2025 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 1949

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
Prakash Shrivastava, Chairperson, Sudhir Agarwal, Judicial Member, A. Senthil Vel, Expert Member, Afroz Ahmad, Expert Member
Mukesh Joshi – Appellant
Versus
Juned Ayubi – Respondent
M.A. NO. 121/2023 IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 692/2022 (I.A. NO. 897/2023 AND IA. NO. 80/2024)|M.A. NO. 31/2024 IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 442/2022

Memorandum conferring exclusive mineral extraction rights is a lease, not agency; environmental clearance transfer valid only by issuing authority; Doon Valley mining needs specific ministry approval; expired leases bar resumption.

Headnote:(A) Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - EIA Notification, 2006 - Para 11 - Transfer of environmental clearance - EC granted by central authority cannot be transferred by state authority; transfer must be by issuing authority on same terms and conditions without fresh appraisal. (Paras 125-128)

(B) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 105 - Memorandum of Understanding conferring exclusive right to extract minerals from specified area for consideration and fixed term constitutes mining lease, not mere agency or licence; substance over form determines nature. (Paras 65-120)

(C) Doon Valley Notification dated 01.02.1989 as amended 06.01.2020 - Mining requires prior approval from Union Ministry; environmental clearance under EIA Notification does not satisfy this requirement. (Paras 130-134)

(D) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Section 3(d) - Extraction of deposited minor minerals from river bed qualifies as mining operations. (Para 87) (E) Miscellaneous Application for modification - Where mining leases expired, no resumption permissible even if subsequent permissions obtained; principles of natural justice not invoked for recall where only modification sought. (Paras 61-62, 143-145)

Facts of the case:
Miscellaneous applications sought modification of judgment closing river bed mining operations in two lots for alleged violations including non-transfer of environmental clearance, inter-state boundary issues, and Doon Valley restrictions. Applicants claimed agency status under corporation but documents conferred independent lease rights; environmental clearances subsequently transferred by state authority post-judgment; original leases expired.

Findings of Court:
Memoranda constituted leases, not agency arrangements; transfer of clearances by state authority invalid; no Doon Valley approval obtained; river proximity guidelines inapplicable to mining; consents not in applicants' names; leases expired pre-applications; no liability for compensation saddled on applicants.

Issues: (I) Whether applicants were agents or independent lessees? (II-III) Necessity and validity of environmental clearance transfer? (IV) Requirement of Doon Valley approval? (V) Applicability of river proximity guidelines? (VI) Availment of consents? (VII) Effect of lease expiry?

Ratio Decidendi: Substance of agreement determines lease vs licence; environmental clearance transfer restricted to issuing authority; specific statutory approvals cannot be substituted by general clearances; expired leases preclude resumption of operations.

Result: Miscellaneous applications dismissed; mining closure order not modified.

Table of Content
1. similar prayers in mas for modifying prior judgment (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. complainant's allegations of illegal mining without ec (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
3. joint committee verifies site and permissions (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
4. applicant's objections to committee report (Para 22 , 23)
5. oa 692/2022 facts on lot 21/1 violations (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
6. tribunal closes mining for ec transfer violations (Para 28)
7. review applications and supreme court orders dismissed (Para 29 , 30)
8. ma applicant-i seeks mining resumption post-ec transfer (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51)
9. ma applicant-ii claims agent status, no violations (Para 52 , 53 , 54)
10. opposing replies affirm lease expiry, invalid transfers (Para 55 , 56 , 57)
11. ma arguments for judgment modification (Para 58)
12. no recall sought, only modification examined (Para 60 , 61 , 62 , 63)
13. mous constitute mining leases, not agency (Para 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 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119)
14. ec transfer mandatory, seiaa lacks jurisdiction (Para 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 129)
15. no doon valley mining approval from moef&cc (Para 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 134)
16. om 14.02.2022 inapplicable to riverbed mining (Para 135 , 136 , 137 , 138 , 139 , 140 , 141)
17. no independent cto for ma applicants (Para 142)
18. leases expired, no resumption permitted (Para 143 , 144 , 145 , 146 , 147 , 148)
19. mas dismissed, no modification granted (Para 149 , 150)

ORDER

BY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Miscellaneous Application No.121/2023 in Original Application No.692/2022:

1. This Miscellaneous Application (hereinafter referred to as ‘MA’) has been filed by Mukesh Joshi (hereinafter referred to as ‘MA applicant-I’ with a prayer that the judgment dated 30.01.2023 passed in Original Application (hereinafter referred to as ‘OA’) No.692/2022, be modified to the extent that mining operations be resumed and Committee be directed not to take any coercive action against MA applicant applicant-I i.e., Mukesh Joshi and should not impose any penalty in view of the findings that no violation has been committed by MA applicant-I.

Miscellaneous Application No.31/2024 in Original Application No.442/2022:

2. MA 31/2024 in OA 442/2022 has been filed by Vinod Negi i.e., MA applicant-II with a prayer that the judgment dated 30.01.2023 passed in OA 442/2022, be modified to the extent that mining operations be resumed and Committee be directed not to take any coercive action against MA applicant-II i.e., Vinod Negi and should not impose any penalty in view of the findings that no violation has been committed by MA applicant.

3. The prayers made in both MAs are similar with a difference only of OA numbers in as much as MA 121/2023 is in respect of OA 692/2022 while MA 31/2024 is in respect of OA 442/2022

4. We may also place on record at this stage that the judgment dated 30.01.2023 is common having been passed collectively disposing of both OAs i.e., 442/2022 and 692/2022 by the same order.

5. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to have a bird eye view of the facts giving rise to the present MAs.

OA No.442/2022:

6. OA 442/2022 was registered suo-moto in view of law laid by Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Ankita Sinha, (2022) 13 SCC 401 on a letter petition dated 31.03.2022 sent by Juned Ayubi, son of Tareeq Ayubi, B-204, Hill View Apartment, Sahastradhara Road, (Near Gangotri Marble), Danda Lakhaur, Dehradun, State of Uttarakhand on behalf of Save Doon Valley Association with a prayer that the mining leases allotted to Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam, Rajpur Road

Click Here to Read the rest of this document