Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 4952
NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
Prakash Shrivastava, Chairperson, Sudhir Agarwal, Judicial Member, A. Senthil Vel, Expert Member
Ajayveer Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 1190/2024 (I.A. NO. 475/2024)
Important Points
Subject
Environmental Law - Mining and Environmental Clearance
Act Referred
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986: S.3(1)
Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986: R.5(3)(d)
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974: S.25
Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981: S.21
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957: S.8A
Uttar Pradesh Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 2021: R.41(c)
Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006
Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016
Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020: Cl.4(1)(1)
Headnote
(B) National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Sections 14, 15, 18 - Locus standi - Person concerned about environmental violations has sufficient interest, aggrieved person even without personal injury - Residence near mining area or general environmental concern suffices. (Paras 28-31)
(C) National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Section 14(3), 15(3) - Limitation - OA seeking restitution/environmental relief under Section 15 attracts 5-year limitation from cause of action; prayers for fresh DSR, replenishment study, quashing illegal auctions within time. (Paras 32-46)
(D) National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Section 16 - Maintainability - Challenge to e-auction notices (not appealable orders like EC/consents) maintainable as OA under Section 14/15, not Appeal. (Para 47)
Facts of the case:
Applicant challenged e-auction notices for sand mining in specified villages without valid DSR, violating EIA 2006, SSMG-2016, EMGSM-2020. DSR approved 18.11.2017 expired 2022; questioned areas added by State without SEIAA approval. Respondent allotted leases, obtained EC/CTE/CCA. Tribunal issued stay on 10.12.2024.
Findings of Court:
(I) Locus standi upheld. (II) OA within Section 15(3) limitation. (III) OA maintainable. (IV) Mining founded on invalid DSR illegal. (V) Respondent restrained from mining; UPPCB to compute/ recover compensation for past violations; amount for environmental restoration.
Issues: (I) Locus standi? (II) Limitation? (III) OA or Appeal? (IV) Validity of auctions/leases absent valid DSR? (V) Relief? (Para 27)
Ratio Decidendi: Valid DSR, appraised by SEAC and approved by SEIAA, mandatory pre-requisite for mining auctions/leases/EC (Appendix X, EMGSM para 4.1.1); State amendments to approved DSR without statutory appraisal/approval illegal; EC cannot validate defective DSR; replenishment study essential.
Result: OA allowed; mining restrained; compensation assessment/recovery directed.
For the Respondents:Mr. Sanjay Upadhyay, Senior Advocate with Mr. Saumitra Jaiswal, Mr. Rohit Sthalekar, Mr. Surya Gupta and Ms. Anukriti Bajpai, Advocates for Respondent No. 6|Ms. Suhasini Sen, Ms. Masooma Rizvi and Ms. Surbhi, Advocates for MoEF&CC|Ms. Priyanka Swami, Advocate for SEIAA UP|Mr. Mukesh Verma and Ms. Vatsala Tripathi, Advocates for DM, Baghpat|Mr. Amit Shukla, Mr. Amit Kumar, Mr. Atul Mishra and Mr. Chaitanya Kansra, Advocates for UPPCB
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to e-auction notices without valid dsr (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. precedents mandating dsr and replenishment studies (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. respondents' procedural compliance claims (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 4. framing issues for adjudication (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 5. applicant's locus standi upheld (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 6. oa maintainable under section 15 ngt act (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 46) |
| 7. no appeal required for e-auction challenge (Para 47) |
| 8. mining leases lack valid dsr inclusion (Para 48 , 49 , 50) |
| 9. eia 2006 mandates prior ec procedures (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 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) |
| 10. ngt precedents enforce dsr requirements (Para 89 , 90 , 91 , 92) |
| 11. dsr mandatory prerequisite for ec (Para 93 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122) |
| 12. mining restrained; compensation ordered (Para 123 , 124 , 125) |
-
JUDGMENT
BY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The Original Application (hereinafter referred to as ‘OA’) has been filed by Ajayveer Singh, resident of State of Haryana and claims to be deeply concerned with regard to environmental issues particularly alleged damage caused to the environment due to illegal mining and in violation of environmental laws. He has invoked jurisdiction of Tribunal under Section 14 read with Section 18 of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NGT Act, 2010’). The applicant has challenged the e-auction cum e-tender inviting notice dated 09.11.2022 (page 97 of paper book) as corrected vide e-auction cum e-tender notice dated 18.11.2022 (page 96 of paper book) initiated by District Magistrate, Baghpat in respect to certain areas in villages Chhaprauli Khadar and Kotana Khadar for sand mining without preparing a valid District Survey Report (hereinafter referred to as ‘DSR’) in the light of the mandate under Environment Impact Assessment Notification dated 14.09.2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘EIA 2006’) as amended from time to time read with Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SSMG-2016’) and Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining 2020 (hereinafter referred to as ‘EMGSM-2020’).
-
2. Applicant has further assailed subsequent e-auction cum e-tender notice for village Kotana Khadar issued on 02.01.2023 (page 102 of paper book), for village Kotana Khadar dated 02.01.2023 (page 107 of paper book) as corrected by corrigendum dated 02.01.2023 (page 108 of paper book), for villages Badrakha Khadar and Gauripur Khadar dated 03.04.2023 (page 109 of paper book) and villages Badrakha Khadar and Gauripur Khadar dated 03.04.2023 (page 115 of paper book). It is said that all subsequent actions taken by District Magistrate, Ghaziabad with regard to these sand mining activities are illegal and in violation of environmental laws.
3. The facts in brief stated in OA are that DSR in respect of District Baghpat was prepared in November 2017 showing mining queries in the district with location, area and period of validity as under:
Table 15: List of Proposed Mining Quarries in the District with Location, Area and Period of Validity
| Sr. No. | Mauza | Gata No. | Area |
| 1. | Gauripur | 1/2/1 | 34.65 Acres (14.02 Ha) |
| 2. | Badarakha Khadar | 1/2 | 20.00 Acres (8.09 Ha) |
| 3. | Chhaprauli Khadar | 1/2 | 50.00 Acres (20.23 Ha) |
-
| 4. | Sankroud Khadar | 634 Mi | 48 Acres (19.42 Ha) |
| 5. | Subhanpur | 212, 216-224, 231-246, 378, 379, 381-385, 391,392 | 39.55 Acres (16.00 Ha) |
Table 16: List of running short term Sand permit in the District with Location, Area and Period of Validity Sr. Mauza Area (Ha) Period No.
1. Badarakha 5.0 Ha Six months 2. Sisna 5.0 Ha Six months
4. Record shows the total potential area for sand m
