1. Dispute over mining rights and tender cancellations following court-mandated environmental guidelines and the preparation of District Survey Reports. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 31
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the National Green Tribunal, Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata)
L. NAGESWARA RAO, B.R. GAVAI, JJ.
The State of Bihar and Others – Appellants
Versus
Pawan Kumar and Others – Respondents
I.A. Nos. 153531-153532, 154740-154741, 160138, 160139, 160142, 163177, 165173 of 2021, Civil Appeal Nos. 3661-3662 of 2020
Decided On : 18-01-2022
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Illegal Sand Mining – Unless detailed DSRs are prepared by Sub-Divisional Committees by undertaking site visits and using modern technology and unless same are examined by SEAC and SEIAA, it will not be appropriate to carry mining activities.
Illegal Sand Mining – Unless detailed DSRs are prepared by Sub-Divisional Committees by undertaking site visits and using modern technology and unless same are examined by SEAC and SEIAA, it will not be appropriate to carry mining activities.
Subject
Environmental Law - Mining and Environmental Clearance
Headnote
Mining Laws – Illegal Sand Mining – Unless detailed DSRs are prepared by Sub-Divisional Committees by undertaking site visits and using modern technology and unless same are examined by SEAC and SEIAA, it will not be appropriate to carry mining activities – However, if there is a ban on mining activities, apart from it leading to illegal sand mining, criminalization and clashes between sand mafias, it would also cause huge loss to public exchequer – Sand is also required for construction of public infrastructural projects as well as public and private construction activities – State of Bihar to ensure that while carrying out mining activities, it shall ensure that all environmental concerns are taken care of and no damage is caused to environment. (Paras 14 and 20)
Facts of the case:
State of Bihar had approached this Court challenging the order dated 14th October 2020, passed by National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 40/2020/EZ with O.A. No. 57/2020/EZ, thereby issuing various directions. This Court after taking into consideration various aspects, including the necessity to curb illegal mining activities and the necessity to permit legal mining in interregnum till the other directions issued by this Court are complied with, had issued some directions.
Findings of Court:
Perusal of the NITs in question, issued by Corporation would reveal that the Corporation has specifically referred to the order dated 10th November 2021, passed by this Court and has also specified that operation period of sand ghats will only be up to 31st March 2022, and subject to further orders passed by this Court in present proceedings.
Result : I.As. Rejected.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Azmat Hayat Amanullah, AOR Mr. Rishi K Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Piyush Vatsa, Adv
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, AOR Mr. Alok Sangwan,Adv. Mr. Sushant Kumar Sarkar,Adv. Mr. Rishabh Jain,Adv. Ms. Jyoti Kumar Singh,Adv. Mr. Vanshdeep Dalmia, AOR Ms. Shivali Chaudhary,Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Arvind Kumar, Adv Mr. Aditya Singh, AOR Mr. Shubham Singh, Adv. Mr. Anubhav Singh, Adv. Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Adv. Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr Adv Mr. Anurag Kulharia, Adv. Mr. Ankit Kumar Lal, AOR Mr. Anand Varma, AOR Ms. Apoorva Pandey,Adv. Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, AOR Mr. Ajit Upadhyay,Adv. Mr. Arun Adhlakha,Adv. Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, AOR Ms. Sadapuran Mukherjee,Adv. Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta,Adv. Ms. Chandni Arora,Adv. Ms. Aditi Shahi,Adv. Mr. Siddhant Buxy, AOR Mr. Pankaj Bhagat, AOR Mr. Aakash Sirohi, AOR Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, AOR Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shehla Chaudhary, Adv. Md. Anas Chaudhary, Adv. Ms. Rita Jha, AOR Ms. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Ms. Devanshi Singh, Adv. Ms. Nishtha Kumar, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Azmat Hayat Amanullah, AOR Mr. Rishi K Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Piyush Vatsa, Adv
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, AOR Mr. Alok Sangwan,Adv. Mr. Sushant Kumar Sarkar,Adv. Mr. Rishabh Jain,Adv. Ms. Jyoti Kumar Singh,Adv. Mr. Vanshdeep Dalmia, AOR Ms. Shivali Chaudhary,Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Arvind Kumar, Adv Mr. Aditya Singh, AOR Mr. Shubham Singh, Adv. Mr. Anubhav Singh, Adv. Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Adv. Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr Adv Mr. Anurag Kulharia, Adv. Mr. Ankit Kumar Lal, AOR Mr. Anand Varma, AOR Ms. Apoorva Pandey,Adv. Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, AOR Mr. Ajit Upadhyay,Adv. Mr. Arun Adhlakha,Adv. Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, AOR Ms. Sadapuran Mukherjee,Adv. Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta,Adv. Ms. Chandni Arora,Adv. Ms. Aditi Shahi,Adv. Mr. Siddhant Buxy, AOR Mr. Pankaj Bhagat, AOR Mr. Aakash Sirohi, AOR Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, AOR Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shehla Chaudhary, Adv. Md. Anas Chaudhary, Adv. Ms. Rita Jha, AOR Ms. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Ms. Devanshi Singh, Adv. Ms. Nishtha Kumar, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Applicants claim vested rights based on successful bids or extensions; another applicant alleges contempt due to lack of environmental clearances in new tenders. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
3. The court noted the stop-gap nature of interim mining permissions to prevent illegal mining and revenue loss while ensuring environmental compliance. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 )
4. Successful bidders or extension holders cannot claim vested rights to mine when court-mandated environmental procedures and survey reports are required. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 )
5. Applications claiming mining rights rejected; contempt application disposed of with directions to the State to ensure environmental compliance. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 )
6. Do successful bidders or extension holders in mining auctions have a vested right to continue mining despite court-mandated environmental revisions?
No. In the context of mandatory environmental compliance and the requirement for fresh District Survey Reports, previous successful bids or extensions do not create a vested right to continue mining activities. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 )
7. Under what circumstances can the state permit interim mining activities while environmental reports are being prepared?
Interim mining may be permitted as a stop-gap arrangement to prevent illegal mining, criminalization, and loss to the public exchequer, provided all environmental concerns are addressed and no damage is caused to the environment. (Para 14 , 15 )
8. Is the issuance of short-term tenders for mining permissible if they are subject to overarching court directions on environmental protection?
Yes, provided the tenders are for a limited period, specifically refer to the court's directions, and the state ensures scrupulous compliance with environmental safeguards. (Para 16 , 20 )
ORDER :
1. All these I.A. arise out of the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 10th November 2021 in Civil Appeal Nos. 3661-3662 of 2020.
2. The State of Bihar had approached this Court challenging the order dated 14th 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 various directions. This Court after taking into consideration various aspects, including the necessity to curb illegal mining activities and the necessity to permit legal mining in the interregnum till the other directions issued by this Court are complied with, had issued the following directions dated 10th November 2021:
“14. We therefore find it appropriate to substitute the directions issued by the Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 14th 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 Sub-Divisional committees consisting of the Sub-Divisional 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 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 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.”
The matter was directed to be listed after 20 weeks.
I.A. Nos. 154740-154741 of 2021
3. The present I.A. have been filed being aggrieved by the cancellation of Letter of Intent (hereinafter referred to as the “LoI”) dated 21st January 2020, issued in favour of the applicant. The applicant also apprehended that in view of the order dated 10th November 2021 passed by this Court with respect to Banka District, the State Government may also issue short Notice Inviting Tender (hereinafter referred to as the “NIT”) with respect to Kishanganj District. After the present I.A. were filed, NIT has also been issued in respect of sand ghats in Kishanganj District on 2nd December 2021.
4. Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that the applicant was a successful bidder in the auction held for the Kishanganj District and as such, the action of the respondent in cancelling the LoI and issuing fresh NIT for Kishanganj District is not sustainable in law. It is submitted that the offer of the applicant was for a much higher amount as compared to the offer received by the respondent-Bihar State Mining Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “Corporation”) for Kishanganj District. He therefore submitted that it is in the interest of justice that the applicant may be permitted to carry out the mining activities in the Kishanganj District.
I.A. Nos. 153531-153532 of 2021
5. In the present I.A. the applicant claimed that it was a successful bidder for
