Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 4420

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, Chairperson, ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, Judicial Member, A. SENTHIL VEL, Expert Member
BALBIR SANDHU – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
Original Application No. 532/2023 (I.A. No. 681/2023)

For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Gaurav Kumar Bansal, Ms. Nandita Bansal & Ms. Komal Sharma, Advocates
For the Respondents:Mr. Rahul Khurana, Advocate for Respondents no.3 to 7, Mr. Anshul Mangla, Advocates for Respondents no. 8 and 10, Mr. Saurabh Rajpal & Mr. Vinay Kumar Singh, Advocates for Respondent no. 9

Mining plan approvals violating DSR limits on quantity/area, lacking replenishment studies and NABL bulk density assessment, held illegal; DSR mandatory pre-auction with strict procedural compliance including public consultation.

Headnote:(A) Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Notifications dated 15.01.2016 and 25.07.2018 - Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 and Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020 - National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Sections 14 and 18 - Mining of minor minerals - Approval of mining plans contrary to District Survey Report (DSR) specifying total mineable mineral as 38.29 lakh MT and area as 10.11 hectares, while authorizing 71 lakh MT over 180 hectares, held violative of notifications and guidelines requiring DSR preparation prior to auctions/LOIs with replenishment studies and bulk density assessment by NABL lab - DSR must identify aggradation/deposition zones, calculate replenishment rates, and undergo public consultation via newspaper ads for one month - Impugned approvals set aside as illegal; fresh DSR preparation mandated before further auctions/leases - Rectification of DSR via corrigendum without full public consultation procedure invalid. (Paras 108-169)

(B) Limitation under Section 14(3) NGT Act - Delay of 24 days condoned as applicant prevented by sufficient cause due to joinder of causes; continuing violations revive cause of action. (Paras 25-33)

(C) Locus standi - Liberal interpretation in environmental public interest matters; right to clean environment transcends proximity. (Paras 34-39)

(D) Procedural irregularities - Backdated affidavits and affidavit signing post-filing do not warrant discarding pleadings; procedure handmaid of justice. (Paras 40-45)

Facts of the case:
Applicant challenged letters approving mining plans for three leaseholders for extraction of boulder, gravel, sand from rivers, alleging violation of DSR limits on quantity/area, inclusion of unlisted river, non-assessment of bulk density, absence of replenishment study - Joint Committee found DSR shortcomings (omission of gravel/Trilokpur details, typographical errors), recommended revision; State issued corrigendum later approved by SEIAA post-publication.

Findings of Court:
Original DSR structurally deficient, lacked replenishment study, proper zoning; approvals predated valid DSR, violated guidelines; corrigendum procedure flawed sans newspaper public consultation; mining plans quashed; no mining sans revised compliant DSR.

Issues: (i) Time-bar; (ii) Locus; (iii) Affidavit validity; (iv) Illegality of mining plan approvals vis-à-vis DSR/notifications/guidelines.

Ratio Decidendi: DSR prerequisite for sand mining auctions/leases, mandating replenishment studies, bulk density via NABL, public consultation; approvals based on flawed DSR illegal even if later rectified, as rectification prospective; strict adherence to SSMG-2016/EMGSM-2020 essential for sustainable mining.

Result: Original Application allowed; impugned letters set aside; directions for DSR revision, no further mining sans compliant DSR.

Table of Content
1. applicant's challenge to mining plan approvals violating dsr (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. joint committee findings on dsr discrepancies (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. respondents' replies justifying mining approvals (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
4. framing issues for adjudication (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
5. limitation condoned due to continuing violations (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
6. locus standi upheld for environmental pil (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)
7. procedural affidavit irregularities overlooked (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45)
8. arguments on dsr violations and approvals (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54)
9. regulatory framework for sustainable sand mining (Para 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96)
10. dsr 2022 details and mining contracts (Para 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107)
11. dsr violations in mining approvals identified (Para 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 128)
12. replenishment study and bulk density mandatory (Para 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 136 , 137 , 138 , 139 , 140 , 141 , 142 , 143 , 144 , 145 , 146 , 147 , 148 , 149 , 150 , 151 , 152 , 153 , 154 , 155 , 156)
13. dsr rectification procedure flawed (Para 157 , 158 , 159 , 160 , 161 , 162 , 163 , 164 , 165 , 166 , 167 , 168)
14. mining plan approvals set aside (Para 169)
15. directions for dsr revision and compliance (Para 170 , 171)

JUDGMENT

BY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1. The applicant-Balbir Sandhu has filed the present original application under Sections 14 and 18 of the National Green Tribunal seeking the following reliefs: -

“a) To quash the impugned letters dated 27/02/2023, 25/01/2023 and 18/05/2023 whereby the Director, Mines and Geology, Haryana has approved the Mining Plans of a). R M Mines, b), SCP Commodities and c). Reliable Mining Corporation, respectively as the same are in violation of District Survey Plan, Ambala as well as against the provisions of Environment Protection Rules, 1986 and the notifications issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change, Government of INDIA.

b) Direct Chief Secretary, Haryana to appoint NODAL OFFICER (Joint Secretary Rank) for the purpose securing riverine ecology of the Rivers mentioned in the District Survey Plan Ambala.

c) Direct Respondents and in particular Chief Secretary, Haryana to create effective mechanism that extraction of Mineable Minerals shall be done in accordance with District Survey Report, Ambala. d) Pass any other or further orders, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case.”

2. The applicant has submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court in its Judgment dated 27.02.2012 inI.A. No.12-13 of 2011inSpecial LeavePetition (C) No.19628-19629 of 2009 in the matter of Deepak Kumar etc.Vs. State of Haryana and Othersetc. made prior Environment Clearance (EC) mandatory for mining of minor minerals irrespective of the area of mining lease. In order to comply with the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change, Government of India (MoEF & CC) issued Notification No. S.O.141 (E) dated 15.01.2016. Further, MoEF&CC published Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 (SSMG, 2016) for scientific and sustainable sand mining in the Country. Vide order dated 05.04.2019 passed inO.A. No. 360/2015 titled as NationalGreen Tribunal Bar Association & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.this Tribunal ordered revision of above said guidelines. In Compliance thereof, MoEF & CC issued Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020 (EMGSM, 2020). Notifications dated 15.01.2016 and 25.07.2018 issued by MoEF

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 4420

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI (PRINCIPAL BENCH)PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, Chairperson, ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, Judicial Member, A. SENTHIL VEL, Expert MemberBALBIR SANDHU – AppellantVersusUNION OF INDIA – RespondentOriginal Application No. 532/2023 (I.A. No. 681/2023)

Mining plan approvals violating DSR limits on quantity/area, lacking replenishment studies and NABL bulk density assessment, held illegal; DSR mandatory pre-auction with strict procedural compliance including public consultation.

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, Chairperson, ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, Judicial Member, A. SENTHIL VEL, Expert Member
BALBIR SANDHU – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
Original Application No. 532/2023 (I.A. No. 681/2023)