Replenishment study mandatory prior to granting EC for river bed sand mining to ensure sustainability; EC without it invalid, though no interference if study completed subsequently under judicial protection.

ORDER

1. In this appeal filed under section 16 read with section 18 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the “NGT Act”) appellant has challenged the Environmental Clearance (EC) dated 29.01.2022 issued in favour of the respondent no. 5 (project proponent) for river bed sand mining in river Yamuna at village Jairampur Jagiri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana.

2. The submission of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the EC has been granted for mining of boulder, gravel and sand and the EC contains the condition to carry out the replenishment study after starting the project which is not permissible. He submits that this issue is already covered by the order of the Tribunal dated 11.03.2022 passed in Appeal No. 23/2021, Pramod v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. He also submits that the auction was only for sand but EC has been granted for boulder, gravel and sand. His further submission is that the lease has been executed for ten years for a larger area than the one for which the auction was held and EC was granted.

3. Learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 5/Project Proponent (PP), has submitted that the EC is only for sand mining and due to the typographical error on the first page of the EC, boulder and gravel has been mentioned. He submits that in the order of Supreme Court dated 31.10.2023 passed in Civil Appeal No. 5194/2022, all the pleas have been left open. Further submission is that when the mining is done after a long time for the first time, replenishment study for the first year is not necessary and for the subsequent year the replenishment study has been done. He has placed reliance upon the mining plan and the District Survey Report (DSR). He has also referred to page 114 of the compilation and has submitted that the procedure prescribed in Enforcement & Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as the “guidelines of 2020”) was not contemplated when the DSR was prepared in 2017.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the State of Haryana has submitted that the EC was initially issued for one year without conducting replenishment study and for the subsequent years the EC has been issued based upon the replenishment study. He has submitted that e- auction was held on 05.11.2015 and 06.11.2015, the LoI was issued on 30.11.2015, EC was granted in the year 2022 and the mining was done from 01.05.2022 till 30.05.2022.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

6. In this appeal, Tribunal on 24.05.2022 had passed an interim order restraining the respondent no. 5/PP from undertaking mining in pursuance to the impugned EC pending further consideration of the appeal. This order was subject matter of challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court at the instance of PP in Civil Appeal No. 5194/2022 wherein interim order was passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 22.08.2022 to the following effect:

“Applications seeking exemption from filing C/C of the impugned judgment and permission to file additional documents/facts/annexures are allowed.Admit.

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the mine in question has not been mined since 2010 and thus unless mining takes place there cannot be a replenishment study. He further submits that on account of observations made in paragraph 9 of the impugned order even show cause notice has been issued for cancellation by SEIAA, Haryana.

Issue notice, which is accepted by learned cou