National Green Tribunal
Bittu vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 29 January, 2026
Item No. 06 Court No. 2
BEFORE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Original Application No. 724/2023
( I.A. No. 80/2025, I.A. No. 81/2025, I.A. No. 744/2025, I.A. No.
254/2024 and I.A. No. 348/2024 )
Bittu Applicant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Respondents
Date of hearing: 29.01.2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER
Applicant: Mr. Vishal Singh, Advocate for the applicant.
Respondents: Mr. Bhanwar Pal Singh Jadon, Ms. Gargi Chaturvedi, Ms. Atika Singh
and Ms. Anjali Sharma, Advocates for respondents no. 1 to 7.
Mr. Saurabh Rajpal and Mr. Vinay Kumar Singh, Advocates for
Respondents No. 8.
ORDER
1. The Applicant- Mr. Bittu filed Original Application No. 724/2023 (hereinafter referred to as the O.A.) under Sections 14, 15 and 18 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 inter alia with prayer for cancellation of Environmental Clearance dated 27.05.2021 granted in favour of respondent no. 8, imposition of Environmental Compensation on respondent no. 8 for illegal mining and prohibition of use of mechanized and semi-mechanized machinery in river bed mining.
2. Briefly stated, the Applicant has raised grievances regarding illegal sand mining being carried out by respondent no. 8 in violation of EC conditions and environmental norms day and night by stopping natural flow of water with heavy excavators including poclain causing loss to 1 riverine bio-diversity and adjoining farmland and creating hazards to the nearby village residents.
3. Vide order dated 11.12.2023 this Tribunal constituted a Joint Committee Comprising District Magistrate, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board and State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Uttar Pradesh.
4. Report dated 12.02.2024 of the Joint Committee was filed by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad with forwarding letter dated 12.02.2024 mentioning the environmental violations.
5. Notices were issued to the respondents and in the course of hearing replies/responses have been filed by the respondents no. 6- UPPCB and 8-Project Proponent.
6. The applicant filed I.A. No.744/2025 in O.A. No. 724/2023 titled Bittu vs. State of UP & Ors. for issuance of directions inter-alia for immediate closure of mining activities being carried on by respondent no. 8 at Village-Panchayara, Tehsil-Loni, District Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh in view of mandate under GRAP Stage III issued by the Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas (CAQM). The applicant also submitted pen drive containing video clips in support of the averments of illegal mining by respondent no. 8 Project Proponent.
7. Reply dated 15.12.2025 in I.A. No.744/2025 was filed by respondent 8-Project Proponent denying allegations of illegal mining while asserting mining in compliance with EC conditions and environmental norms and directions of CAQM.
2
8. Adjournment was sought by respondents no. 1 to 7 for filing replies to I.A. No. 744/2025.
9. This Tribunal considered the matter on 16.12.2025 and made the following observations:-
"8. We have seen the video clips contained in the pen drive and we find that the video clips do not clearly record mining activity and even the number of the truck allegedly used in transportation of illegally mined material is not visible.
9. In the eventuality of the illegal mining, the applicant may make complaint to the Police at No. 112 and to the District Magistrate and Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad by appropriate means who shall be bound to take appropriate action on any such complaint and to document the action so taken in writing and also by way of audio/video means.
10. So far as the allegations regarding continuation of mining by respondent no. 8 in violation of GRAP-III restriction is concerned, respondent no. 8 has mentioned in its reply that no prior intimation or specific communication was received by respondent no. 8 and respondent no. 8 has paid the penalty imposed.
11. The aspects of communication regarding imposition and withdrawal of GRAP-III and IV restrictions can be looked into by the District Mining Officer, Ghaziabad who shall also be bound to communicate, by appropriate electronic means besides written communication, about imposition and withdrawal of GRAP-III & IV restrictions to all the mining lease holders in the district who shall be bound to comply with the same and the District Mining Officer shall also ensure compliance with GRAP - III and IV restrictions by making requisite field visits to the mining lease sites."
10. The applicant filed rejoinder dated 19.01.2026 to the reply filed by respondent no. 8 in I.A. No. 744/2025. In the rejoinder the applicant has alleged that the applicant and villagers noticed mining on 02.01.2026 at about 9:30 p.m. away from the lease working area by changing the main stream of River Yamuna by deep mining at about 8 mtr deep from ground level by heavy excavators. The applicant and other villagers informed the Office of District Magistrate Ghaziabad, District Mining Officer, Ghaziabad and the Police at phone no. 112 but no action was taken. The applicant made complaint dated 05.01.2026 to the District Magistrate, 3 Ghaziabad, Prime Minister, Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Director, Geology & Mining, Uttar Pradesh and District Mining Officer, Ghaziabad about illegal mining being carried out by Respondent No. 8 during night. The applicant also alleged illegal mining after invocation of GRAP-III on 16.01.2026 and GRAP-IV on 17.01.2026 and the applicant has attached photographs in support of allegations of illegal mining on 18.01.2026 and also submitted pen-drive containing video clips.
11. Vide order dated 21.01.2026 respondents were given opportunity to file response to the averments made in the rejoinder referred to above on or before 28.01.2026. The Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad was directed to file his report regarding information given by the applicant to the Police and action taken by the Police on the same on or before 28.01.2026 and in the eventuality of not filing of report, the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad was directed to appear before this Tribunal physically or through V.C. to explain the reasons for not filing the report. The District Mining Officer, Ghaziabad was also directed to file his affidavit on or before 28.01.2026 as to whether the District Mining Officer, Ghaziabad was informed by the applicant on 02.01.2026 and on other dates including, 18.01.2026 about carrying on of illegal mining in violation of GRAP restrictions and if so, what action was taken by the District Mining Officer, Ghaziabad on the basis of information given by the applicant. The District Mining Officer, Ghaziabad was also directed to mention in his affidavit as to (i) whether any river sand mining and transportation of mined material took place during night time in the mining lease area or adjoining area and if so, what action was taken regarding allegations of illegal mining and illegal transportation of illegally mined material during the night time. The District Mining Officer, 4 Ghaziabad was also directed to appear before this Tribunal physically on the next date of hearing fixed with relevant record.
12. In compliance of order dated 21.01.2026, the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad filed report dated 28.01.2026 and the District Mining Officer, Ghaziabad has filed reply dated 28.01.2026 in I.A. No. 744/2025.
13. The relevant part of the report dated 28.01.2026 filed by the Commissioner of Police reads as under:-
"II. ACTION TAKEN ON INFORMATION RECEIVED ON 02.01.2026 (06:30 PM)
5. That on 02.01.2026, in village Pachayara, Pargana and Tehsil Loni, District Ghaziabad, on the basis of information received from local villagers, the Naib Tehsildar along with the concerned Area Lekhpal, at about 6:30 PM, noticed a heap of sand, a tractor-trolley, and dumpers at Latitude 28.80718, Longitude 77.221856. Upon inquiry, it was revealed that sand was being illegally mined from the Yamuna River using tractor- trolleys and dumpers and was being unlawfully dumped at the aforesaid location in village Pachayara, from where the dumpers were being loaded and sent onward. That the aforesaid trolley was taken into custody with the assistance of the local police and placed under the protection of Police Station Tronica City. In addition, Dumper No. UP14MT4722, which was large and meant for loading, was being taken away by its owner Bittu, son of Leelu, resident of Pachayara. When the administration attempted to stop him and informed him that he could take the dumper after showing the relevant documents, the dumper owner did not agree and forcibly fled with the dumper. Along with the dumper owner, 3-4 other unknown persons also fled. Accordingly, an FIR dt. 04.01.2026 was registered.
A Copy of the FIR dt. 04.01.2026 has been annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R-1.
A Copy of the screenshot of ownership of the vehicle has been annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R-2.
III. INFORMATION RECEIVED THROUGH UP-112 DURING NIGHT HOURS
6. That further during the night on 02.01.2026, the information with respect to illegal mining was received by the police at 112 5 from 4 complainants i.e. Abhishek, Mr. Yoginder Kumar, Mr. Sunil and Akash at 21:59 PM, 22:04 PM, 22:08 PM and 22:28 PM. That the same was informed by the centre to the concerned Assistant Police Commissioner, Loni as per the circular dt. 17.02.2023 issued by the Headquarters UP-112, Uttar Pradesh Police. That the said event subsequently was closed by the 112 Police at 22:10 PM and 22:25 PM.
A Copy of the circular dt. 17.05.2023 has been annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R-3.
A Copy of the document of event closure has been annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R-4.
IV. IMMEDIATE POLICE RESPONSE ON NIGHT OF 02.01.2026
7. That the Assistant Police Commissioner, Loni directed the Chowki Incharge to visit the said site. That upon the said instructions the Chowki Incharge immediately reached on the said site at 10:37 PM. Upon physical inspection of the site, no illegal mining activity, machinery, or ongoing excavation was found at that time. Thus, no cognizable offence was found to be continuing at the time of inspection.
V. SUBSEQUENT SEIZURES & PREVENTIVE ACTIONS
a) On 03.01.2026 at 03:20 AM
8. That further, on 03.01.2025, at 03:20 AM Shri Leelu Singh, Naib Tehsildar, Loni, along with accompanying Home Guard No. 1487 Anil Kumar, arrived at the police station, Tronica City and deposited 01 dumper vehicle bearing registration No. UP17BT9889 and 01 trolley loaded with sand, related to illegal mining, along with two copies of the seizure report. The matter was informed to the Inspector-in-Charge. The aforesaid vehicle was handed over to the Head Moharrir, Malkhana, and since there was insufficient space within the police station premises, it was parked outside the police station boundary on the roadside service road under sentry guard supervision. The seizure report was submitted to the office. The keys were handed over to the Malkhana Moharrir.
A Copy of the General Diary Details dt. 03.01.2026 has been annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R-5.
b) Vehicle Seized on 06.01.2026
9. Further on 06.01.2026, the Naib Tehsildar, Loni, Shri Leelu Singh, along with accompanying Home Guard No. 1487 Anil Kumar, and police station Tronica City staff Sub-Inspector Anoop Kumar and Head Constable No. 674 Rahul Kumar, 6 arrived at the police station, Tronica City and deposited 02 dumper vehicles loaded with sand along with seizure reports. A Copy of the General Diary Details dt. 06.01.2026 has been annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R-6.
VI. FIR DT. 11.01.2025
10. That on 11.01.2025, another FIR No. 0016 was registered upon the compliant of the Mining Officer. That the said contents of the FIR stated that the Mining Officer alongwith Home Guards Shri Ajay Kumar, Shri Sohanveer Singh, Shri Dinesh Kumar, and Shri Mahesh Kumar, conducted a surprise inspection of the Badarpur-Harmapur area. During the inspection, illegal mining of ordinary sand was observed on the bank of the Yamuna River near the Delhi-Uttar Pradesh border adjacent to village Badarpur Harmapur. During the course of action, the driver of one tractor loader, identity unknown, took advantage of the darkness and fled from the spot. At the site, one tractor with trolley, Chassis No. MBNGAANUURRC-15948, carrying ordinary minor mineral sand measuring 14 cubic meters, and one trolley carrying ordinary sand measuring 8.75 cubic meters, were apprehended while being illegally transported. The drivers of the said vehicles fled from the spot, and the vehicles were driven by Home Guards and brought and parked at Police Station Tronica City. Therefore, the aforesaid vehicles, namely one tractor with trolley bearing Chassis No. MBNGAANUURRC-15948 along with 14 cubic meters of ordinary minor mineral sand, and one trolley with 8.75 cubic meters of ordinary minor mineral sand, were taken into custody.
A Copy of the FIR dt. 11.01.2025 has been annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R-7.
VII. FIR DT. 11.10.2025
11. That an FIR No. 0488 dt. 24.10.2025 was registered against the applicant and 5 other persons with respect to the illegal mining.
A Copy of the FIR dt. 24.10.2025 has been annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R-8.
VIII. FIR DT. 06.12.2025
12. That further another FIR No. 0540 dt.06.12.2025 was also registered and a JCB Vehicle No. HAR3DX2NJ03382139 was seized and handed over to the custody of the Tronica City, Police Station.
A Copy of the FIR dt. 06.12.2025 has been annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R-9.
7
13. That it is respectfully submitted that:
a) Police responded promptly to UP-112 calls
b) Site inspection was conducted the same night
c) No ongoing illegal mining was found at the time of inspection
d) Multiple FIRs and seizures demonstrate sustained enforcement Hence, allegations of deliberate inaction are incorrect and denied."
14. The relevant part of the reply dated 28.01.2026 filed by the DMO, Ghaziabad in I.A. No. 744/2025 and 745/2025 reads as under:-
"
VI. REGARDING INFORMATION BY THE APPLICANT REGARDING ILLEGAL MINING: -
Date & Mode of Allegations Action Taken
communication
1. Applicant Mr. Bittu 1. That the Deponent immediately
called the deponent at called Naib Tahsildar of Tehsil-Loni
09:47 PM after sending a at 09:57 PM and asked to check if copy of Hon'ble Tribunal night time mining is carried out at order dated 16.12.2026 Pachayera-2 lease site. Naib and Tehsildar went to check the lease informed about night site which was found to be closed; time operation by the leaseholder of However, he caught a Dumper No. Pachayera-2. UP17BT9889 transporting mined mineral on Pusta road which was
2. The applicant also found to be without valid papers. sent some unclear The dumper was immediately photographs which seized at PS Tronica City with the could not be verified help of local police and further a and No video was letter dt.24.01.2026 was sent to the 02.01.2026 sent. Regional Officer, Uttar Pradesh through Pollution Control Board to recover WhatsApp Call the environmental damage from the owners of the said vehicles.
That proceedings are being carried out by the Mining department as per Rule 72 of the UP Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021 regarding the same.
A Copy of the letter dt. 24.01.2026 has been annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R-20.
A Copy of the UP Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021 has been annexed herewith as ANNEXURE 8 R-21.
2. Naib Tehsildar also informed about how the applicant Mr. Bittu along with 3-4 others were caught doing illegal mining and transportation at Pachayera village during the same day i.e. on 02.01.2026 at 6:30 PM and ran away with his vehicle No. UP14MT4722 after being questioned about valid mineral documents.
An FIR No. 07 dated 04.01.2026 was registered by local Lekhpal at PS Tronica City regarding the same.
A Copy of the FIR dt. 04.01.2026 has been annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R-9.
1. Applicant 1. A committee consisting of complained that he SDM, Loni; Regional Officer, and villagers noticed UPPCB, Mines Officer, that on 02.01.2026 at Ghaziabad and SHO Tronica about 9:30 p.m. mining City was formed through a is going on 1 km away letter No. 992 dated from the leased 09.01.2026 by Additional workable area by District Magistrate (F/R) to changing the main ascertain the facts and stream of River present report.
Yamuna by deep A Copy of the letter dt.
mining at about 8 mtr. 09.01.2026 has been annexed
deep from ground level herewith as ANNEXURE R-22.
by heavy excavators
whereas EC prescribes 2. An inspection dated
05.01.2026
only manual/semi- 12.01.2025 was carried out by
through a letter mechanized mining.
representation the committee in the presence of
2. That it is clear the complainant Mr. Bittu. When
(Received via
violation of Mining asked to show evidence of
Speed Post on
lease deed that mining allegations, he couldn't present
07.01.2026)
and loading are done any proof regarding same and
at night, violating also couldn't show the spot
mandatory daytime- where illegal Mining was being
only operations and the carried out 1KM away from the
sand is being lease boundary.
Stored/transported
without dust control or
3. Further, regarding allegation
tarpaulin covers, and
of use of Kutcha Road, a
use of kutcha roads,
temporary kutcha road was
has caused severe air
found to reach the mining zone
and dust pollution.
as permanent structure are not
allowed in the riverbed as it
would amount to encroachment
in the riverbed area.
9
A Copy of the report dt.
12.01.2025 has been annexed
herewith as ANNEXURE R-23.
2. That the applicant The applicant called on
immediately called 02.01.2026 through WhatsApp
District mining Officer and complained about night
Mr. Saurabh time operation for which action
Chaturvedi at his mob. was taken. However, no video
No. 8887534809 and clips were provided to the
sent the copy order Deponent as alleged in the
dated 16.12.2025 letter.
passed by NGT and
photos and videos with Further, no such conversation
geolocation of illegal took place where Deponent told
mining going on at him that "now mining in night
night time on 2.1.2026 is allowed as per the new
on his WhatsApp No. notification".
8887534809 at 10:01 It reflects the dishonest
p.m. on 2.1.2026 at approach of applicant to further
village Panchayara. unsubstantiated claims and
Thereafter applicant attempt to mislead the Hon'ble
called District mining Tribunal.
Officer Mr. Saurabh
Chaturvedi who told
him that now mining
in night is allowed
as per the new
notification which was
not shared to applicant
till date.
The applicant alleged 1. An inspection dated
18.01.2026 in his rejoinder dated 17.01.2026 of Yamuna River
No 19.01.2026 filed bed area along Delhi- UP
communication before Hon'ble Tribunal border was carried out by the
was made at Serial Number 23 Joint Inter-State Task Force
through any and 24, that despite members and no mining
medium to the invocation of GRAP, activity was found to be
Deponent Respondent No. 8 is happening at the Pachayera-02
regarding any carrying out mining lease site as GRAP restrictions
violation in the activates and no action were in force since 16.01.2026.
lease area on is been taken by Copy of the photographs of the
18.01.2026 Respondent said inspection have been
Authorities. annexed herewith as
ANNEXURE R- 18.
That on 18.1.2026 after
invocation of GRAP- IV 2. On enquiring about the said Respondent No. 8 is loaded dumper Number carrying out mining HR63E8334, it was activity without any observed that the dumper fear of Respondent was breakdown in the path Authority which is leading to evident from the mine site and was sent for photograph that Truck repairing to the service center 10 No. HR 63 E 8324 is only on 19.01.2026. That the transporting the sand Applicant has misleaded the from the mining site. Hon'ble Tribunal by bringing the photograph of the said dumper.
A Copy of the Service receipt has been annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R-24.
It reflects the applicant's tendency to level baseless allegations against authorities while himself indulging in illegal mining and transportation.
3. That upon receipt of the video subsequent to the order of the Hon'ble Tribunal dated 21.01.2026, the geo-
coordinates of the site depicted therein were duly verified. Upon such verification, it was found that the loading of mined minerals was being carried out within the lease area in violation of the Environmental Clearance (EC) conditions.
That accordingly, a Show
Cause Notice No. 1023 dated
21.01.2026 was issued by the
Additional District
Magistrate (F/R) to the
leaseholder for violation of EC
conditions, as loading activities
were found to have been carried
out by the leaseholder at about
9:30 PM on 02.01.2026.
A Copy of the show cause
notice dt. 21.01.2026 has
been annexed herewith as
ANNEXURE R- 25.
A Copy of the Note on illegal
mining has been annexed
herewith as ANNEXURE R-
26.
5. That to the aforesaid show
cause notice, the Project
Proponent replied vide letter dt.
23.01.2026. That the reply of
11
the Project
Proponent was found to be
unsatisfactory.
A Copy of the letter dt.
23.01.2026 has been annexed
herewith as ANNEXURE R-27.
6. That subsequently a penalty
of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed
upon the Project Proponent vide
letter dt. 24.01.2026. That the
said penalty has been
deposited by the Project
Proponent on 27.01.2026.
A Copy of the letter dt. 24.01.2026
and e-challan dt. 27.01.2026 has
been annexed herewith as
ANNEXURE R-28
"
15. Replies to I.A. No. 744/2025 have not been filed by respondents no. 1 to 4 and 6 and 7 and learned Counsel for respondents no. 1 to 7 seeks adjournment for filing of replies by respondents no. 1 to 4 and 6 and 7.
16. Replies to I.A. No. 744/2025 may be filed by respondents no. 1 to 4 and 6 and 7 and no further adjournment will be granted for this purpose.
17. However, we have gone through the report filed in compliance of order dated 21.01.2026 by the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad and the District Mining Officer, Ghaziabad in order to ascertain action taken with respect to complaint made by the applicant to them.
18. So far as the incident of illegal mining on 02.01.2026, regarding which information was given to the Police and District Mining Officer, Ghaziabad on 02.01.2026 is concerned, we find the report filed by the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad and the reply filed by the District Mining Officer, Ghaziabad to be unsatisfactory. 12
19. So far as the complaint made to the Police regarding illegal mining on 02.01.2026 is concerned. In his report, the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad has mentioned that Assistant Police Commissioner, Loni had directed the Chowki In-charge to visit the said site and Chowki In-charge immediately reached the said site and on physical inspection of the site, no illegal mining activity, machinery or ongoing excavation was found at that time and no cognizable offence was found continuing at the time of inspection. However, no material has been placed to show that Chowki In-charge contacted Mr. Abhishek, Mr. Yoginder Kumar, Mr. Sunil and Mr. Akash, who made the complaints to the Police, and verified the facts from them and recorded their statements. It appears that the Chowki-In- charge did not contact them and did not verify the fact from them and did not record their statements. This inference arises from the fact that the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad has not enclosed copies of record of the proceedings conducted by Chowki In-Charge and also entries made in daily diary register in this regard. We do not find any valid reason for not contacting the complainants Mr. Abhishek, Mr. Yoginder Kumar, Mr. Sunil and Mr. Akash and not recording their statements by the Chowki In-charge at the time of the site visit by him on 02.01.2026.
20. It may be observed here that the applicant had produced pen-drive containing video clips of the incidents of illegal mining copy of which was supplied to the respondents. We have seen the video clips recorded in the pen-drive and we find that the video clips recorded on 02.01.2026 at 10:09 p.m., 10:18 p.m., 10:21 p.m. and 10:22 p.m. show illegal mining of sand from the river channel by use of JCB and illegal transportation of river sand by use of dumper during night. We see no reason as to why the Applicant, who has produced the above said video clips before this Tribunal in pen-drive, would not have submitted the same to the Police if so required by the Police and it appears that the Police did not 13 deliberately contact the Applicant and did not seek the material available with the applicant and complainants Mr. Abhishek, Mr. Yoginder Kumar, Mr. Sunil and Mr. Akash. The police has also not looked int the video clips produced before this Tribunal in the pen-drive and has not submitted any report about the same despite the fact that copy of the pen-drive was supplied to the respondents.
21. From the material placed before this Tribunal, it appears that the concerned Police Officers have not followed the prescribed procedure and have completely ignored the incidents of illegal mining which took place on 02.01.2026 and have tried to avoid taking of action, as prescribed by law, in respect of the said incidents of illegal mining for extraneous reasons.
22. Even though in his report, the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad has mentioned about seizure of one dumper and one tractor trolley on 03.01.2026 and two dumpers on 06.01.2026 involved in illegal mining and registration of FIR No. 0007 dated 04.01.2026 (regarding illegal transportation by Dumper No. UP14MT4722 by its owner Bittu-Applicant in the present case), FIR No. 0016 dated 11.01.2025, FIR No. 0488 dated 24.10.2025 and FIR No. 0540 dated 06.12.2025 and investigation by the Police is stated to be in progress but it appears from the material on record that no effective investigation is being conducted by the Police as relevant information regarding names of the registered owners and drivers of the vehicles and also names, parentage and addresses of other accused persons involved in illegal mining have not been mentioned. Further the present status of the vehicles seized on 03.01.2026 and 06.01.2026 as to whether the same are in possession of the Police or have been released has not been mentioned. Even the present status of the river sand, which was being illegally transported and was seized by the Police, has not been given in the report.
14
23. In his response dated 28.01.2026, the District Mining Officer, Ghaziabad has submitted that upon receipt of the video subsequent to the order dated 21.01.2026 of this Tribunal, the geo-coordinates of the site depicted therein were duly verified. Upon such verification, it was found that the loading of mined minerals was being carried out within the lease area in violation of the Environmental Clearance (EC) conditions.
24. These observations made by the District Mining Officer, Ghaziabad are patently wrong as from video clip recorded on 02.01.2026 at 10:09 p.m., it can be seen that illegal mining is being done through JCB from the river channel/stream of River Yamuna during night which is completely prohibited.
25. It may be observed that show cause notice no. 1023 dated 21.01.2026 was issued to respondent no. 8-Project Proponent and order dated 24.01.2026 imposing penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on respondent no. 8- Project Proponent was passed on the basis of unauthorized loading of vehicles at about 9:30 p.m. in the night after removal of GRAP restriction in violation of environmental clearance conditions.
26. We find that the material facts regarding incident of illegal mining with JCB from river channel/stream of River Yamuna were prima facie deliberately suppressed by the District Mining Officer, Ghaziabad and the Additional District Magistrate, (F&R), Ghaziabad and show cause notice no. 1023 / ख०अनु-गाजि0 / 2025-26 dated 21.01.2026 and letter no. 1031/ ख०अनु-गाजि0/2025-26 dated 24.01.2026 imposing penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the respondent no. 8- M/s New Panthers Security Guard Service were issued by deliberately suppressing/omitting the material facts regarding above said incident of illegal mining with JCB from river channel/stream 15 of River Yamuna and by mentioning wrong facts which warrants passing of appropriate orders against them by this Tribunal in this regard.
27. However, before passing any orders against the District Mining Officer, Ghaziabad and the Additional District Magistrate (F&R), Ghaziabad, notices are ordered to be issued to them requiring them to show cause as to why appropriate orders be not passed against them by this Tribunal.
Registration of FIR regarding illegal mining and illegal transportation of minor mineral
28. The MMDR Act, 1957 was enacted for the purpose of development and regulation of mines and minerals. Section 4(1) thereof prohibits that no person shall undertake any reconnaissance, prospecting or mining operations in any area, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a reconnaissance permit or of a prospecting license or, as the case may be, of a mining lease, granted under the MMDR Act and the rules made thereunder. Section 4 (1-A) mandates that no person shall transport or store or cause to be transported or store any mineral otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the MMDR Act and the rules made thereunder.
29. Section 21(1) of the MMDR Act provides that whoever contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 4 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees per hectare of the area. Section 21 (6) of the MMDR Act empowers the police to investigate offence punishable under Section 21 of the MMDR Act by providing that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an offence under sub-section (1) shall be cognizable. 16
30. In Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P. (SC) : 2013(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 979 : 399 :2014(2) SCC 1 Hon'ble Supreme Court held that registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation and if the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
31. In State of NCT of Delhi vs. Sanjay, (2014) 9 SCC 772, Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the question whether the provisions contained in Sections 21, 22 and other sections of MMDR Act operate as bar against prosecution of a person who has been charged with allegations which constitute offences under Section 379/114 and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC). In other words, whether the provisions of MMDR Act explicitly or impliedly excludes the provisions of the IPC when the act of an accused is an offence both under the IPC and under the provisions of the MMDR Act. Since conflicting views had been taken by Gujarat High Court, Delhi High Court, Kerala High Court, Calcutta High Court, Madras High Court and Jharkhand High Court, Hon'ble Supreme Court proceeded to settle the question and on detailed analysis of the relevant statutory provisions and judicial precedents, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
"66. Considering the principles of interpretation and the wordings used in Section 22, in our considered opinion, the provision is not a complete and absolute bar for taking action by the police for illegal and dishonestly committing theft of minerals including sand from the river bed.
67. The Court shall take judicial notice of the fact that over the years rivers in India have been affected by the alarming rate of unrestricted sand mining which is damaging the eco-system of the rivers and safety of bridges. It also weakens river beds, fish breeding and destroys the natural habitat of many organisms. If 17 these illegal activities are not stopped by the State and the police authorities of the State, it will cause serious repercussions as mentioned hereinabove. It will not only change the river hydrology but also will deplete the ground water levels.
68. There cannot be any dispute with regard to restrictions imposed under the MMDR Act and remedy provided therein. In any case, where there is a mining activity by any person in contravention of the provisions of Section 4 and other sections of the Act, the officer empowered and authorised under the Act shall exercise all the powers including making a complaint before the jurisdictional magistrate. It is also not in dispute that the Magistrate shall in such cases take cognizance on the basis of the complaint filed before it by a duly authorised officer. In case of breach and violation of Section 4 and other provisions of the Act, the police officer cannot insist Magistrate for taking cognizance under the Act on the basis of the record submitted by the police alleging contravention of the said Act. In other words, the prohibition contained in Section 22 of the Act against prosecution of a person except on a complaint made by the officer is attracted only when such person sought to be prosecuted for contravention of Section 4 of the Act and not for any act or omission which constitute an offence under Indian Penal Code.
69. However, there may be situation where a person without any lease or licence or any authority enters into river and extracts sands, gravels and other minerals and remove or transport those minerals in a clandestine manner with an intent to remove dishonestly those minerals from the possession of the State, is liable to be punished for committing such offence under Sections 378 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code.
70. From a close reading of the provisions of MMDR Act and the offence defined under Section 378, I.P.C., it is manifest that the ingredients constituting the offence are different. The contravention of terms and conditions of mining lease or doing mining activity in violation of Section 4 of the Act is an offence punishable under Section 21 of the MMDR Act, whereas dishonestly removing sand, gravels and other minerals from the river, which is the property of the State, out of State's possession without the consent, constitute an offence of theft.
71. Hence, merely because initiation of proceeding for commission of an offence under the MMDR Act on the basis of complaint cannot and shall not debar the police from taking action against persons for committing theft of sand and minerals in the manner mentioned above by exercising power under the Code of Criminal Procedure and submit a report before the Magistrate for taking cognizance against such person. In other words, in a case where there is a theft of sand and gravels from the Government land, the police can register a case, investigate the same and submit a final report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. before a Magistrate having jurisdiction for the purpose of taking cognizance as provided in section 190 (1)(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
72. After giving our thoughtful consideration in the matter, in the light of relevant provisions of the Act vis-a-vis the Code of 18 Criminal Procedure and the Indian Penal Code, we are of the definite opinion that the ingredients constituting the offence under the MMDR Act and the ingredients of dishonestly removing sand and gravel from the river beds without consent, which is the property of the State, is a distinct offence under the IPC. Hence, for the commission of offence under Section 378 Cr.P.C., on receipt of the police report, the Magistrate having jurisdiction can take cognizance of the said offence without awaiting the receipt of complaint that may be filed by the authorised officer for taking cognizance in respect of violation of various provisions of the MMRD Act. Consequently the contrary view taken by the different High Courts cannot be sustained in law and, therefore, overruled........"
32. In Jayant vs. State of Madhya Pradesh(SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 1776867 Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under :-
"After giving our thoughtful consideration in the matter, in the light of the relevant provisions of the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder vis a vis the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Penal Code, and the law laid down by this Court in the cases referred to hereinabove and for the reasons stated hereinabove, our conclusions are as under:
i) that the learned Magistrate can in exercise of powers under Section 156(3) of the Code order/direct the concerned Incharge/ SHO of the police station to lodge/register crime case/FIR even for the offences under the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder and at this stage the bar under Section 22 of the MMDR Act shall not be attracted;
ii) the bar under Section 22 of the MMDR Act shall be attracted only when the learned Magistrate takes cognizance of the offences under the MMDR Act and Rules made thereunder and orders issuance of process/summons for the offences under the MMDR Act and Rules made thereunder;
iii) for commission of the offence under the IPC, on receipt of the police report, the Magistrate having jurisdiction can take cognizance of the said offence without awaiting the receipt of complaint that may be filed by the authorised officer for taking cognizance in respect of violation of various provisions of the MMDR Act and Rules made thereunder; and
iv) that in respect of violation of various provisions of the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder, when a Magistrate passes an order under Section 156(3) of the Code and directs the concerned Incharge/ SHO of the police station to register/lodge the crime case/FIR in respect of the violation of various provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder and thereafter after investigation the concerned Incharge of the police station/investigating officer submits a report, the 19 same can be sent to the concerned Magistrate as well as to the concerned authorised officer as mentioned in Section 22 of the MMDR Act and thereafter the concerned authorised officer may file the complaint before the learned Magistrate along with the report submitted by the concerned investigating officer and thereafter it will be open for the learned Magistrate to take cognizance after following due procedure, issue process/summons in respect of the violations of the various provisions of the MMDR Act and Rules made thereunder and at that stage it can be said that cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate.
v) in a case where the violator is permitted to compound the offences on payment of penalty as per sub-section 1 of Section 23A, considering subsection 2 of Section 23A of the MMDR Act, there shall not be any proceedings or further proceedings against the offender in respect of the offences punishable under the MMDR Act or any rule made thereunder so compounded. However, the bar under subsection 2 of Section 23A shall not affect any proceedings for the offences under the IPC, such as, Sections 379 and 414 IPC and the same shall be proceeded with further."
33. The observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 hold good and are applicable in respect of identical offences under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and corresponding provisions Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 .
34. The District Mining Officer, Ghaziabad has enclosed with his reply note on illegal mining at pages no. 865 to 869 of the paper book in which definition of illegal mining has been given and the relevant part is reproduced as under:-
"2. Definition of illegal mining:
2.1 Illegal mining is defined under Rule 2(1)(c) of the Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 as:
(A) "Illegal mining" means any reconnaissance or prospecting or mining operation undertaken by any person or a company in any area without holding a mineral concession as required under sub-section (1) of section 4.
Explanation - For the purpose of this clause, - 20 a. violation of any rules, other than the rules made under section 23C, within the mining lease area by a holder of a mining lease shall not include illegal mining; and b. any area granted under a mineral concession shall be considered as an area held with lawful authority by the holder of such mineral concession, while determining the extent of illegal mining.
(B) Section 21 of the MMDR Act has been amended through the MMDR Amendment Act, 2021 (w.e.f. 28.03.2021) through which an explanation to section 21 has been inserted to clarify the scope of the phrase raising mineral 'without lawful authority' used in section 21. The said explanation states that the expression "raising, transporting or causing to raise or transport any mineral without any lawful authority" occurring in section 21, shall mean raising, transporting or causing to raise or transport any mineral by a person without prospecting licence, mining lease or composite licence or in contravention of the rules made under section 23C. [Annexure-I (B)]."
35. We are prima facie satisfied that the incident of mining of sand from river channel/stream of River Yamuna and also mining of sand from river bed during night being prohibited activities fall within the definition of illegal mining under Rule 2(1)(c) of the Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 (referred to by the District Mining Officer) as respondent no. 8 has not been granted any mining lease for mining of sand from river channel/stream of River Yamuna and also for mining of sand during night and these prohibited activity are not covered and exclude from the definition of illegal mining by the explanation to Rule 2(1)(c) of the Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 and also explanation to Section 21 of the MMDR Act, 1957.
36. The Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad is ordered to direct SHO of the concerned Police Station to register FIR regarding the incident of illegal mining regarding which video clips have been filed before this 21 Tribunal by seeking written complaints/recording statement of the applicant if so considered necessary.
37. The Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad is also directed to provide complete information with respect to the registered owners and drivers of the vehicles involved in illegal mining and names, parentage and addresses of all the accused persons involved in illegal mining to this Tribunal so that they can be impleaded as respondents in the present case and appropriate orders can be passed after giving opportunity of being heard to them and also to the Member Secretary, UPPCB so that appropriate action for imposition and recovery of environmental compensation can be initiated against them by UPPCB in accordance with directions given by this Tribunal.
38. The Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad is also directed that all the vehicles involved in illegal mining/transportation seized on 03.01.2026 and 06.01.2026 are also seized in the present original application forthwith and kept in the concerned Police Station or in the premises of Office of the District Mining Officer, Ghaziabad till further orders by this Tribunal unless the registered owners of the vehicles involved in illegal mining have paid the amounts in terms of order dated 26.02.2021 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 360/2015 titled as NGT Bar Association vs. Virender Singh (State of Gujarat) and others.
39. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and 'Precautionary' Principle embodied in Section 20 of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, respondent no. 8 is restrained from carrying out any further mining in the mining lease site till further orders to the contrary by this Tribunal and the Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh, the District Mining Officer, Ghaziabad, the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad and the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad are directed to ensure that no 22 mining take place in the mining lease site and surrounding areas in Ghaziabad.
40. In view of the facts and circumstance of the case, we also consider personal appearance of the Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh (physically or through VC) and the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad, the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, the Additional District Magistrate (F&R), Ghaziabad, the District Mining Officer, Ghaziabad and the Regional Officer, UPPCB, Ghaziabad physically on the next date of hearing to be essential for just and proper consideration and adjudication of the substantial environmental question involved in the case and producing the relevant record and they are directed to remain present before this Tribunal on that date with the relevant record.
41. List on 18.02.2026 for further hearing.
42. A copy of this order may be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, the Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh, Member Secretary, UPPCB, the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad, the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, the Additional District Magistrate (F&R), Ghaziabad, the Regional Officer, UPPCB, Ghaziabad, the District Mining Officer, Ghaziabad by email for requisite compliance.
Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM January 29th, 2026 Original Application No. 724/2023 ( I.A. No. 80/2025, I.A. No. 81/2025, I.A. No. 744/2025, I.A. No. 254/2024 and I.A. No. 348/2024 ) AB 23