Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 1668

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.

E-auctions for sand mining valid post-approved DSR compliant with 2016/2020 guidelines; High Court-upheld processes not re-agitable; enforce monitoring, replenishment sans contractual interference.

Headnote:(A) Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 and Enforcement & Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020 - District Survey Report (DSR) - Preparation, approval, public consultation, cluster formation, e-auction of minor mineral bajri plots - DSRs for relevant districts approved by SEIAA subject to compliance with court directions and guidelines - E-auction notices issued post-DSR approval and sub-divisional committee recommendations - No violation found where plots delineated in potential areas shown in approved DSRs, public domain placed for objections, and joint inspections conducted obtaining NOCs - High Court upheld DSR validity and e-auction process rejecting stay applications - E-auction must follow guidelines with details from approved DSR and replenishment study; EC limited to sustainable quantity - Intervenors participating in e-auction but failing to deposit amounts deemed to have accepted terms, no locus to challenge post-bidding on misrepresentation grounds - Contractual disputes on bid forfeiture, blacklisting not within Tribunal jurisdiction (Paras 4-10, 33-49, 56).

(B) National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Jurisdiction - Environmental issues on sand mining regulation upheld; re-agitation of settled DSR/e-auction matters decided by High Court not maintainable - Directions for uniform monitoring, periodic inspections by SEIAA-led committee, enforcement of replenishment studies, compensation recovery (Paras 55-61).

Facts of the case:
Applicant challenged e-auction notices for bajri plots in two districts alleging DSR deficiencies, absence of proposed leases/public consultation, cluster violations without 500m gaps, non-compliance with guidelines and Supreme Court orders. Respondents defended DSR approval by SEIAA, sub-divisional committee site visits, public domain placement, joint NOCs. Intervenors, successful bidders who defaulted on payments, sought to halt proceedings claiming departmental misrepresentation. High Court rejected similar challenges upholding process.

Findings of Court:
DSR preparation/approval compliant with guidelines; e-auction valid per High Court orders; enforce monitoring mechanisms, replenishment studies; contractual grievances of intervenors not Tribunal's domain.

Issues: Validity of DSR sans proposed leases/public hearing; cluster compliance with 500m separation; e-auction pre-final DSR; intervenors' post-bidding challenges; jurisdictional limits on contractual matters.

Ratio Decidendi: Sand mining e-auctions permissible post-approved DSR incorporating guidelines, public consultation, committee recommendations; no illegality where process mirrors upheld High Court scrutiny; Tribunal directs guideline adherence, monitoring sans interfering in res judicata matters or contracts.

Result: Original Application and I.As. disposed directing guideline compliance, monitoring; no interference with e-auctions upheld by High Court.

Table of Content
1. hearing proceedings and filings noted. (Para 1 , 2)
2. e-auctions challenge for non-compliance with dsr. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. intervenors' auction participation and objections. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. high court upheld dsr and auction validity. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
5. supreme court directed cec sand mining oversight. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
6. supreme court approved cec recommendations. (Para 16)
7. desilting restrained pending ec. (Para 17 , 18)
8. environmental judgments on sand mining impacts. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
9. dsr preparation and monitoring guidelines. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
10. dsr compliance affirmed by authorities. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)
11. interveners lack locus post-auction participation. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55)
12. strict ssmg-2016 and emgsm-2020 compliance. (Para 56)
13. application dismissed per higher court orders. (Para 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 th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 1668

E-auctions for sand mining valid post-approved DSR compliant with 2016/2020 guidelines; High Court-upheld processes not re-agitable; enforce monitoring, replenishment sans contractual interference.

Cases Referred (3)