Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 4080

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.

DSRs approved with pre-auction compliance condition validate e-auctions of sand plots if following guidelines; Tribunal confines to environmental issues, dismissing contractual claims; mandates replenishment studies, monitoring.

Headnote:(A) Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - EIA Notification, 2006 as amended; Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016; Enforcement & Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020 - Sand mining - District Survey Reports (DSRs) for two districts approved by SEIAA with condition of compliance with court directions and guidelines before auction - E-auction of 46 bajri plots without 500m gaps forming clusters violating guidelines and Supreme Court order requiring approved DSRs with proposed leases post-public consultation - High Court rejected challenges to DSRs and auctions finding compliance - Tribunal holds DSRs validly approved and process followed guidelines; directs strict adherence to SSMG-2016 and EMGSM-2020 for DSR preparation, EC grants, monitoring; e-auctions permissible only for plots in approved DSRs with replenishment studies. (Paras 4, 5, 59)

(B) National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Jurisdiction - Contractual disputes over e-auction participation, bid forfeiture, blacklisting not maintainable; environmental issues on DSR validity, guideline compliance adjudicable; matters decided by High Court or pending before Supreme Court not re-agitable. (Paras 54, 60)

Facts of the case:
Applicant challenged e-auctions of bajri plots in two districts alleging DSRs lacked proposed leases, public consultation, formed illegal clusters without 500m gaps violating guidelines and Supreme Court orders. Respondents defended DSR approvals, sub-divisional committee recommendations, public domain placement. Intervenors (auction participants) sought relief against bid forfeitures/blacklisting claiming misrepresentation. High Court dismissed similar challenges.

Findings of Court:
DSR preparation and approvals valid; e-auctions comply with guidelines post-DSR approval; intervenor applications dismissed as contractual, lacking locus after participation.

Issues: Validity of DSRs sans proposed leases/public hearing; cluster formation via proximate plots; guideline compliance pre-auction; Tribunal jurisdiction over auction disputes; impact of superior court orders.

Ratio Decidendi: DSRs approved subject to pre-auction guideline compliance suffice; sub-divisional committees, public domain suffice for process; auctions for DSR-identified plots permissible pending EC; environmental oversight mandates periodic inspections, replenishment studies, compensation recovery; contractual grievances beyond Tribunal remit.

Result: Original Application and I.As. disposed directing guideline enforcement, monitoring mechanisms; no interference with auctions/DSRs.

Table of Content
1. hearing proceedings and filings noted. (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 approved cec sand mining recommendations. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
6. desilting insufficient for sand demand. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
7. dsr mandatory prerequisite for mining leases. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
8. emgsm-2020 mandates dsr before auctions. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
9. dsr approved; plots delineated per guidelines. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
10. intervenors lack locus after auction participation. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49)
11. i.as. dismissed as contractual matters. (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55)
12. oa disposed enforcing ssmg/emgsm guidelines. (Para 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,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 4080

DSRs approved with pre-auction compliance condition validate e-auctions of sand plots if following guidelines; Tribunal confines to environmental issues, dismissing contractual claims; mandates replenishment studies, monitoring.

Cases Referred (2)