National Green Tribunal
Amit Kumar vs Union Of India on 1 September, 2025
Item No.06
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
CENTRAL ZONE BENCH, BHOPAL
(Through Video Conferencing)
Original Application No. 90/2024(CZ)
Amit Kumar & Anr. Applicant(s)
Vs.
Union of India. & Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of Hearing: 01.09.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. ISHWAR SINGH, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant (s): Mr. Amit Kumar (In-Person)
For Respondent(s) : Dr. Sapna Aggarwal, Adv. For MoEF&CC
Mr. Shoeb Hasan Khan, Adv. For State of Rajasthan
Mr. Om Shankar Shrivastava, Adv. For RIICO
Mr. Rohit Sharma, Adv. For RSPCB
ORDER
1. Issue raised in this application is existence of the Sota River (a tributary of the Sahibi River) which flows through the Kotputli-Behror district of Rajasthan and eventually merges in to the Sahibi River. This river is facing a dire environmental crisis due to a trifecta of challenges: illegal mining/stone crushers operating in its riverbed, unlawful encroachments, and neglected maintenance.
2. It is alleged that explosives are illegally used in the blasting boulders, in the illegal mining activities, endangering the lives of the residents.
3. The issues highlighted in this application are operation of illegal stone crushers and mining activities in the river bed of Sota River as well as the streams, unlawful and unauthorised constructions and encroachment, neglected maintenance and in action on the part of Rajasthan State 1 O.A. No. 90/2024(CZ) Amit Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. Industrial Development and Investment Corporation (RIICO) establishing the case Vana Industrial area.
4. The contention of the applicant is that the above facts are directly degrading the environment of the Sota river and threatening the regions ecological balance, loss of ground water and contributing to the water scarcity in the region.
5. Notices were issued to the respondent and a joint committee was constituted to submit the report. In response to the notices respondent has filed the reply and the members of the committee visited the site and submitted the report. Heard the argument of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The submission of the Learned Counsel for the applicants are that the origin of the Sota River, traces to several smaller streams which originate close to the villages of Kali Khera, Theekariya, Chosala, Cheeplata etc. in the Kotputli-Behror district. These streams feed the Buchara Dam from where the Sota river flows through several villages and merges in to the Sahibi river close to the Jalalpur village of the Kotputli-Behror district of Rajasthan. Historically, the Sota River has been a tributary of the Sahibi River and has played a vital role in sustaining agriculture, supporting biodiversity, and serving as a lifeline for several villages along its course.
7. It is further argued that the Sota River is on the verge of extinction due to multiple reasons including illegal Stone Crushers and Mining Activities, Unlawful Encroachments, Neglected Maintenance and further that there have been several incidents of the accidents as a result of using the blasting/explosives in the mining one such incident took place in November 2019 when three people were seriously injured and was widely 2 O.A. No. 90/2024(CZ) Amit Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. reponed in media such as in Times of India tilled - Three hurt in blast during illegal mining.
8. It is further argued that beyond its immediate environmental ramifications, the degradation of the Sota River as well as the Buchara Dam has broader societal impacts, disrupting the socio-economic fabric of the local communities. Agriculture, a primary livelihood for many in the region, has suffered due to the unreliable water supply, with the loss of biodiversity further diminishing the natural resilience of local ecosystems. The degradation of the Sota River represents not only an ecological crisis but also a looming socio-economic challenge, underscoring the urgency of a coordinated revival effort.
9. The Sota River's decline has exacerbated water scarcity issues and loss of groundwater, pushing the community towards unsustainable water sources and practices. The loss of the Sota River as a natural water source has heightened dependencies on groundwater extraction, accelerating the depletion of these reserves and leading to a vicious cycle of water insecurity. This situation has magnified the imperative for the river's revival, not only as an environmental endeavour but as a crucial step towards sustainable development and ensuring water securit5z for future generations.
10. That the Buchara Dam contributed to the groundwater recharging as well as to store the rainwater which was then passed to the villages for irrigation. In the past, the Sota river was used by approximately 10,000 farmers in 20 different villages for the irrigation purposes and hence is a lifeline for the farmers of the region. Due to the disappearance of the river streams lilting up the Buchara Dam, the water collection in the Dam has stopped.
3 O.A. No. 90/2024(CZ) Amit Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
11. The observations of the members of the committee consisting Assistant Engineer, Water Resource Department, Sr. Hydrogeologist, Ground Water Department, Alwar, Member of the CPCB and the member of the State PCB are as follows :-
i. "The area of river-flow of Sota River starts from Paota to Kotputli and ends in Behror. There are two notable dams/reservoirs in this stretch namely Buchara Dam and Banedi Bandh.
ii. The members inspected the area starting from Buchara Dam and its nearby areas, Banedi Bandh and its nearby areas, Bhuri Badhaj area, RIICO Keshwana area and Sotanala area including RPS International School (as mentioned in the original application filed by the applicant).
iii. During the course of inspection, traces of mining activities were observed near the Buchara Dam area (Co-ordinates 27.586251 N, 75.977471 E) and River Sand mining were also observed in the Banedi Bandh (Co-ordinates 27.617548 N, 76.027188 E) and its nearby catchment area. Also, some of the stone crushers were found operative in the places visited by the Joint Committee Members.
iv. Details of the aforementioned stone crushers, with reference to the Consent to Operate (CTO) and their validity, issued by RSPCB are as follows:-
4
O.A. No. 90/2024(CZ) Amit Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Sr. Name of Stone Crusher Validity of CTO
No.
1. M/s Maa Bhagwati Stone 31/07/2033
Crusher
2. M/s Dhanlaxmi Stone 31/08/2024
Crusher
3. M/s NCR Infratech 31/01/2034
4. M/s JVG Mining 31/05/2031
5. M/s Triveni Minerals 28/02/2033
6. M/s Kuber Kamna 30/04/2034
7. M/s Shivaye Minerals CTO application dated
28/06/2024 is pending
at present.
8. M/s Shree Salasar 28/02/2033
Industries
The pollution control measures were found adopted by these aforementioned stone crushers. During the visit, Sh. Praveen Kumar, Tehsildar, Paota informed that the details of illegal stone crushers and its encroachment will be provided after verifying the records but till date no information provided.
v. In view of the observations made during site visit dated 14/06/2024 and 02/07/2024, since the mining activities in the area pertain to Mining Department/Forest Department/Land Revenue Department, the establishment of structures in and around the probable river-flow area of the Sota River pertain to Land Revenue Department and encroachment in the collection/storage area of dams/reservoirs pertain to Water Resource Department, therefore, Regional Office, RSPCB Alwar (being the nodal agency) issued letters to the concerned departments, as above, for submission of factual status and action taken report, if any, for their jurisdiction. 5 O.A. No. 90/2024(CZ) Amit Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
vi. However, the requisite information/data has not been received from all the departments except Mining Department and RIICO Keshwana.
vii. Assistant Mining Engineer, Kotputli, vide its letter dated 15/07/2024, informed that several cases of illegal mining has been observed in the past as well in Buchara Dam, Banedi Bandh area, Bhuri Badhaj area and Mining Department is regularly taking action against the illegal mining. From financial year 2010-11 to financial year 2024-25 (up to 30/06/2024), the department has taken action against 2113 number of cases for illegal mining/illegal transportation/illegal storage and also imposed and collected penalty of Rs. 836.24 Lakhs. Assistant Mining Engineer, Kotputli letter dated 15/07/2024.
viii. As far as the establishment of RIICO Industrial Area, Keshwana is concerned, the Unit Head, RIICO Neemrana, vide its report enclosed with the letter no. 868 dated 12/07/2024, stated that land measuring area 178.42 hectares, of village Keshwana Gurjar and Keshwana Rajput of Tehsil Kotputli in District Kotputli-Behror, was set apart by District Collector, Jaipur, vide its order no. 15381 dated 26/11/1992, for the industrial purpose. Thereafter, land of area measuring 33.53 hectares and further 11.32 hectares were also allotted/acquired in favor of RIICO. Later on, RIICO surrendered land measuring area 20.84 hectares. As per the report, there is 6 O.A. No. 90/2024(CZ) Amit Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
no encroachment made by RIICO Keshwana on the riverbed of the Sota River.
Recommendation of the Joint Committee:-
Since the applicant has alleged regarding the illegal mining activities, establishment of stone crushers, illegal encroachment, etc. in the river-flow of Sota River, which is related with the jurisdiction of various departments as already mentioned above (point no. "v" of observations), therefore, this committee is of the view that separate action taken reports shall be submitted by the concerned departments before National Green Tribunal."
12. Learned Counsel for the State has submitted that a report was called from the mines engineer and it has been submitted that in the year 2010-2011, the matter of illegal mining was monitored and it was approximately 13 illegal minings in that year and an amount of Rs. 18.49 lakhs has been recovered from the violators. Similarly, a chart has been submitted taking action from the year 2010-2011 till the year 2024-2025 and necessary action has been initiated against the violators and an amount of compensation/penalty has been recovered.
13. The RIICO, Neemrana, Rajasthan has submitted that the District Collector Jaipur set apart land measuring 178.42 hect. of village Keshwana Gurjar & Keshwana Rajput, Tehsil Kotputli, Distt. Kotputli- Behror under section 92 of land revenue act 1956, vide office order no. R- 18B(9)1992/1/15381 dated 26.11.1992. Further, Government of Rajasthan had ordered that the land specified in the schedule which had earlier been set-apart by the District Collector, Jaipur by the order no. R- 7 O.A. No. 90/2024(CZ) Amit Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 18B(9)1992/1/15381 dated 26.11.1992 under section 92 of the land Revenue Act, 1956 for industrial purposes is allotted to Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation, Jaipur. Thereafter, land measuring 35.53 Hect. was also allotted to the corporation. The Corporation had also acquired private khatedari land measuring 11.32 hect. of village Keshwan Gurjar for the industrial area for industrial purpose vide award dated 15.12.2001. As per decision of Government of Rajasthan, RIICO land measuring 20.84 Hect. was surrendered by the corporation.
After taking possession of the land RIICO had developed aforesaid industrial area wherein 38 nos. Industrial plots were planned. The corporation has allotted all 38 nos. Industrial plots to industrialist for establishing industrial unit in the industrial area.
As per revenue record/map and also on inspection of site it was observed that no encroachment is made by RIICO on the riverbed of the Sota River.
14. The learned counsel for MoEF&CC has argued that State Department of Mines and Geology is the Nodal Authority in the State for dealing with the allotment of mining leases under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act (MMDR Act) and is entrusted with the enforcement and regulation of mining operations in a State including illegal mining. Further, the State Government is empowered under Section 23C of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 to make rules for prevention of illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals and the State Department of Mines & Geology is the nodal authority in the State for dealing with the allotment of mining 8 O.A. No. 90/2024(CZ) Amit Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. leases under the MMDR Act and is entrusted with the enforcement and regulation of mining operations in a state.
15. The Ministry issued Environmental Impact Assessment Notification dated 14.09.2006 which requires certain projects to obtain prior Environmental Clearance before any construction work in case of new projects or expansion and modernization of existing projects or activities. The Schedule to the Notification details the categories or Projects or Activities which require prior environmental clearance. That, all Projects and Activities are broadly categorized into two categories Category "A" and Category "B", based on the spatial extent of potential impacts and potential impacts on human health and natural and man-made resources.
16. All projects or activities included as Category 'A' in the Schedule, including expansion and modernization of existing projects or activities and change in product mix require prior environmental clearance from the Central Government in the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) and all projects or activities included as Category 'B' in the Schedule require prior State/Union territory Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA).
17. That, in exercise of the powers conferred upon the Central Government under sub section (3) of section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and in accordance with the procedures specified in the EIA Notification, 2006, SEIAAs have been constituted in different States/UTs to discharge the functions of the regulatory authorities for the respective States/UTs. It is humbly submitted that State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) Rajasthan, is a regulatory authority in the instant matter.
9 O.A. No. 90/2024(CZ) Amit Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
18. That, the Ministry vide notification no. S.O. 637 (E) dated 28.02.2014 delegated the power to SEIAA to issue show cause notice to project proponents in case of violation of the conditions of the environment clearances issued by the said Authorities to projects or activities within their jurisdiction.
19. That, the Ministry vide notification S.O. 1886 (E) dated 20.04.2022 has delegated the power to the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) to grant Environmental Clearances to all minor mineral (including sand) mining projects, irrespective of mine lease area and ≤ 250 ha. Mining lease area in respect of major mineral mining lease other than coal.
20. The Ministry has formulated the new guidelines i.e. "Enforcement & Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining" (EMGSM-2020) supplemental to the existing guidelines i.e. Sustainable Sand Management Guidelines 2016 (SSMG-2016), which focusses on the effective monitoring of the sand mining since from the identification of sand mineral sources to its dispatch and end-use by consumers and the general public. Further, this document will serve as a guideline for collection of critical information for enforcement of the regulatory provision(s) and also highlights the essential infrastructural requirements necessary for effective monitoring for Sustainable Sand Mining. Further, EMGSM-2020 & SSMG-2016 shall be read and implemented in sync with each other. In case, any ambiguity or variation between the provisions of both these document arises, the provision made in "Enforcement & Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining-2020" shall prevail.
21. It is further argued that Ministry of Mines has prepared a 'Sand Mining Framework' in consultation with Mining Departments of the States 10 O.A. No. 90/2024(CZ) Amit Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. incorporating best practices amongst States and suggestions based on the objectives of sustainability, availability, affordability and transparency in the sand mining. The 'Sand Mining Framework' has been circulated to all the States for necessary action.
22. It is submitted that, the Stone crushing Units should operate only after obtaining Consent to Establish (CTE) and Consent to Operate (CTO) from concerned "State Pollution Control Boards(SPCBs) and Pollution Control Committee (PCCs) as per provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and should meet the conditions of consents laid down in Consent to Establish (CTE) and Consent to Operate (CTO) issued by SPCBs/PCCs.
23. Stone crushing Units need to comply with the Environmental Norms as stipulated under the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 for stone crushing unit. Illegal operation of the Units should be stopped immediately by the concerned authorities. Stone Crushing Units fall under the Schedule- I of Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 (Standards for emission or discharge of environmental pollutants).
24. That the Central Pollution Control Board in exercise of its power under the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, vide dated 07.03.2016 categorized the Stone Crushing Units under orange category with a Pollution Index score with maximum contribution of air pollution of total pollution potential.
25. It is further argued that the state authorities have to implement and enforce the enforcement and monitoring guidelines for sand mining 11 O.A. No. 90/2024(CZ) Amit Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. issued in January, 2020 in letter and spirit and take necessary action according to rules in case of violations.
26. The Learned Counsel for the State Pollution Control Board, Rajasthan has submitted that the consent to operate for stone crushers and other industries on the point of environmental standpoint are monitored by the State Pollution Control Board and the details of these stone crushers and the validity of their consent to operate have been given as follows:-
SR. NAME OF STONE VALIDITY OF
NO. CRUSHER CTO
1 M/s Maa Bhagwati Stone 31/07/2033
Crusher
2 M/s Dhanlaxmi Stone 31/08/2024
Crusher
3 M/s NCR Infratech 31/01/2034
4 M/s JVG Mining 31/05/2031
5 M/s Triveni Minerals 28/02/2033
6 M/s Kuber Kamna 30/04/2034
7 M/s Shivaye Minerals CTO application
dated
28/06/2024 is
pending at
present.
8 M/s Shree Salasar 28/02/2033
Industries
In addition to the above, regarding river sand mining activities in the Sota River flow area, the RSPCB is not the competent authority to take action against defaulters, as per the circulars dated and 09.02.2012 05.07.2021 issued by the Chief Government Secretary, of Rajasthan.
27. It is further argued that the State of Rajasthan, Department of Mining, (Group-II) has issued guidelines to regulate the sand mining and to control the illegal sand mining.
28. The contention and submission of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 9 - RIICO Mr. Om Shankar Srivastava are that Rajasthan State Industrial Development 8& Investment Corporation 12 O.A. No. 90/2024(CZ) Amit Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. Limited (RIICO) was established on 01.01.1980 after bi-furcation from Rajasthan State Industrial & Mineral Development Corporation (RSIMDC), A Government enterprise incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 28th March 1969. RIICO has pioneered the industrialization of the State of Rajasthan.
29. As per records, District Collector Jaipur set apart measuring 178.42 hect. of village Keshwana Gurjar & Keshwana Rajput, Tehsil Kotputli, Distt. Kotputli Behror under section 92 of land revenue act 1956, vide office order no. R-18B(9)1992/I/15381 dated 26.11.1992. Further Government of Rajasthan had ordered that the land specified in the schedule attached, which had earlier been set-apart by the District Collector, Jaipur by the order no. R 18B(9)1992/1/15381 dated 26.11.1992 under section 92 the land Revenue Act, 1956 for industrial purposes, allotted to Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation, Jaipur. Later on Government of Rajasthan had allotted land measuring 24.21 hect. government land to the corporation. The corporation had also acquired private khatedari land measuring 11.32 hect. for industrial purpose. Subsequently, Government of Rajasthan and the corporation were decided to surrender land measuring 20.84 hect. land to the Government of Rajasthan out of total allotted and acquired land of the corporation.
30. It is further argued that the role of RIICO is for facilitating industrial development in the state and after taking possession of the land RIICO had developed industrial area and 38 industrial plots were plant and allotted accordingly, subject to fulfilment of all legal requirement as per rule.
13 O.A. No. 90/2024(CZ) Amit Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
31. The applicant has filed the objection against the Joint Committee report and submitted that the Committee has conducted two site visits but did not inspect the Sota River from its origin to the Buchara Dam and that permanent public road constructions have not been taken care of.
32. It is further argued that the permanent construction of the school within the river belt was ignored and a consent condition which was issued by the State PCB was expired in the August, 2024 or June, 2024 but the State PCB has not taking care of all these things.
33. It is further argued that Department from 2010 to 2024 have collected the fines amounting to Rs. 836.24 lakhs but the amount aforesaid has not been utilised for the restoration of the river. It is further argued that entire river is at the verge of damage and remedial action is required to be taken by the authorities concerned.
34. In response to the above contention the submission of the learned counsel for the State PCB are that the consent condition, status has been narrated in the application and after expiry of the period, the same is processed as per application applied by the project proponent. It is argued that the status of the river from origin to end is not within the domain of the State PCB and it is for the state for taking action for rejuvenation of the river body.
35. Learned counsel for the State Mr. Shoeb Hasan Khan has filed the response and action taken report and submitted that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pawta, joint action has been initiated by the Department of Mines and Geology, the Revenue Department, and Police against unidentified individuals involved in illegal mining of gravel and stone in the Pawta Sub-Division, particularly in the revenue villages of Dudawas, Chandoli, Bhuribhadaj, Jeengaur, Sujatnagar, Bichloda, Rampura, and the Buchara Damarea affected by the Sota River. This coordinated 14 O.A. No. 90/2024(CZ) Amit Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. enforcement action shall continue in the future as well. At present, there is no permanent raw or unfinished structure in the Buchara Dam and Sota River/Drain area. Furthermore, there is no instance of permanent encroachment as of now and no encroachment or illegal mining of any kind has been found in Patwar Halka Sherpur and Gurjar was. However, in Patwar Halka Mohammadpur, instances of illegal encroachment on the Sota River area have been identified, and appropriate action has been initiated under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956.
36. As per the report dated 19.02.2025 received from the Tehsildar, Kotputli, with regard to illegal mining, operation of stone crushers, and unauthorized encroachment in the Sota River and its flow area within the Kotputli Sub-Division, as well as the establishment of the RIICO Industrial Area, Keshwana, appropriate action has been initiated under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 against the illegal encroachments in the Sota River and its flow area.
37. As per the reports from the concerned Patwaris of Kheda, Nangallakha Shyampura, Buteri, Babedi, and Babaria, no illegal mining or encroachment is presently taking place in these areas. However, according to the report from the Patwari of Patwar Halka Babera, in Village Babera, Arazi Khasra No. 01 ad-measuring area 46.74 hectares (Gair Mumkin Nadi) and Khasra No. 02 ad-measuring area 47.47 hectares (Gair Mumkin Nadi)) are recorded as river land. In Khasra No. 02, proceedings under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, for eviction of encroachers are currently pending before the Tehsildar, Bansur.
38. The notices were also issued to the respondent no. 2 and the Executive Director (Technical) has filed the affidavit. Learned counsel for the 15 O.A. No. 90/2024(CZ) Amit Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. respondent Mr. Om Shankar Shrivastava has argued that NMCG is one of the authorities constituted in accordance with the provisions of sub- section 3 of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 vide notification no. S.O. No. 3187(E) dated 07.10.2016, published in the gazette of India. NMCG has been mandated with for the implementation of programs for protection, prevention and rejuvenation of river Ganga and its tributaries christened as the Namami Gange Programme (NGP) of the Central Government. The NGP focuses on effective abatement of pollution and rejuvenation, protection and management of the river Ganga and its tributaries through interventions like taking up sewerage infrastructure projects for interception, diversion and treatment of waste water discharge from open drains into the river through construction of new STPs and/or rehabilitation and augmentation of existing STPs, laying of sewage pipelines etc.
39. The issue raised in the application pertains to the severe environmental degradation and existential threat faced by the Sota River, a tributary of the Sahibi River flowing through the Kotputli-Behror district of Rajasthan, which ultimately merges into the Sahibi River; the crisis has been caused by rampant illegal mining and stone-crushing activities in the riverbed, unlawful encroachments, and inadequate maintenance, with allegations of explosives being illegally used for blasting boulders, posing a grave risk to local residents, while the continued operation of illegal stone crushers and mining activities, encroachments on adjoining streams, and the inaction of the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation (RIICO) regarding the establishment of the Vana Industrial Area further exacerbate the situation.
40. The MoEF&CC, vide notification no S.O 1533 (E) dated 14.09.2006, has issued Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006, 16 O.A. No. 90/2024(CZ) Amit Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. mandating prior Environment Clearance for regulating potential impacts from certain category of projects, including mining. Further, it is submitted that the regulatory authorities viz the Central Government / State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAAs), have been constituted, under sub section 3 of section 3 of the Act and these authorities are empowered to grant environment clearance (EC), depending on the category of projects or activities, identified in the schedule, at the central level and at the States/UTs level i.e Category "A" and Category "B" projects in the schedule appended to the Notification, requiring prior environmental clearance from the Central Government/State/UT EIAA, as the case may be. All projects and activates for mining, falling in Category "B" require prior environmental clearance from the SEIAA. That the EIA Notification, 2006 is amended by the MoEF&CC from time to time. As per the amendment Notification no S.O 1886 (E) dated 20.04.2022, SEIAA have been empowered to grant environment clearance to all minor minerals mining projects, irrespective of mine leases area. That as regards sand mining, SEIAA is duly empowered to take action for grant of EC to the Project Proponent and in case of violations of the EC conditions and against the said project proponent. As per sub section (2) of section 4-A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957, as amended, where the State Government is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of regulation of mines and minerals development, preservation of natural enviror environment, control of floods, or to avoid danger to public health or communications or to ensure safety of buildings, monuments or other structures or for such other purposes, as the State Government may deem fit, it may, by an order, in respect of any minor mineral, make premature termination of prospecting license or mining lease with 17 O.A. No. 90/2024(CZ) Amit Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
respect to the area or any part thereof covered by such license or lease. The State Department of Mines and Geology is the nodal authority, in the State, for dealing with the allotment of mining leases under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957, as amended, and has been entrusted with the enforcement and regulation of mining operations in a State including illegal mining. The State Government is also empowered, under Section 23C of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, as amended, to frame rules regulating and prevention of illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals.
41. In compliance with the Tribunal's directions and the findings of the Joint Committee, NMCG vide its letter dated 14.07.2025, has also requested the District Magistrate concerned and Secretary Environment to initiate appropriate action to address the issues of illegal mining and encroachments, restore the river ecosystem, and safeguard the interests of local communities. The District Magistrate has also been requested to submit an Action Taken Report on the measures undertaken.
42. It is further argued by the Learned Counsel for the applicant that Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs has issued guidelines namely River Centric Urban Planning Guidelines for States and Union Territories. The said guidelines has a reference of a draft notification of Ministry of the Environment, Forest and Climate Change. The said guidelines have been issued for (i) Town & Country Planning Department,
(ii) Urban Development Authorities and (iii) Urban Local Bodies to ensure sustainability of rivers passing through cities and towns and to regulate the development along the river banks and flood plains. It is submitted that, though these are guidelines, but the same acts as a framework for the local bodies and department for river water conservation and 18 O.A. No. 90/2024(CZ) Amit Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. recommends planning strategies and that under the draft notification pertaining to the River Regulation Zones issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change GoI, which has been incorporated in the River Centric Urban Planning Guidelines, the river stretches and their tributaries are classified into three categories namely floodplain rivers, seasonal rivers and mountain rivers/ hill streams. It is further submitted that the river regulation zones have been divided into three categories depending upon the permission granted to carry out developmental activities :-
(i) Prohibited activities zones: level in past 50 years. In case of the presence of embankments in the floodplain area, then this zone will extend form the riverbank to the present outermost embankment and further a 100 meter buffer is provided outside that embankment.
(ii) Restricted activities zone: It will have limits extended from the outer limits of the prohibited zone and up to 1 kilometers.
(iii) Regulated activities zone: This zone extends up to 3 km from the outer limits of the restricted activities zone. Certain activities would be permitted in this zone. Activities which are permitted include Traditional grazing by domestic animals, traditional capture fishing and organic farming, discharge of treated domestic waste waters, withdrawal of ground water using hand pump, recreational activities which will not require boat jetties etc. As per the guidelines, the activities which are not permitted include bunding, dumping of solid waste, construction of new embankment, land reclamation, 19 O.A. No. 90/2024(CZ) Amit Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
toxic materials, and withdrawing water for commercial purposes other than hydro power and irrigation projects.
43. The applicant relied on law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388 wherein it has been observed that:-
"25. The Public Trust Doctrine primarily rests on the principle that certain resources like air, sea, waters and the forests have such a great importance to the people as a whole that it would be wholly unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership. The said resources being a gift of nature, they should be made freely available to everyone irrespective of the status in life. The doctrine enjoins upon the Government to protect the resources for the enjoyment of the general public rather than to permit their use for private ownership or commercial purposes. According to Professor Sax the Public Trust Doctrine imposes the following restrictions on governmental authority:
"Three types of restrictions on governmental authority are often thought to be imposed by the public trust: first, the property subject to the trust must not only be used for a public purpose, but it must be held available for use by the general public; second, the property may not be sold, even for a fair cash equivalent; and third the property must be maintained for particular types of uses."
35. We are fully aware that the issues presented in this case illustrate the classic struggle between those members of the public who would preserve our rivers, forests, parks and open lands in their pristine purity and those charged with administrative responsibilities who, under the pressures of the changing needs of an increasingly complex society, find it 20 O.A. No. 90/2024(CZ) Amit Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
necessary to encroach to some extent upon open lands heretofore considered inviolate to change. The resolution of this conflict in any given case is for the legislature and not the courts. If there is a law made by Parliament or the State Legislatures the courts can serve as an instrument of determining legislative intent in the exercise of its powers of judicial review under the Constitution. But in the absence of any legislation, the executive acting under the doctrine of public trust cannot abdicate the natural resources and convert them into private ownership, or for commercial use. The aesthetic use and the pristine glory of the natural resources, the environment and the ecosystems of our country cannot be permitted to be eroded for private, commercial or any other use unless the courts find it necessary, in good faith, for the public good and in public interest to encroach upon the said resources."
44. That, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Tirupur Dyeing Factory Owners Assn. v. Noyyal River Ayacutdars Protection Assn., (2009) 9 SCC 737 has held as under:-
22. In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India [(1996) 3 SCC 212] , this Court ruled that once the industrial activities carried out are found to be hazardous or inherently dangerous, the person carrying on such activities are liable to make good the loss caused to any other person by his activity irrespective of the fact whether he took reasonable care while carrying out his industrial or commercial activities. Therefore, the polluting industries are absolutely liable to compensate for the harm caused by it to villagers or other affected persons of the area, to the soil and to the underground water and hence, the industry is bound to take all necessary measures to prevent degradation of environment and also to remove sludge and other pollutants lying in the affected area. As the liability of the polluter is absolute for harm to the environment it extends not only to the victims of pollution but also to meet the cost of restoring the pollution-free environment. 21 O.A. No. 90/2024(CZ) Amit Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
23. In Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India [(1996) 5 SCC 647 : AIR 1996 SC 2715] this Court considered various constitutional provisions including Articles 47, 48-A, 51-A(g) and came to the conclusion that it is the duty of the State to protect and preserve the ecology, as Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees protection of life and personal liberty and every person has a right to pollution-free atmosphere.
Therefore, the "precautionary principle" and the "polluter pays"
principle have been accepted as a part of the law of the land being the part of environmental law of the country.
24. Similar view has been reiterated in People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India [(1997) 3 SCC 43 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 434] , A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu [(1999) 2 SCC 718 : AIR 1999 SC 812] and M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [(2009) 6 SCC 142] , observing that environment and ecology are national assets. They are subject to intergenerational equity. The sustainable development principle is a part of Articles 21, 48-A and 51-A(g) of the Constitution of India.
25. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [(2004) 12 SCC 118] this Court explained the scope of "precautionary principle" observing that it "requires anticipatory action to be taken to prevent harm. The harm can be prevented even on a reasonable suspicion. It is not always necessary that there should be direct evidence of harm to the environment." (SCC p. 168, para 48)
26. The concept of "sustainable development" has been explained that it covers the development that meets the needs of the person without compromising the ability of the future generation to meet their own needs. It means the development, that can take place and which can be sustained by nature/ecology with or without mitigation. Therefore, in such matters, the required standard is that the risk of harm to the environment or to human health is to be decided in public interest, according to a "reasonable person's" test. The 22 O.A. No. 90/2024(CZ) Amit Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
development of the industries, irrigation resources and power projects are necessary to improve employment opportunities and generation of revenue, therefore, cannot be ignored. In such eventuality, a balance has to be struck for the reason that if the activity is allowed to go on, there may be irreparable damage to the environment and there may be irreparable damage to the economic interest. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in T.N. GodavarmanThirumulpad (104) v. Union of India [(2008) 2 SCC 222] and M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [(2009) 6 SCC 142] .
27. In case in spite of stringent conditions, degradation of environment continues and reaches a stage of no return, the Court may consider the closure of industrial activities in areas where there is such a risk. The authorities also have to take into consideration the macro effect of wide-scale land and environmental degradation caused by absence of remedial measures. The right to information and community participation for protection of environment and human health is also a right which flows from Article 21 [vide Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. (3) v. Bombay Environmental Action Group [(2006) 3 SCC 434 : AIR 2006 SC 1489] , T.N. GodavarmanThirumulpad v. Union of India [(2002) 10 SCC 606] , Research Foundation for Science Technology National Resource Policy v. Union of India [(2005) 10 SCC 510] , N.D. Jayal v. Union of India [(2004) 9 SCC 362 : AIR 2004 SC 867] , M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath [(2002) 3 SCC 653 : AIR 2002 SC 1515] and Susetha v. State of T.N. [(2006) 6 SCC 543 : AIR 2006 SC 2893]
45. The Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Govt. of India guidelines provides River Centric Urban Planning containing the following Regulations : -
"38. United Nations has on 26 July, 2010 resolved unanimously to declare "right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation as a human right". Healthy rivers are essential for realization of the said obligation by India as a Party to the UN. Further, statutory mandate from Section 3, 5 and 6 of the 23 O.A. No. 90/2024(CZ) Amit Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 seeks to regulate such activities that are found to be incompatible with maintaining the health of the river systems as dynamic and life sustaining entities. It is thus proposed to frame rules to regulate harmful activities in and around the rivers.
Categorization of urban river stretches Category I Urbanized stretch shall include stretches of rivers (including their tributaries), with or without embankments, in designated urban areas where infrastructure facilities in the form of roads, buildings (residential, commercial, recreational), temples, ghats etc exist.
Category II Peri urban stretch shall include stretches of rivers (including their tributaries) in suburban and rural areas, with or without embankments, where infrastructure development if any is moderate and the land is primarily under natural vegetation, forestry, agriculture and grazing.
Lateral zonation of river banks "Active Flood Plain" is defined as High Flood Line (HFL) which in entrenched / embanked stretches of a river stretch shall be the available space (including the river channel/s) in the valley of entrenched stretch or between two embankments or between existing roads on either side along a river acting as an embankment. In other stretches of the river, HFL/ active flood plain shall be the 100-year flood line.
No Development and Construction Zone (NDCZ): The competent authority shall determine a NDCZ on either bank for each river which shall not be less than the "Active Flood Plain" of the river.24
O.A. No. 90/2024(CZ) Amit Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
High & medium impact zones:
The competent authority shall identify and designate suitable distance/s from the NDCZ on either bank keeping local topographical conditions in mind, to be called as high impact and medium impact zones. In plains, where river topography is relatively flat, these distances shall not be less than 1 and 3 Km respectively from the NDCZ depending on the width of the urban river.
Following public facilities shall not be permitted in active flood plain/ NDCZ:
• Hospitals, nursing homes, and housing likely to have occupants who may not be sufficiently mobile to avoid injury or death during a flood, • Police stations, fire stations, vehicle and equipment storage facilities, and emergency operations centers that are needed for flood response activities before, during, and after the flood, • Structures or facilities that produce, use, or store highly volatile, inflammable, explosive, toxic, and/or water-reactive materials, • Public semi-public facilities like sewage and water treatment plants (STP/ WTP); power plants and stations; bus depot; metro stations/ depot etc. which form the life line infrastructures for any city, • Commercial extraction of ground water by non- government / private agencies shall not be permitted with in NDCZ in any category of the river.
25 O.A. No. 90/2024(CZ) Amit Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
The Urban Local Body/ Urban Development Authority shall act as per the directions of Ministry of Environment and Forests to designate the State Environment Impact Assessment Agency (SEIAA) or the State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) to act as the Competent Authority for implementation of these regulations for environmental conservation and preservation, including water bodies, forests and drains, parks, playgrounds, burial and crematoria.
Uses/Activities permitted Parks/Gardens, playgrounds, sports facilities including stadium, swimming pools, burial cemeteries and crematoria may be permitted under this category. The Parking for these facilities shall be provided as per the provisions of the Master Plan and up to 2% of the total land area with FAR of 0.50 and G+1 structure may be permitted for ancillary uses required to support the main activity such as eating joints/ restaurants, stalls, sheds for storage etc. Uses/Activities permissible under Special circumstance by the Competent Authority i. Open air theatres, indoor recreational uses, dwelling for watch and ward, sports clubs, water front tourism development projects, libraries, milk booths, Horticultural Producers' Cooperative Marketing and Processing Society (HOPCOMS), public toilets.
ii. The ground coverage for such use shall not exceed 5% of the total area with required parking facility and shall not be more than G+1 floor in any case."
26 O.A. No. 90/2024(CZ) Amit Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
46. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that excessive sand mining, without regard for the natural source, have following environmental effects -
▪ Change of morphology of the river destroys the riparian vegetative cover. Riparian habitat helps in controlling erosion, providing nutrient inputs into the stream and prevents intrusion of pollutants in the stream through runoff.
▪ Bed degradation due to sand mining is also responsible for channel shifting, causing loss of properties and degradation of landscape.
▪ Undermining of bridge supports, pipe lines or other structures.
▪ The in-stream habitat is highly affected by the increase in river gradient, suspended load, sediment transport and sediment deposition.
▪ Excessive sediment deposition increases turbidity which lowers light required for photosynthesis and reduces food availability of aquatic fauna.
▪ Change in morphology of the river bed which is an important part of aquatic habitat.
▪ Excessive mining can deplete the gravelly bed material thereby causing harm to the aquatic habitat.
▪ Ground Water table could be lowered.
▪ Depletion of ground water for the purpose of irrigation and drinking.
▪ Increase in channel bank scouring and erosion.
▪ Bank collapse and erosion due to rapid bed degradation. 27 O.A. No. 90/2024(CZ) Amit Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
▪ Pollution of ground water by reducing the thickness of the filter material.
▪ Increased concentration of suspended sediment in the river which in turn causes siltation of water resources projects.
▪ Increase in health hazards such as degradation of air quality and dust fog.
▪ The biodiversity and pest risks also increases due to excessive mining.
▪ Excessive in-stream sand mining results in destruction of aquatic and riparian habitat through changes in channel morphology.
Consequently, to conserve the natural eco-system, use of alternates of river sand such as M sand and sand produced from coal overburden should be encouraged. Further, there are multiple benefits of promotion of alternates of river sand such as:
▪ Uninterrupted supply of sand can be ensured throughout the year without any seasonal effect.
▪ Employment can be generated through the processing plant.
▪ Revenue can be generated from an otherwise
waste product (over burden)
▪ Over exploitation of river sand can be
minimized
▪ Price of river sand/ ordinary sand can be kept under check 28 O.A. No. 90/2024(CZ) Amit Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
After estimation of gap derived from demand-supply assessment, States need to analyse the alternatives options of natural sand available with them. Considering large demand-supply deficit, alternate options need to be promoted for below reasons:-
▪ Alternate supply option will reduce pressure on river sand ▪ Supply of alternatives may reduce prices of river sand ▪ Alternate options can cater to the needs of monsoon season/ peak season.
47. The material as submitted by the learned counsel for the parties discloses that there are severe environmental damage and degradation, causing existential threat to the Sota River, a Tributary of the Sahibi River, flowing through the Kotputli - Bahror district of Rajasthan and ultimately merges into the Sahibi River.
48. The crisis has been caused by rampant illegal mining and stone-crushing activities in the riverbed, unlawful encroachments, and inadequate maintenance with explosives being illegally used for blasting boulders, posing a grave risk to local residents while they continued the operation of illegal stone-crushing and mining activities, encroachments on adjoining streams and the inaction of the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, State Authorities and the Industrial Development Corporation.
49. In view of the above facts, we direct as follows :-
i. Secretary (Environment) is directed to constitute a committee of the competent officers to initiate appropriate actions to address the issue of illegal mining and encroachments, and to restore the river eco-system 29 O.A. No. 90/2024(CZ) Amit Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. and safeguard the interests of the local communities, and the responsibility should be given to the concerned District Magistrate and the monitoring shall be done periodically to ensure the rejuvenation of the river. ii. For restoration of water quality and control and prevention of the potential rise in pollution for avoiding the further deterioration as well as meeting fresh water quality requirement of human use and ecological-cum- environmental health, the dried-up river needs continuous water flow. This can be possible by addressing the river-centric challenges with a holistic, sustainable and basin-wide approach assistant with maintaining a natural balance among interacting limnological conditions across the critical intersection areas of hydrological, geological, meteorological, geographic and morphological and the respondent has to comply and make a balance to maintain the river flow. iii. Secretary (Environment) is directed to prepare a time-
bound action plan for restoration of the river and to take action in a phased manner to rejuvenate the river. iv. Sand mining within the Sota River and its streams must be regulated in accordance with the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 & The Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020 and in-case of any violation, the regulatory measurements with punitive action must be taken by the respondents.
30 O.A. No. 90/2024(CZ) Amit Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. v. Guidelines issued by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, namely River Centric Urban Planning Guidelines must be strictly enforced and acted upon to regulate the riverbanks and floodplains.
vi. Respondents are directed to ensure that there will not be any discharge of untreated water, chemical water or sewage water into the river and remedial measures must be taken immediately to ensure that only treated water should be utilized for the cultivation purposes. vii. Floodplain zoning must be regulated and the floodplains must be demarcated.
viii. No illegal mining of sand and other minerals be permitted from the riverbed and no brick kilns be allowed to be established in the vicinity of the river.
ix. No fishing by illegal means be permitted, including by use of chemicals, electrocution etc., and proper arrangement for cremation along the riverbank of the river be maintained at a safe distance.
x. The Urban Administration and Development Department shall take stringent action and steps for controlling and preventing solid waste going into the river and the bio- diversity of the local flora and fauna in the river valley of the river must be preserved.
xi. The Irrigation Department is directed to coordinate with the Forest Department of the State and to identify the vacant area floodplain zone on the bank of river, such as 31 O.A. No. 90/2024(CZ) Amit Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
which may be developed as green belts and action plan is required to be completed within a time frame. The concerned Collectors of the district situated on the bank of the River Sota are directed to take necessary action to protect and demarcate the River, Floodplain Zones and also to ensure that there should not be any Encroachment, and if it is found, necessary action must be initiated for removal of the said encroachments.
50. With these observations and directions, the Original Application No. 90/2024(CZ) stands disposed of.
51. A copy of the order be communicated to the Secretary (Environment), Water Resource Department, Government of Rajasthan, Rajasthan River Basin and Water Resource Planning Authority, Government of Rajasthan, State Pollution Control Board, Rajasthan and District Collector, Kotputli- Bahror, Rajasthan for information and necessary action.
Sheo Kumar Singh, JM Ishwar Singh, EM 01st September, 2025, O.A. No. 90/2024(CZ) PN 32 O.A. No. 90/2024(CZ) Amit Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.