1. Grant of environmental clearance for sand mining based on a District Survey Report lacking replenishment data — Challenge to validity of such clearance. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 34 , 35 , 36 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1249
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
Union Territory Of J & K (Previously State Of Jammu & Kashmir) & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Raja Muzaffar Bhat & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8055 of 2022 With Civil Appeal No. 68 of 2023 With Civil Appeal No. Of 2025 @ Diary No(S). 1007 of 2025
Decided on : 22-08-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Utsav Singh Bains, Adv. Mr. Akash Yadav, Adv. Mr. Yusuf, AOR Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shiv Bhatnagar, Adv. Ms. Pallvi Hooda, Adv. Ms. Kavya Manuja, Adv. Ms. Tannu, Adv. Ms. Seema Sindhu, Adv. Mr. Gaurav, Adv. Dr. Surender Singh Hooda, AOR Mr. Yuvraj Nandal, Adv. Mr. G. M. Kawoosa, Adv. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Sr. Adv. Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, AOR Ms. Itisha Awasthi, Adv. Ms. Sanjana Grace Thomas, Adv. Ms. Sadhana Madhavan, Adv. Ms. Kavana Rao, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Utsav Singh Bains, Adv. Mr. Akash Yadav, Adv. Mr. Yusuf, AOR Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shiv Bhatnagar, Adv. Ms. Pallvi Hooda, Adv. Ms. Kavya Manuja, Adv. Ms. Tannu, Adv. Ms. Seema Sindhu, Adv. Mr. Gaurav, Adv. Dr. Surender Singh Hooda, AOR Mr. Yuvraj Nandal, Adv. Mr. G. M. Kawoosa, Adv. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Sr. Adv. Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, AOR Ms. Itisha Awasthi, Adv. Ms. Sanjana Grace Thomas, Adv. Ms. Sadhana Madhavan, Adv. Ms. Kavana Rao, Adv.
The Court held that a District Survey Report (DSR) is mandatory for granting environmental clearance for sand mining and is only valid if it includes a proper replenishment study. Without a scientific replenishment study, a DSR is untenable, as such data is essential to determine sustainable extraction limits.
Headnote:(A) Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Requirements of Environmental Clearance - DSR (District Survey Report) is mandatory for sand mining activities; absence of replenishment study renders DSR defective. The Supreme Court upheld the NGT's decision, stating that environmental clearances awarded without a legally compliant DSR constitute regulatory failure. (Paras 2, 9-11, 34-36)
(B) Regulatory Compliance - Judicial intervention is necessary to ensure adherence to environmental regulations for mining activities to prevent ecological disruption. (Paras 10, 15)
(C) Sustainable Sand Mining Guidelines - Emphasis on verification of replenishment rates before issuing mining permits; unrestricted mining threatens biodiversity and river ecosystems. (Paras 29, 30)
Facts of the case:
Appeals arose from the grant of Environmental Clearances for sand mining operations in areas deemed already depleted due to illegal mining, and without proper DSR as per guidelines, raising concerns over regulatory compliance. (Paras 4-6, 8-9)
Findings of Court:
The absence of a proper replenishment study in the DSR invalidates the Environmental Clearance; mining operations must align with sustainable practices. (Paras 34-39)
Issues: The pivotal questions revolved around the validity of the DSR and the legality of the subsequent environmental clearances granted.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that adherence to regulatory mandates is essential for environmental protection and sustainability; a DSR lacking replenishment studies cannot sufficiently justify mining activities.
Result: Civil appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- environmental law
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Whether environmental clearance granted without a guideline-compliant District Survey Report and replenishment study is valid — Whether restricting mining depth compensates for missing replenishment data. (Para 8 , 38 )
3. Granting environmental clearance based on a defective District Survey Report without scientific replenishment data constitutes regulatory failure and undermines ecological sustainability. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 10 , 29 , 32 , 33 , 35 , 37 )
4. A District Survey Report without a proper replenishment study is legally untenable and cannot serve as the basis for granting environmental clearance for sand mining. (Para 3 , 33 )
5. Appeals dismissed — National Green Tribunal order setting aside the environmental clearances upheld — Direction to Pollution Control Board to address violations regarding heavy machinery. (Para 39 , 42 , 44 )
6. Is a District Survey Report (DSR) mandatory for environmental clearance in sand mining?
Yes, a valid and subsisting District Survey Report is mandatory for the grant of environmental clearance for sand mining. (Para 1 )
7. What is the legal significance of a replenishment study within a District Survey Report?
A replenishment study is an integral part of the DSR, used to scientifically locate mining areas and calculate annual replenishment rates to ensure mining does not exceed natural growth. (Para 1 , 2 , 29 , 32 , 33 )
8. Does restricting the depth of mining waive the requirement for a replenishment study in the DSR?
No, restricting mining depth does not dispense with the requirement for a DSR or replenishment study, as no such exception exists under the EIA Notification or Sand Mining Guidelines. (Para 37 , 38 )
9. What constitutes a regulatory failure in the context of granting environmental clearances for mining?
Regulatory failure occurs when authorities grant environmental clearances despite knowing that the District Survey Report is not formulated as per guidelines and lacks essential replenishment data. (Para 35 , 37 )
JUDGMENT :
Contents
| 1. Introduction of the issue: | |
| 2. Factual Background: | |
| 3. The Legal and Regulatory Regime: | |
| 4. The Environment (Protection) Act: | |
| 5. EIA Notifications 1994 | |
| 6. The Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 | |
| 7. Decision of this Court in Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana | |
| 8. Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2016 | |
| A. Establishment of District Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA) & District Expert Appraisal Committee (DEAC) under Para 3A | |
| B. New category called Category B2 for sand mining in districts was introduced through para 4(iv): | |
| C. Preparation of District Survey Report (DSR) Introduced through Para 7(iii) | |
| 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: | |
| 9. The Sand Mining Guidelines and the Focus on Replenishment Study: | |
| A. Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 | |
| B. Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020 | |
| 10. Need for replenishment study: | |
| 11. Application of law to the facts of the present case | |
1. Introduction of the issue:
1. In State of UP v. Gaurav Kumar , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1069, we have declared that a valid and subsisting District Survey Report2[Hereinafter, “DSR”.] is mandatory for grant of environmental clearance3[Hereinafter, “EC”.] for sand mining. We have also annulled certain environmental clearances, even though recommended by District Expert Appraisal Committee4[Hereinafter, “DEAC”.] and granted by District Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority5[Hereinafter, “DEIAA”.], on the basis that a ‘draft DSR’ is untenable6[ State of UP v. Gaurav Kumar , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1069.] in law. In this appeal we take a step further. District Survey Reports are prepared under para 7(iii) of EIA notification dated 15.01.20167[Issued under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.] following the mandatory procedure laid down in Appendix X read with Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 20168[Hereinafter, Sand Mining Guidelines, 2016.] and Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 20209[Hereinafter Sand Mining Guidelines, 2020.]. 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[Guidelines formulated under Section 23C of
