Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 1502

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL BHOPAL (CENTRAL ZONE BENCH)
Sheo Kumar Singh, Judicial Member, Afroz Ahmad, Expert Member
Dr. Brijmohan Sapoot Kala Sanskriti Sewa Sansthan – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Original Application No. 194/2024(CZ) | I.A. No. 88/2024 | I.A. No. 89/2024 | I.A. No. 90/2024 | I.A. No. 91/2024 | I.A. No. 92/2024 | I.A. No. 93/2024 | I.A. No. 94/2024 | I.A. No. 95/2024 | I.A. No. 98/2024

Advocates:
For the Applicant(s): Mr. Arvind Nayyar, Sr. Adv., Mr. R.K. Agarwal, Sr. Adv. (with Mr. Aman Jha, Adv.), Mr. Pratap Thakur, Adv., Mr. Rishi Tutu, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Sr. Adv. (Mr. Shoeb Hasan Khan, Adv., Mr. Rishabh Kumar, Adv. and Mr. Samresh Katare, Adv.), Mr. Arvind Verma, Sr. Adv., Mr. R.B. Mathur, Sr. Adv. (with Achint Kumar, Adv.), Mr. Om Shankar Shrivastava, Adv., Mr. Sachin K. Verma, Adv. (with Ms. Harshita Tejwani, Adv.), Mr. Rohit Sharma, Adv., Mr. Ravikant Patidar, Adv., Mr. Sandeep Singh Patidar, Adv., Mr. Prateek Singh Baghel, Adv.

DSR for sand mining need not list specific plots pre-auction if identifying potential areas, approved post-consultation; e-auctions valid upon sub-committee delineation compliant with guidelines, subject to post-LoI EC; Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over contractual auction disputes.

Headnote:(A) Enforcement & Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020 (EMGSM-2020) & Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 (SSMG-2016) - Preparation of District Survey Report (DSR) - DSRs for districts approved by SEIAA subject to compliance with court directions and guidelines before auction/e-auction/grant of mining lease - Plots delineated in potential mining areas post-DSR approval, recommended by sub-divisional committees after site visits, with public consultation - E-auction of minor mineral bajri plots not in violation where DSR lacks specific proposed leases/clusters but identifies potential areas, and process follows SOP limiting plot size, ensuring safe distances, and cluster formation for EC categorization - High Court upheld DSR validity and e-auction process, dismissing challenges. (Paras 4, 5, 33-39, 59)

(B) National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Jurisdiction - Contractual disputes re e-auction participation, bid forfeiture, blacklisting under state minor mineral rules not maintainable; environmental issues only where statutory violations shown - Matters adjudicated/pending before High Court/Supreme Court not re-agitable. (Paras 54-60)

(C) Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - EIA Notification, 2006 - Environmental clearance mandatory post-auction/LoI, based on cluster area, mining plan, replenishment study; desilting/dredging governed by separate orders. (Paras 27-32, 58)

Facts of the case:
Applicant challenged e-auction notices for 46 bajri plots in two districts, alleging DSR deficiencies (no proposed leases/clusters, lack of public hearing, violation of 500m gap, non-assessment of demand/supply/alternatives), contrary to guidelines and Supreme Court orders. Intervenors (successful bidders who defaulted on payments, faced forfeiture/blacklisting) sought restraints/quashing. Respondents defended DSR approval, sub-divisional committee recommendations, public domain placement, cluster compliance for EC, referencing High Court rejections of similar challenges.

Findings of Court:
DSR preparation/approval process compliant; e-auctions permissible for DSR-identified potential areas; guidelines enforcement directed pan-State; intervenor I.As. dismissed as contractual, not environmental; matters sub-judice before superior courts.

Issues: Validity of DSR sans specific proposed plots/clusters/public hearing; e-auction compliance with guidelines/500m gap/cluster rules; jurisdiction over auction disputes; desilting as alternative source.

Ratio Decidendi: DSR identifies potential areas, not mandating pre-listed plots; post-approval delineation by committees with public consultation suffices; e-auctions valid if guidelines followed pre-EC; Tribunal defers to High Court/Supreme Court on adjudicated issues, limits to environmental enforcement.

Result: Original Application & I.As. disposed; State directed to enforce guidelines, monitoring; no restraints on e-auctions/LoIs; processes governed by superior court orders.

Table of Content
1. procedural hearing and filings reviewed. (Para 1 , 2)
2. e-auctions violate emgsm-2020 clustering rules. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. intervenors claim misrepresentation in auctions. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. high court upheld dsr validity and auctions. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
5. supreme court directs cec compliance for mining. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
6. desilting requires ec; pending supreme court stay. (Para 16 , 17 , 18)
7. environmental safeguards mandatory per deepak kumar. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
8. dsr preparation and ec procedures strictly required. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
9. dsr approved; plots delineated per guidelines. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
10. intervenors lack locus; contractual issues not maintainable. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54)
11. enforce ssmg-2016/emgsm-2020; oa disposed per court orders. (Para 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61)

ORDER

1. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

2. The respondent has filed the reply and applicant has filed the rejoinder to the reply filed by Respondent no. 1 and Respondent no. 2. I.A. No. 88/2024 to 95/2024 and 98/2024 have been filed by the intervenors and reply to the I.A. has been filed.

3. The contentions of the applicant are that the Respondent No. 2 has issued total number of 09 E-Auction Notices (Annexure-2) for Minor Mineral Bajri putting 114 number of plots for various Districts of Rajasthan, wherein 14 Plots of Tonk District and 32 Plots of Bhilwara District have been put for E-Auction in so far as District Bhilwara and Tonk is concerned. The Tehsil-wise breakup pertaining to Plots for Minor Mineral Bajri put far E-

Auction in respect of Bhilwara and Tonk District is furnished as under:

District	Tehsil	Bajri Plots put for auction	Remarks
Tonk	Deoli	07
	Tonk	07
Bhilwara	Sawalpur	09
	Mandalgarh	08
	Hurda Vijay Nagar	07
	Hamirgarh	07
	Baguda	01

4. The Respondent No. 2 has prepared DSR for District Tonk and Bhilwara, which have been approved by the SEIAA (Respondent No. 4) vide letter No. F.1(4)/SEIAA/SEAC/DSR/2023-24 dated 21.09.2023 in respect of District Tonk and vide letter No. F.1(4)/SEIAA/SEAC/DSR/2023-24/2568 dated 29.01.2024 in respect of District Bhilwara. The DSRs have been approved by SEIAA with condition that "Mining Department will ensure compliance of all the directions of the Hon’ble Courts and Guidelines of Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 and Enforcement & Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020 (EMGSM-2020) before the Auction/E-Auction/grant of Mining Lease/Letter of Intent". Thus, the DSRs have been approved subject to compliance of aforesaid condition. That both the DSRs are not containing any proposed leases for Auction. Further, both the DSRs are not containing any proposed Cluster Mining Leases or Contiguous Cluster Mining Leases. As per EMGSM, 2020, it is mandatory for incorporation of proposed Mining Leases in the DSRs after public consultation and the final list of Sand Mining Areas proposed for Leases are required to be defined in the final DSR after the public hearing.

5. That the Respondent No. 2 has put on Auction total 46 of Bajri Plots for Auction in respect of District Bhilwara and Tonk and the said Plots have been distributed among various Auctions to mislead that these are separate Plots without forming any Cluster or contiguous cluster. However, if the total Plots for both the Districts put for Auction are analyzed, it would appear that the Respondents have put on Auction cluster of Bay’ Leases in violation of the limit prescribed under EMGSM, 2020. By putting the 46 Bajri (River Sand) Plots for Auction in District Bhilwara and Tonk without having any distance and gap of 500 meters and it is in violation of order of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed in State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. (2022) 2SCC 348.

6. The main contention of the intervenors are that they participated in the proceedings of e-auction and after that, they

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 1502

DSR for sand mining need not list specific plots pre-auction if identifying potential areas, approved post-consultation; e-auctions valid upon sub-committee delineation compliant with guidelines, subject to post-LoI EC; Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over contractual auction disputes.

Cases Referred (3)