Supreme Court: In a batch of appeals filed against the order passed by National Green Tribunal (‘NGT’), the division bench of Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha* and Manoj Misra, JJ. upheld the decision of the NGT, which had quashed the e-auction notice dated 13-02-2023 issued by the State Government for sand mining and the consequent grant of Letters of Interest (‘LOIs’) in favour of successful bidders.
The Court held that the auction had been conducted in the absence of a valid, final, and subsisting District Survey Report (‘DSR’). It further held that a draft DSR was not tenable. A draft DSR could never form the basis for a recommendation by the District Level Expert Appraisal Committee (‘DEAC’) or for the District Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (‘DEIAA’) to grant environmental clearance for B2 category projects pertaining to the mining of minor minerals in lease areas less than or equal to five hectares. The Court unequivocally upheld the statutory regime governing sand mining and underscored that unauthorized activities must not be tolerated. It emphasized that strict adherence to the legal and environmental regulations was non-negotiable.
Background
The District Magistrate, Saharanpur had issued a notice inviting e-tenders for sand, gravel, boulders, etc., available in the riverbed in Saharanpur district under the U.P. Sub Mineral (Remedy) Rules, 2021. Questioning the legality and validity of the e-auction notice, respondent 1, a resident of Haryana, approached the NGT by filing an original application under Sections 14 and 18 of the National Green Tribunal Act. He contended that the e-auction notice was illegal as no valid DSR existed as of that date. According to him, the last DSR for Saharanpur district, issued in 2017, had expired in 2022. Thereafter, although steps had been initiated to prepare a new DSR for the succeeding five years, only a draft DSR was available by 13-01-2023. However, even before its finalization, the impugned e-auction notice had been issued by the District Magistrate which, according to respondent 1, was illegal and unsustainable in law.
The NGT, by its order dated 13-03-2023, had constituted a Joint Committee comprising the Central Pollution Control Board (‘CPCB’), the State Pollution Control Board (‘UPPCB’), and the District Magistrate, Saharanpur, to collect relevant information and submit a factual report. The Joint Committee submitted its report indicating that, pursuant to the e-auction notice, Letters of Interest (LOIs) had been issued with respect to 14 sites for riverbed mining. Accordingly, the NGT impleaded the parties holding LOIs as party respondents to the original application.
Pending further proceedings before the NGT, the State Expert Appraisal Committee (‘SEAC’) considered the draft DSR and accorded its approval on 03-05-2024. Subsequently, the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (‘SEIAA’) granted its approval to the final DSR during its meeting held on 24-05-2024.
However, in view of the fact that the previously subsisting DSR issued in 2017 had expired after five years, i.e., by 2022, and that only a draft DSR existed when the impugned e-auction notice was issued, the NGT quashed the auction. It held that the e-auction was in violation of the legal mandates under the EIA Notification of 2006 (as amended in 2006 and 2018), the Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020. Challenging the legality and validity of the NGT’s judgment, the present appeals were filed.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that sand held significant ecological and environmental value. Coastal dunes, rivers, and seabeds had acted as natural buffers against storms, floods, and rising sea levels, thereby enhancing climate resilience. Sand had also supported vital ecosystems by providing habitat for numerous plant and animal species, including microorganisms crucial to nutrient cycling and water purification. Its role in maintaining the structural integrity of freshwater and marine systems had underscored its contribution to biodiversity and environmental sustainability. As such, the Court observed that the stewardship of sand resources was not only an economic imperative but also an ecological necessity.
Referring to the legal framework concerning mining and its regulation in India, the Court noted that the subject of “mines” and “development of minerals” under the control of Central Legislature and Provincial Legislature vide Entry 36, List I and Entry 23, List II. However, there was no dedicated legislation to deal with issues of mining.
The Court noted that the NGT had consistently maintained that the existence of a valid DSR was a mandatory prerequisite for carrying out any mining activity. It observed that the NGT’s decision that a DSR must form the basis for any application seeking Environmental Clearance, and that any application submitted without an approved DSR was incomplete and incapable of being processed was correct in law. The Court further emphasised that a ‘draft DSR’ was, for all practical and legal purposes, equivalent to a non-existent DSR when it came to the grant of environmental clearance.
Having considered the evolving regulatory regime that had, over time, increased both the breadth and depth of scrutiny prior to the grant of environmental clearance for sand mining, the Court opined that the preparation of a DSR was a mandatory requirement. The DSR was to form the basis for applications seeking environmental clearance, as well as for the preparation of related reports and the appraisal of projects. The Court emphasised that the DSR was required to be prepared for all districts and that the draft DSR must be placed in the public domain. It further noted that a copy of the draft DSR had to be kept at the Collectorate and also posted on the district’s official website for a period of 21 days. Upon receipt of public comments, the same was to be duly considered, and if found valid, incorporated into the final report. The final DSR was to be approved within six months by the DEIAA.
The Court observed that the DSR had a validity of five years, after which it would no longer be tenable and a fresh DSR would have to be prepared and finalized. The rationale behind prescribing a five-year lifespan for a DSR was rooted in the dynamic nature of ecological and environmental conditions. The Court acknowledged that such conditions might change even before five years elapsed but regarded the five-year term as a reasonable benchmark grounded in policy and the precautionary principle. It concluded that the requirement was not only legal and valid but also mandatory and must be enforced strictly and with full rigor.
The Court emphasised that unregulated sandmining disrupts riverine ecosystems, alters natural flow patterns, and leads to erosion and habitat loss. Aquatic biodiversity suffers as spawning grounds are destroyed, and water quality deteriorates. The destabilisation of riverbanks increases flooding, risking human life and animal habitat alike. Moreover, the illicit sand trade often operates under the shadow of organised crime, undermining the rule of law and weakening governance structures. Therefore, absolute standards with tough policies, strict enforcement and quick accountability are compelling for effective regulatory control.
Hence, the Court held that:
-
A DSR was a document of seminal importance, as it enabled informed decision-making.
-
The preparation of a DSR, in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Appendix X, read with paragraph 7(iii)(a) of the applicable guidelines, was required to be followed meticulously.
-
Only a valid and subsisting DSR could form the basis for an application for the grant of Environmental Clearance (EC); a draft DSR was untenable for such a purpose.
-
The preparation of reports and the appraisal of projects by the DEIAA and the District Expert Appraisal Committee DEAC had to be founded on a valid and subsisting DSR.
-
The DEIAA and DEAC were recognized as the statutory authorities charged with the responsibility of preparing the DSR every five years. This duty required them to maintain a comprehensive and real-time understanding of the environmental conditions of the district, including its ecological sensitivity and other environmental fragilities.
For the reasons stated above, the Court reiterated its decision to dismiss the civil appeals filed against the judgment and order of the National Green Tribunal and upheld the finding that the e-auction notice dated 13-02-2023 was illegal and contrary to law.
[State of Uttar Pradesh v. Gaurav Kumar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1069, decided on 08-05-2025]
*Judgment Authored by: Justice PS Narasimha
