 1025 1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8055 OF 2022
UNION TERRITORY OF J & K (PREVIOUSLY
STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR) & ANR. ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
RAJA MUZAFFAR BHAT & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 68 OF 2023
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
@ DIARY NO(S). 1007 OF 2025
J U D G M E N T
Contents
1. Introduction of the issue:……………………………………………………….……2
2. Factual Background:…………………………………………………………………4
3.The Legal and Regulatory Regime:……………………………………..………….6
4. The Environment (Protection) Act:………………………………………………….7
5. EIA Notifications 1994:………………………………………………………………………. ………………….7
6. The Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006:..………….……….8
7. Decision of this Court in Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana:………….……9
8. Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2016:………………………..12
A. Establishment of District Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA) &
District Expert Appraisal Committee (DEAC) under Para 3A:…………………………………14
2
B. New category called Category B2 for sandmining in districts was introduced through
para 4(iv):……………………...…………………………………………………………………………14
C. Preparation of District Survey Report (DSR) Introduced through Para 7(iii): .................... 14
D. Procedure for preparation of DSR introduced through Appendix X: ................................... 15
E. Challenge to the Notification 2016 the direction of NGT in Satendra Pandey’s case: ... 17
9. The Sand Mining Guidelines and the Focus on Replenishment Study: ......... 18
A. Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016: ..................................... 19
B. Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020:…. .................... 22
10. Need for replenishment study:……………………………………………………25
11. Application of law to the facts of the present case……………………………27
1. Introduction of the issue:
1. In State of UP v. Gaurav Kumar
1, we have declared that a valid
and subsisting D istrict Survey Report
2 is mandatory for grant of
environmental clearance
3 for sand mining. We have also annulled
certain environmental clearances, even though recommended by
District Expert Appraisal Committee
4 and granted by District Level
Environment Impact Assessment Authority
5, on the basis that a
‘draft DSR’ is untenable
6 in law. In this appeal we take a step
further. District Survey Reports are prepared under para 7(iii) of
EIA notification dated 15.01.2016
7 following the mandatory
procedure laid down in Appendix X read with Sustainable Sand
1
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1069.
2
Hereinafter, “DSR”.
3
Hereinafter, “EC”.
4
Hereinafter, “DEAC”.
5
Hereinafter, “DEIAA”.
6
State of UP v. Gaurav Kumar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1069.
7
Issued under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
3
Mining Management G uidelines, 2016
8 and Enforcement and
Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020
9. The purpose and
objective of preparing such District Survey Report is to
scientifically locate the place for sand mining after calculation of
annual rate of replenishment for allowing mining in the area.
2. Just as forest conservation requires assessment of tree
growth rate before permitting timber harvesting to ensure that
felling of trees does not exceed tree growth , a replenishment study
enables us to take an informed decision as to whether sand mining
can be permitted without degrading the rivers’ natural balance.
Importance of replenishment study is explained in the Sand Mining
Guidelines 2020 as follows:
“The need for replenishment study for river bed sand is required
in order to nullify the adverse impacts arising due to excessive
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.”
10
8
Hereinafter, Sand Mining Guidelines, 2016.
9
Hereinafter Sand Mining Guidelines, 2020.
10
Guidelines formulated under Section 23C of MMDR Act, 1957.
4
3. It is, therefore, compelling to hold that a DSR is valid and
tenable only when a proper replenishment study is conducted.
2. Factual Background:
4. The facts germane to the issue, and necessary for disposal of
these appeals are as follows: The project proponent submitted
three proposals for undertaking mining activities in (i) Block 1,
Driegam Bridge Downstream, Shaliganga Nallah Bed Mining
Project, (ii) Block-2 Banderpora Upstream, Shaliganga Nallah Bed
Mining Project and (iii) Block 4, Panzam Bridge to Trumbi Bridge
(Lalgam) Downstream. The J&K UT Expert Appraisal Committee
(“J&K UT EAC” hereinafter) in its 81
st meeting dated 03.01.2022
discussed the said proposals and rejected the same, particularly
on grounds that the proposed area of extraction is already over-
exploited and is depleted due to heavy illegal mining. It also noted
that the DSR prepared for the concerned district was not
formulated as per guidelines as the same needs revision for
including replenishment data.
5. In the meanwhile, the project proponent received ‘Fit for
Mining Certificate’ for Blocks 1, 2 and 4 from the Geology and
Mining Department on 05.02.2022.
5
6. Following certification of mining department, the project
proponent submitted its second proposal. Having considered the
said proposal in its 87
th meeting on 02.03.2022, the J&K UT EAC
recommended the project for grant of EC. While recommending
grant of EC, the J&K UT EAC clearly recorded and reiterated that
DSR is not being formulated as per the guidelines.
7. Accepting the recommendations of the EAC, the State
Environment Impact Assessment Authority
11 granted EC to the
project proponent on 19.04.2022. While granting the EC, SEIAA
restricted the depth of mining to maximum of 1 meter in view of
“non-availability of replenishment data” in the DSR.
8. Challenge to the grant of EC: Aggrieved by the issuance of EC
dated 19.04.2022, person interested in environment, respondent
no. 1 filed an appeal before the National Green Tribunal
12 primarily
impugning the grant of EC on the grounds that;
“i. The Environmental Clearances dated 19.04.2022 were
granted without taking into account the grounds on which the
previous proposals of the project proponent were rejected and
continued to grant Environmental Clearances without due
consideration of the same;
ii. Violation of Rule 4(iv) of Jammu and Kashmir Minor Mineral
Concession, Storage, Transportation of Minerals and Prevention
of Illegal Mining Rules, 2016 which prohibits any minor mineral
concession being granted within a distance of 25 meters of any
embankment;
11
Hereinafter, “SEIAA”.
12
Hereinafter, “Tribunal”.
6
iii. The Environmental Clearances have been granted despite the
District Survey Report not being prepared in line with the
Guidelines, as noted by JKEAC;
iv. Violations of conditions of the Environmental Clearances
dated 19.04.2022 by the project proponent who undertook
certain activities strictly prohibited under the Environmental
Clearance.”
(emphasis supplied)
9. The Tribunal, vide the order impugned before us allowed the
appeal and set aside the EC dated 19.04.2022 finding it to be
violative of environmental norms. Thus, the present appeals.
3. The Legal and Regulatory Regime:
10. The significance of mining for economic development,
particularly in relation to industries involved in infrastructure
development, energy, cement etc has long been recognised. In
exercise of its legislative competence, Parliament enacted the
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957
13, for
development and regulation of mines and minerals in the country.
This legislation is , however, not concerned with safeguarding
environmental interests. For that purpose, we have the Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention
and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, and the Environment
13
Hereinafter, “MMDR Act”.
7
(Protection) Act, 1986, as well as policy measures such as the
National Mineral Policies of 2008 and 2019.
4. The Environment (Protection) Act:
11. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 is a comprehensive
legislation enacted with the object of protecting and improving the
environment. Under Sections 3 and 5 of the Act, the Central
Government is empowered to take all such measures as may be
necessary for the purpose of preventing, controlling and abating
environmental pollution.
5. EIA Notifications 1994
:
12. In exercise of the powers conferred under Sections 3 and 5,
MoEF&CC issued the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA)
Notification, 1994
14, which marked a significant shift in
environmental governance by making prior environmental
clearance mandatory for specified categories of industrial and
development projects, including mining. The Notification laid down
a procedural framework for assessing the likely environmental
impact of proposed projects, mandating submission of detailed
information, public consultation, and mitigation plans. Schedule I
14
Hereinafter, “1994 Notification”.
8
to the Notification listed 29 categories of projects requiring prior
approval, with Item 20 expressly covering mining activities. Thus,
the legislative intent was clear; no mining activity, whether new,
expanded, or modernised could proceed without rigorous
environmental scrutiny and express prior clearance from the
competent authority.
6. The Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006:
13. The regulatory framework underwent further consolidation
with the issuance of the EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006
15. The
2006 Notification introduced a more elaborate, decentralised, and
categorised approach to environmental appraisal. It classified
projects into Category A and Category B, based on their potential
environmental impact and scale, with Category A projects
requiring clearance at the Central level and Category B projects at
the State level, through the SEIAA. Para 2 of the 2006 Notification
reads as under;
2. Requirements of prior Environmental Clearance (EC):-
The following projects or activities shall require prior
environmental clearance from the concerned regulatory
authority, which shall hereinafter referred to be as the Central
Government in the Ministry of Environment and Forests for
matters falling under Category ‘A’ in the Schedule and at State
level the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority
(SEIAA) for matters falling under Category ‘B’ in the said
Schedule, before any construction work, or preparation of land
15
Hereinafter, “2006 Notification”.
9
by the project management except for securing the land, is
started on the project or activity:
(i) All new projects or activities listed in the Schedule to this
notification;
(ii) Expansion and modernization of existing projects or activities
listed in the Schedule to this notification with addition of
capacity beyond the limits specified for the concerned sector,
that is, projects or activities which cross the threshold limits
given in the Schedule, after expansion or modernization;
(iii) Any change in product - mix in an existing manufacturing
unit included in Schedule beyond the specified range.
14. Para 5, 6 and 7 gives a detailed procedure for grant of prior
EC. Further, Para 8 talks about the final stage of grant or rejection
of prior EC. Para 9 deals with the tenure and validity of an EC
while Para 10 provides for post grant monitoring. The Appendix III
enumerates the generic structure of an EIA application and its
essentials. Over the course of years, this EIA Notification, 2006
underwent various amendments further strengthening the EC
norms and laying down of detailed procedure thereto.
7. Decision of this Court in Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana:
15. While the statutory framework under the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986 and the EIA Notification of 2006 laid down
the procedural architecture for environmental clearance, judicial
intervention became necessary to address persisting regulatory
lapses, particularly in the context of sand mining. A seminal
instance of such intervention is found in Deepak Kumar v. State of
10
Haryana
16, wherein the Supreme Court examined the legality of
mining leases granted in the State of Haryana without prior
environmental appraisal. This Court deprecated the practice of
issuing auction notices for minor mineral extraction without first
conducting scientific studies to assess the environmental impact.
Emphasising the need for a precautionary approach, the Court
underscored that no mining activity, however minor, could be
permitted without an environmental clearance based on a proper
replenishment study and sustainable extraction limits. This
decision reaffirmed the necessity of grounding regulatory
approvals in scientific analysis, and has since served as a judicial
benchmark in ensuring that mining activities are aligned with
environmental safeguards. This Court held as under:
“
8…………. Sand mining on either side of the rivers, upstream
and instream, is one of the causes for environmental
degradation and also a threat to the biodiversity. Over the years,
India's rivers and riparian ecology have been badly affected by
the alarming rate of unrestricted sand mining which damage the
ecosystem of rivers and the safety of bridges, weakening of
riverbeds, destruction of natural habitats of organisms living on
the riverbeds, affects fish breeding and migration, spells
disaster for the conservation of many bird species, increases
saline water in the rivers, etc.
9. Extraction of alluvial material from within or near a streambed
has a direct impact on the stream's physical habitat
characteristics. These characteristics include bed elevation,
substrate composition and stability, instream roughness
elements, depth, velocity, turbidity, sediment transport, stream
discharge and temperature. Altering these habitat
characteristics can have deleterious impacts on both instream
16
(2012) 4 SCC 629. Hereinafter, “Deepak Kumar”.
11
biota and the associated riparian habitat. The demand for sand
continues to increase day by day as building and construction
of new infrastructures and expansion of existing ones is
continuous thereby placing immense pressure on the supply of
the sand resource and hence mining activities are going on
legally and illegally without any restrictions. Lack of proper
planning and sand management cause disturbance of marine
ecosystem and also upset the ability of natural marine processes
to replenish the sand.
10. We are expressing our deep concern since we are faced with
a situation where the auction notices dated 3-6-2011 and 8-8-
2011 have permitted quarrying, mining and removal of sand
from instream and upstream of several rivers, which may have
serious environmental impact on ephemeral, seasonal and
perennial rivers and riverbeds and sand extraction may have an
adverse effect on biodiversity as well. Further, it may also lead
to bed degradation and sedimentation having a negative effect
on the aquatic life. The rivers mentioned in the auction notices
are on the foothills of the fragile Shivalik Hills. Shivalik Hills are
the source of rivers like Ghaggar, Tangri, Markanda, etc. River
Ghaggar is a seasonal river which rises up in the outer
Himalayas between Yamuna and Satluj and enters Haryana
near Pinjore, District Panchkula, which passes through Ambala
and Hissar and reaches Bikaner in Rajasthan. River Markanda
is also a seasonal river like Ghaggar, which also originates from
the lower Shivalik Hills and enters Haryana near Ambala.
During monsoon, this stream swells up into a raging torrent,
notorious for its devastating power, as also, River Yamuna.
11. We find that it is without conducting any study on the
possible environmental impact on/in the riverbeds and
elsewhere the auction notices have been issued. We are of the
considered view that when we are faced with a situation where
extraction of alluvial material within or near a riverbed has an
impact on the river's physical habitat characteristics, like river
stability, flood risk, environmental degradation, loss of habitat,
decline in biodiversity, it is not an answer to say that the
extraction is in blocks of less than 5 ha, separated by 1 km,
because their collective impact may be significant, hence the
necessity of a proper environmental assessment plan.
* * *
25. Quarrying of river sand, it is true, is an important economic activity in the country with river sand forming a crucial raw
material for the infrastructural development and for the
construction industry but excessive instream sand and gravel
mining causes the degradation of rivers. Instream mining lowers
the stream bottom of rivers which may lead to bank erosion.
Depletion of sand in the streambed and along coastal areas
causes the deepening of rivers which may result in destruction
12
of aquatic and riparian habitats as well. Extraction of alluvial
material as already mentioned from within or near a streambed
has a direct impact on the stream's physical habitat
characteristics.
26. We are of the considered view that it is highly necessary to
have an effective framework of mining plan which will take care
of all environmental issues and also evolve a long-term rational
and sustainable use of natural resource base and also the bio-
assessment protocol. Sand mining, it may be noted, may have
an adverse effect on biodiversity as loss of habitat caused by
sand mining will affect various species, flora and fauna and it
may also destabilise the soil structure of river banks and often
leaves isolated islands. We find that, taking note of those
technical, scientific and environmental matters, MoEF,
Government of India, issued various recommendations in March
2010 followed by the Model Rules, 2010 framed by the Ministry
of Mines which have to be given effect to, inculcating the spirit of
Article 48-A and Article 51-A(g) read with Article 21 of the
Constitution
.”
(emphasis supplied)
8. Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2016:
16. The observations made by this Court in Deepak Kumar
(supra) laid down the jurisprudential foundation for requiring
scientific scrutiny, particularly through District Survey Reports
(DSRs) before permitting sand mining even at the local level.
Recognising the ecological fragility of riverbeds and the unchecked
nature of minor mineral extraction, the Central Government, in
response to the said judgment, amended the EIA Notification of
2006 on 15.01.2016, to introduce a distinct regulatory framework
for riverbed and sand mining. These amendments introduced
specific procedures for cluster-based assessments and made
replenishment studies integral to the clearance process. The
13
preamble to the amended Notification is instructive and enables
us to understand the purpose, scope, and statutory contours of
the DSR, which now forms the central point of scrutiny in the
present case. The preamble is as follows:
“And whereas, in pursuance to the order of Hon’ble Supreme
Court dated the 27th February, 2012 in I.A. No.12-13 of 2011 in
Special Leave Petition (C) No.19628-19629 of 2009, in the matter
of Deepak Kumar etc. Vs. State of Haryana and Others etc., prior
environmental clearance has now become mandatory for mining
of minor minerals irrespective of the area of mining lease;
And whereas, as a result of the above said Order of Hon’ble
Supreme Court, the number of cases which are now required to
obtain prior environmental clearance has increased
substantially;
And whereas, the Hon’ble National Green Tribunal, vide its order
dated the 13th January, 2015 in the matter regarding sand
mining has directed for making a policy on environmental
clearance for mining leases in cluster for minor minerals;
And whereas, the State Governments have represented for
streamlining the process of environmental clearance for mining
of minor mineral;
And whereas, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate
Change in consultation with State Governments has prepared
Guidelines on Sustainable Sand Mining detailing the provisions
on environmental clearance for cluster, creation of District
Environment Impact Assessment Authority and proper
monitoring of sand mining using information technology and
information technology enabled services to track the mined out
material from source to destination;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-
section (1) and clause (v) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with clause (d) of sub-
rule (3) of rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, the
Central Government hereby makes the following amendments in
the said notification, namely:-
In the said notification,-
(a) in paragraph 2, after the words "in the said Schedule", the
following words shall be inserted, namely:- "and at District level,
the District Environment Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA)
for matters falling under Category 'B2' for mining of minor
minerals in the said Schedule";
14
(b) after paragraph 3, the following paragraph shall be
inserted…”
A. Establishment of District Level Environment Impact
Assessment Authority (DEIAA) & District Expert Appraisal
Committee (DEAC) under Para 3A:
17. As is evident from the above extracted portion of the preamble
to the EIA Notification 2016, two bodies namely, the DEIAA and
DEAC have been established by inserting Para 3A to the EIA
Notification, 2006 for grant of EC to a newly introduced category
(by amending para 2), called category B2.
B. New category called Category B2 for sandmining in
districts was introduced through para 4(iv):
18. Paragraph 4 of the EIA notification 2006 relating to
categorization of projects and activities was also amended and
category B2 falling within the jurisdiction of the DEIAA, acting on
the decision and recommendation of DEAC is introduced.
C. Preparation of District Survey Report (DSR) Introduced
through Para 7(iii):
19. Para 7 of the EIA Notification 2006 is of utmost importance
as it relates to the process of EC for new projects which comprises
of four stages namely, screening, scoping, public consultation and
appraisal respectively. Para 7(ii) relates to process for expansion or
modernisation or change of project mix in existing projects. It is in
15
this paragraph relating to the process of EC in the EIA Notification
2006 that further amendment was made introducing sub-para (iii).
Introduction of para 7(iii) for the first time contemplated,
preparation of DSR for sand mining or r iver bed mining and mining
of other minor minerals. Para 7(iii) now reads as under;
“7. Stages in the Prior Environmental Clearance (EC)
Process for New Projects
(i) ….
(ii) …
(iii) Preparation of District Survey Report for Sand Mining
or River Bed Mining and Mining of other Minor Minerals:
(a) The prescribed procedure for preparation of District Survey
Report for sand mining or river bed mining and mining of other
minor minerals is given in Appendix X.
(b)The prescribed procedure for environmental clearance for
mining of minor minerals including cluster situation is given in
Appendix XI.”
D. Procedure for preparation of DSR introduced through
Appendix X:
20. Procedure for preparation of the above referred DSR under
para 7(iii) is laid down in great detail in Appendix X to the
notification. Appendix X, apart from laying down the detailed
procedure, also declares that the, “District Survey Report shall form
the basis for application for environmental clearance, preparation of
reports and appraisal of projects. The Report shall be updated once
every five years.” Appendix X is as follows;
16
“PROCEDURE FOR PREPARATION OF DISTRICT SURVEY
REPORT
The main objective of the preparation of District Survey Report
(as per the Sustainable Sand Mining Guideline) is to ensure the
following:
Identification of areas of aggradations or deposition where
mining can be allowed; and identification of areas of erosion and
proximity to infrastructural structures and installations where
mining should be prohibited and calculation of annual rate of
replenishment and allowing time for replenishment after mining
in that area.
The report shall have the following structure:
1. Introduction
2. Overview of Mining Activity in the District
3. The List of Mining Leases in the District with location, area
and period of validity
4. Details of Royalty or Revenue received in last three years
5. Detail of Production of Sand or Bajari or minor mineral in last
three years
6. Process of Deposition of Sediments in the rivers of the District
7. General Profile of the District
8. Land Utilization Pattern in the district: Forest, Agriculture,
Horticulture, Mining etc.
9. Physiography of the District
10. Rainfall: month-wise
11. Geology and Mineral Wealth
In addition to the above, the report shall contain the following:
(a) District wise detail of river or stream and other sand source.
(b) District wise availability of sand or gravel or aggregate
resources.
(c) District wise detail of existing mining leases of sand and
aggregates.
A survey shall be carried out by the DEIAA with the assistance
of Geology Department or Irrigation Department or Forest
Department or Public Works Department or Ground Water
Boards or Remote Sensing Department or Mining Department
etc. in the district.
Drainage system with description of main rivers
17
***
Methodology adopted for calculation of mineral potential
The mineral potential is calculated based on field investigation
and geology of the catchment area of the river or streams. As per
the site conditions and location, depth of minable mineral is
defined. The area for removal of the mineral in a river or stream
can be decided depending on geo-morphology and other factors,
it can be 50 % to 60 % of the area of a particular river or stream.
For example in some hill States mineral constituents like
boulders, river born Bajri, sand up to a depth of one meter are
considered as resource mineral. Other constituents like clay and
silt are' excluded as waste while calculating the mineral
potential of particular river or stream.
The District Survey Report shall be prepared for each minor
mineral in the district separately and its draft shall be placed in
the public domain by keeping its copy in Collectorate and posting
it on district's website for twenty one days. The comments
received shall be considered and if found fit, shall be
incorporated in the final Report to be finalised within six months
by the DEIAA.
The District Survey Report shall form the basis for application for
environmental clearance, preparation of reports and appraisal of
projects. The Report shall be updated once every five years.”
(emphasis supplied)
21. The 2016 amendment also introduces Appendix XI in the
context of preparation of DSR for sandmining or river bed mining
of other minor minerals. The amendment also prescribes distinct
procedure for EC for mining of minor minerals including cluster
situation.
E. Challenge to the Notification 2016 the direction of NGT in
Satendra Pandey’s case:
22. Environmental concerns were expressed that the
amendments brought about by the EIA notification 2016 did not
translate into action the mandate of this Court’s decision in
18
Deepak Kumar (supra). These concerns were considered by the
NGT in Satendra Pandey v. MoEFCC
17 wherein the following
directions were issued.
“22. For all these reasons, we direct that the procedure laid
down in the impugned Notification be brought in consonance and
in accord with the directions passed in the case of Deepak
Kumar (supra) by (i) providing for EIA, EMP and therefore, Public
Consultation for all areas from 5 to 25 ha falling under Category
B-2 at par with Category B-1 by SEAC/SIEAA as well as for
cluster situation wherever it is not provided; (ii) Form-1M be
made more comprehensive for areas of 0 to 5 ha by dispensing
with the requirement for Public Consultation to be evaluated by
SEAC for recommendation of grant EC by SEIAA instead of
DEAC/DEIAA; (iii) if a cluster or an individual lease size exceeds
5 ha the EIA/EMP be made applicable in the process of grant of
prior environmental clearance; (iv) EIA and/or EMP be prepared
for the entire cluster in terms of recommendation 5 (supra) of the
Guidelines for the purpose of recommendations 6, 7 and 8
thereof; (v) revise the procedure to also incorporate procedure
with respect to annual rate of replenishment and time frame for
replenishment after mining closure in an area; (vi) the MoEF &
CC to prepare guidelines for calculation of the cost of restitution
of damage caused to mined-out areas along with the Net Present
Value of Ecological Services forgone because of illegal or
unscientific mining.”
9. The Sand Mining Guidelines and the Focus on Replenishment
Study:
23. At this juncture, reference must be made to the Sustainable
Sand Mining Management Guidelines 2016 and Enforcement and
Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining 2020. They constitute
binding directives for regulatory authorities, and their due
observance is indispensable for safeguarding ecology and public
interest.
17
2018 SCC OnLine NGT 2388.
19
A. Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016:
24. The 2016 guidelines are based on the principle that
unregulated sand mining is unsustainable and must be controlled.
Compliance with existing and future laws is mandatory rather
than optional. Leaseholders should be allowed to self-regulate,
provided they demonstrate adherence to legal requirements.
However, if self-regulation proves ineffective, stricter enforcement
and monitoring will be necessary, with penalties imposed in
accordance with the law. Additionally, environmental protection
and public well- being must be prioritized, ensuring that natural
resources are utilized responsibly to contribute positively and
sustainably to the economy. The prime objective of the said
Guidelines is to ensure that sand mining is done in an
environmentally sustainable and socially responsible manner. The
purpose and object of the guidelines is declared as under:
“Sustainable Development is built on three pillars -
environmental, social and economic. Sustainable development
cannot be achieved if the environment is protected but poverty is
prevalent in a significant part of the population. Similarly,
sustainable development cannot be achieved through
inappropriate economic growth, if it undermines the environment
in which people and businesses exists. These Guideliness
support that fundamental concept, promoting environmental
protection, limiting negative physiological, hydrological and
social impacts under pinning sustainable economic growth.
Sand and gravel have long been used as aggregate for
construction of roads and building. Today, the demand for these
materials continues to rise. In India, the main sources of sand
20
are river flood plain, coastal sand, paleo channel sand, and sand
from agricultural fields.
River sand mining is a common practice as habitation
concentrates along the rivers and the mining locations are
preferred near the markets or along the transportation route, for
reducing the transportation cost. River sand mining can damage
private and public properties as well as aquatic habitats.
Excessive removal of sand may significantly distort the natural
equilibrium of a stream channel.
Removing sediment from the active channel bed in river interrupt
the continuity of sediment transport through the river system,
disrupting the sediment mass balance in the river downstream
and induces channel adjustments (usually incision) extending
considerable distances (commonly one kilometer or more) beyond
the extraction site.
The magnitude of the impact basically depends on the
magnitudes of the extraction relative to bed load sediment supply
and transport through the reach. Implementation of the principles
and processes outlined in this Guidelines will limit the negative
externalities of sand and gravel mining.”
25. Explaining the method and manner by which sustainable
sand and gravel mining are to be undertaken, the guidelines
provide that:
The broad principle on which any sustainable sand mining
Guidelines / policy can be based is that river/ natural resources
must be utilized for the benefit of the present and future
generation, so river resources should be prudently managed and
developed. The preparation of District Survey Report is an
important initial step.
The Processes under the Guidelines:
(a) Identification of areas of aggradation / deposition where
mining can be allowed; and identification of areas of erosion and
proximity to infrastructural structures and installations where
mining should be prohibited. Use of satellite imagery for
identifying areas of sand deposit and quantity be done.
(b) Calculation of annual rate of replenishment and allowing time
for replenishment after mining in area.
(c) Identifying ways of scientific and systematic mining.
21
(d) Identifying measures for protection of environment and
ecology.
(e) Determining measures for protection of bank erosion.
(f) A bench mark (BM) with respect to mean sea level (MSL)
should be made essential to in mining channel reaches (MCR).
Below which no mining shall be allowed.
(g) Identifying steps for conservation of mineral.
(h) Permanent gauging facilities (for discharge and sediment
both) should be made compulsory for the sites having excessive
mining in consultation with Central Water Commission or any
competent State Agency.
(i) Implementing safeguards for checking illegal and indiscrete
mining.
Following the above processes, to begin with it is important to
prepare a survey document mapping the status of sand sources
in a district. This survey should be conducted and report be
prepared for each district. Though it is an acceptable fact that
rivers cut across districts and States and every river is an
ecosystem in itself. But, keeping in view the fact that the district
is the most established unit of administration at which this kind
of survey, planning and monitoring can be ensured effectively, it
is proposed that every district will prepare this document taking
the river stretch in that district as an ecological unit and
inventorising other sources of sand in the district.
(emphasis supplied)
26. As per the 2016 Guidelines, the preparation of DSR is
essential for (i) identification of areas of aggradation/deposition
where mining can be allowed, (ii) calculation of annual rate of
replenishment, (iii) identifying ways of scientific and systematic
mining, (iv) implementing safeguards in place to ensure the mining
carried out is sustainable. The scope of the DSR should include
detailed information for each district, covering rivers, streams, and
other sand sources, along with the availability of sand, gravel, and
aggregate resources. It must also provide data on existing mining
22
leases for these materials. Additionally, the classification of mining
areas should distinguish between sections of rivers, streams, and
other sources that are suitable for sand and aggregate extraction
and those where such activities are strictly prohibited. It is further
provided that such survey document shall be prepared in the
district based on direct and indirect benefits of mining and
identification of the potential threats to the river/ stream beds in
the district.
B. Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining,
2020:
27. While the 2016 guidelines focus on management of sand
mining in the country, it was felt that there is a compelling need
to provide guidelines for effective enforcement and also prescribe
regulatory method for monitoring. With this objective, the
Enforcement and M onitoring Guidelines for S and Mining 2020
were issued. In paragraph 4, the 2020 guidelines provide the
method of identification of possible sand mining source and
preparation of the DSR and highlight that “Preparation of District
Survey Report is a very important step and sustainable sand mining
in any part of the country will depends on the quality of District
Survey Report.”
23
“4.1.1 Preparation of District Survey Report.
Sustainable Sand Mining Guidelines, 2016" issued by
MoEF&CC requires preparation of District Survey Report (DSR),
which is an important initial step before grant of mining
lease/LoI. 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, benchmark (BM) with respect to mean
Sea Level (MSL) should be made essential in mining channel
reaches (MCR) below which no mining shall be allowed.”
28. The 2020 Guidelines lay special emphasis on the necessity to
undertake replenishment study. It is provided thereunder that;
“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.
5.1 Generic 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
24
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 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.
5.2. Methodology for Replenishment Study
5.2.1 Physical Survey of the field by the conventional
method
5.2.2 Use of UAV/Drone and other image data processing
techniques
5.2.3 Accuracy Assessment of Aerial Data
5.2.4 Replenishment study shall have the details of
• List of instruments
• List of software
• Establishment of Benchmark by putting No. of pillar points and
various Ground Control Points (GCP) at the site.
• Ground Control Points (GCP) Collection: - Various GCPs were
observed by using DGPS for Permanent Benchmarks and for
control points.
• The summary of the elevation data from each section’s profile
based on the post-monsoon the survey should have mentioned
in the table form.
• The detail of post-monsoon survey data in the tabular form
shall be
• The detailed comparison of both pre-monsoon and post-
monsoon elevation data shall be attached
• Cross-sectional depiction of deposition and erosion for each
section in pre and post-deposition season shall be given
supported by relevant field study data and plan.”
25
10. Need for replenishment study:
29. From the foregoing analysis, it is apparent that in light of
Guidelines, 2016 and the Guidelines, 2020, the absence of a
replenishment study renders a DSR fundamentally defective.
These guidelines categorically require that any assessment of
mineable mineral quantity must be premised on scientific
estimation of replenishment rates, failing which the DSR lacks the
foundational data necessary to determine sustainable extraction
limits.
30. Over the past two decades, environmental statutory and
regulatory law in India has undergone significant evolution,
particularly in response to the challenges posed by unregulated
and unsustainable sand mining. Recognizing the adverse
ecological impacts of such activities, successive legal and policy
frameworks have progressively tightened the requirements for
environmental compliance. In order to appreciate the present
controversy, it was necessary to retrace the legal trajectory.
Recently, this Court has discussed, in detail, the legal regime
surrounding the preparation, nature, scope and importance of
DSR in Gaurav Kumar (supra). However, the focal point for present
discussion is the value that must be appended to replenishment
study before EC is granted to mining operations.
26
31. Demand for construction-grade sand is growing at a
tremendous rate and it is said that the world is expected to run
out of this resource by 2050. Construction-grade sand, can be
found in aquatic environments, such as rivers and is a
provisioning ecosystem service. Even under controlled
circumstances, the practice of extracting sand from the riverbed
and banks impacts the environment. In the physical environment,
the primary effects are riverbed widening and lowering. In the
biological environment, the overarching effect is a reduced
biodiversity and stretches from the aquatic and shoreline flora and
fauna to the whole floodplain area .
18 Due to easy access, river
sand and gravel have been used extensively in construction
projects. Depending on the mining operation method as well as
morphologic and hydraulic characteristics of the river, sand
mining may cause bed and bank erosion or other negative
consequences for the river eco-system. It is, therefore, necessary
to conduct appropriate studies, including that of replenishment to
explore sustainable and cost-effective methods for river mining.
19
18
E.S. Rentier, L.H. Cammeraat, The Environmental Impacts of River Sand Mining, Science
of the Total Environment, Vol. 838, Part I, 2022.
19
Hamed Haghnazar, et al - Evaluation of infilling and replenishment of river sand mining
pits, Environmental Earth Sciences, Vol. 79 (14), 2020.
27
32. Without a proper study of the existing position of the riverbed
and its sustainability for further sand mining, grant of
environmental clearances would be detrimental for the ecology. It
has therefore been held that a detailed study leading to a
preparation of the repl enishment report is an integral part of the
DSR. If the DSR becomes the foundation for consideration of an
application for environmental clearance, then it is compelling to
ensure replenishment studies are undertaken in advance and the
report forms an integral part of the DSR.
33. In view of the existing legal regime that mandates preparation
of replenishment report in a scientific manner and such a report
forming an integral part of the District Survey Report, we hold that
a District Survey Report without a proper replenishment study is
equally untenable.
11. Application of law to the facts of the present case.
34. We will now consider the facts of the present case in light of
the existing legal regime as applicable to sand mining. The Union
Territory of Jammu & Kashmir, Department of Geology and Mining
is said to have prepared the DSR of all the districts during the year
2017-18 as per the MoEF&CC notification. The National Highway
Authority of India awarded a contract to the project proponent on
28
30.03.2021 for construction of a 4- lane bypass/ring road around
Srinagar City. By its letter dated 07.05.2021, it directed the
department to grant permission for mining at the identified sites
to the project proponent to enable it to undertake the project. The
Government also directed the project proponent to apply for
permission under Rule 91 of the J&K Minor Mineral Concession,
Storage, Transportation of Minerals and Prevention of Illegal
Mining Rules, 2016. The Government reserved the four mineral
blocks for the project proponent to excavate, develop and utilise
the mineral. The project proponent in turn applied for e nvironment
clearances (EC) for extraction of sand and gravel in the 3 blocks.
35. The Jammu & Kashmir Expert Appraisal Committee by its
order dated 03.01.2022 initially rejected the proposal for
environmental clearance (EC). However, when the project
proponent received fit for mining certificate from the department on
05.02.2022, the project proponent re-applied for grant of
environmental clearance and the same was granted by J&K Expert
Appraisal Committee by its order dated 02.03.2022. The
committee specifically recorded that the District Survey Report is
not formulated as per guidelines and therefore it needs revision for
including the replenishment data . In our opinion, the J&K EAC
committed a serious error in proceeding further with the DSR once
29
it realised that it is not formulated as per the MoEF&CC
Notification 2016 and 2016 and 2020 Sand Mining Guidelines and
also when the replenishment data is not complete. Further, the
half-hearted approach adopted by the J&K EAC is evident from its
final recommendation for grant of EC with validity of only three
years from the date of commencement of the mining operations duly
certified by the District Mineral Officer concerned with intimation to
the JKEIAA and JKPCB in view of non-availability of replenishment
data.
36. The J&K Environment Impact Assessment Authority granted
the environment clearance on 19.04.2022 . The environment
clearance was made subject to the following conditions.
“The Environment clearance is subject to Revision of mining plan
in terms of Section 4.3(r) of Enforcement Monitoring Guidelines
for Sand Mining-2020, issued by Ministry of Environment,
Forests and Climate Change where-under the area of removal of
minerals shall not exceed 60% of the mine lease area and any
deviation or relaxation in this regard shall be adequately
supported by the scientific report. Mining depth be restricted to
max. 1m in aggregate and bulk density of 2.0 be adopted for
calculating mineral production subject to maximum production of
34800MT, in view non-availability of replenishment data in the
DSRs.”
37. It is unfortunate that J&K EIAA compromised with regulatory
integrity by granting the environment clearances (EC) on the basis
of a DSR without a replenishment report. The compromise sought
to be achieved by permitting the project proponent to go ahead
30
with a “restricted mining depth of maximum 1 meter and bulk
density of 2.0 for production of the mineral and supplying it to
maximum production of 34800 mt in view of non -availability of
replenishment data” is unacceptable. The illegality committed by
the J&K EAC in so recommending is accentuated with the J&K
EIAA in granting EC. This is how regulatory failure occurs.
38. We have already indicated that the respondent no.1
challenged the grant of environment clearance before the NGT. B y
the order impugned before us, the NGT allowed the appeal. We are
in complete agreement with the following findings of the NGT :
“159. Learned Counsel appearing for PP also argued that mining
activities only upto one meter depth was allowed and it takes
care of absence of DSR and replenishment study but when
questioned, could not show any provision where under if mining
for one meter depth is allowed, in such a case requirement of
preparation of DSR or replenishment study can be dispensed
with. In fact, under EIA 2006 as amended by notifications dated
15.01.2016 and 25.07.2018, there is no exception in respect of
preparation of DSR and the same thing has been reiterated in
SSMG-2016 and EMGSM-2020.
160. Non-preparation of DSR as per guidelines and absence of
replenishment study is a fact which has not been disputed
before us by Learned Counsel appearing for PP. Stand taken by
respondent 1 and 4 in the written reply submitted before us also
does not show anything otherwise.”
39. In view of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in
upholding the decision of the NGT and dismissing the civil appeals
of the UT of J&K, the NHAI and also that of the project proponent.
31
40. This takes us to issue no. 3, which relates to the allegation
that project proponent has violated the J&K Minor Mineral
Concession, Storage, Transportation of Minerals and Prevention of
Illegal Mining Rules, 2016. The Tribunal came to the conclusion
that there is no evidence of such violation. As there is no cross
appeal, this issue need not detain us any further.
41. Insofar as issues 4 and 5 are concerned, the allegation is that
the project proponent has used heavy machines like JCB etc. for
excavation. It is alleged by respondent no.1, a person interested in
environment conservation, that the activity is in violation of
condition no. 53 of the EC. The condition is as follows:
“53. Mining shall be done manually minimally supported by
semi-mechanized methods. Heavy machinery like JCBs,
Excavators/L&T hydraulic excavators etc. should not be
allowed. Emphasis should be given to employment of locally
available labour force to address the socio-economic concerns of
the locals.”
42. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that there is in fact a
violation and therefore directed J&K Pollution Control Board to
take appropriate action. There is no need for us to interfere with
this direction. The J&K Pollution Control Board will take its
decision after giving the project proponent an opportunity of
placing its case before it.
32
43. We are informed by Mr. Narender Hooda, learned senior
counsel appearing on behalf of the project proponent that the
project itself is complete and as such there is no further
requirement of environment clearance. In this view of the matter,
no further orders are necessary.
44. In view of the above, the appeals filed on behalf of the Union
Territory of J&K, NHAI and the project proponent are dismissed.
The parties shall bear their own costs.
………………………………....J.
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]
………………………………....J.
[ATUL S. CHANDURKAR]
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 22, 2025
Legal Notes
Add a Note....