IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SANDEEP KUMAR, J.
Manjeet Chawla S/o Late Amarjeet Singh Chawla - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17523 of 2023
Decided On : 30-01-2026
Bihar Minerals (Concession Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transprotation & Storage) Rules, 2019 – Rule 29A – Auction of Sand Ghat – Challenge to demand of royalty – Sustainable sand mining requires that extraction must not exceed annual replenishment rate of river – Mining activities cannot be permitted beyond annual replenishment rate – Excessive mining adversely affects river ecology, channel stability, biodiversity and environmental equilibrium – Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 and Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020 mandate preparation of District Survey Report (DSR) and regular replenishment studies before permitting sand mining operations – Environmental clearance and mining activity must be based on scientific evaluation of actual quantity of mineral available and its replenishment, failing which environmental safeguards would be defeated – Scientific determination of mineral availability and replenishment is essential before insisting on royalty corresponding to auctioned quantity – Mere bald statement without any scientific basis to refute scientific replenishment study as asserted by petitioner would not suffice and more importantly would cause aggressive mining of sand in sand ghat and hamper ecosystem – Matter required reconsideration by competent authorities in light of replenishment studies and environmental guidelines – Appropriate directions issued to authorities to reassess the issue in accordance with law – Writ petition disposed of with directions. (Paras 43, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50 and 57)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. auction of sand ghat with estimated annual quantity. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. overlaps with short-term permits depleted sand reserves. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. fresh replenishment study needed for royalty calculation. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. state must ensure accurate quantity per mining guidelines. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 5. bidders estopped; short-term permits legally authorized. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 6. replenishment studies mandatory for sustainable sand mining. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52) |
| 7. remand for fresh study, royalty adjustment, order quashed. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62) |
JUDGMENT :
The present writ petition has been filed on behalf of the successful bidder in the auction of Bhojpur Sone 35 Ghat (65 Hectares). The central grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent State while issuing the tender notice had asserted that the aforesaid sand ghat had 11,70,000 CuM of sand available annually for sand mining, however the quantity of sand mineral, as asserted by the respondent-State, was not actually available since, according to the petitioner, after the issuance of the Letter of Intent on 28.10.2022 in favour of the instant petitioner, the respondent - Bihar State Mining Corporation Ltd. (BSMCL) had granted short term permits in favour of third parties resulting in extraction of sand from the areas that overlapped with the settled areas of the petitioner causing depletion in the sand availability. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the action of the respondent-State in not conducting a proper replenishment study in accordance with law and raising demand from the petitioner to pay the full royalty of Rs.19,30,50,000/- per annum towards the full represented quantity even though, according to the petitioner, the asserted quantity of sand does not exist.
2. In this backdrop, the petitioner by way of the present writ petition has prayed for the following reliefs:-
“I. To issue an appropriate Writ(s), Order(s) or Direction(s) to the respondent authorities to reduce the total amount of royalty payable by the petitioner, because in the meantime, after the issuance of Letter of Intent dated 28.10.2022 as contained in memo no. 4394 to the petitioner under the signatures of Mineral Development Officer, Bhojpur, large quantity of sand has already been extracted by third party agencies on the basis of grant of short term permits by respondent nos. 3 and 4 herein out of the Sand Ghat area settled with the petitioner, due to overlapping;
II. To issue an appropriate Writ(s), Order(s) or Direction(s) to the respondent authorities to conduct a fresh survey to estimate the mineral actually available and charge royalty based on the same;
III. To issue an appropriate Writ(s), Order(s) or Direction(s) setting aside the letter dated 08.09.2023 as contained in memo no.3837 issued under the signatures of the Collector, Bhojpur, Ara;
IV. To pass any other appropriate Writ(s), Order(s) or Direction(s) that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit on the facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. Subsequently, in compliance of the directions of the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.02.2025, the petitioner had filed a representation before the Respondent no.2 which came to be decided by the aforesaid respondent authority vide order dated 07.04.2025. Further, during the pendency of this writ petition, the respondent authorities have granted environmental clearance to the petitioner for the entire represented quantity of sand being 11,70,000/- CuM. The petitioner, thereafter, had preferred Interlocutory Applications for amending the prayer portion of the writ petition, which was allowed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.08.2025 and following additional prayers were made:-
“V. To issue an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) to the responden
Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana
ABL International Ltd. vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd.
AI
Mandatory replenishment study required before sand ghat auction and environmental clearance; fresh study post-depleting overlapping mining essential; royalty and clearance based on actual replenished....
Replenishment study mandatory prior to granting EC for river bed sand mining to ensure sustainability; EC without it invalid, though no interference if study completed subsequently under judicial pro....
The court ruled that mining leases must comply with environmental guidelines, including the preparation of District Survey Reports and replenishment studies, to ensure sustainable mining practices.
E-auctions for river sand mining leases were quashed as they violated the Supreme Court's directive requiring replenishment and block mining regulations, highlighting the necessity for adherence to s....
Valid SEIAA-approved DSR mandatory precondition for sand mining auctions, EC grants; State cannot amend without statutory appraisal/approval; invalid DSR voids leases/EC; operations illegal, compensa....
Valid District Survey Report approved by SEIAA mandatory before sand mining auctions/leases; State amendments without statutory appraisal illegal; mining without it violates environmental laws.
DSR approval with public consultation mandatory before sand mining auctions; compliant e-auctions upheld if plots from approved DSR via committees; Tribunal bars contractual claims like bid forfeitur....
E-auction of sand mining leases requires prior approved DSR with proposed leases post public consultation per SSMG-2016/EMGSM-2020; NGT jurisdiction excludes contractual auction disputes.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.