National Green Tribunal
Balbir Sandhu vs Union Of India on 22 April, 2025
Item No. 25 Court No. 1
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Original Application No. 532/2023
(I.A. No. 681/2023)
1. BALBIR SANDHU,
S/o Waryam Singh,
Mussimbai, Yamuna Nagar,
Mussimbai,
Haryana - 135003. Applicant
Versus
1. UNION OF INDIA,
Through Its Secretary,
Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,
Paryavaran Bhawan, Jorbagh,
New Delhi-03.
[email protected].
2. CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.
Through Its Member Secretary,
Paryavaran Bhawan.
East Arjun Nagar, Delhi-110032.
[email protected].
3. STATE OF HARYANA,
Through Chief Secretary,
Haryana Civil Secretariat Office,
Sector -1, Chandigarh.
[email protected].
4. DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY,
Through Principal Secretary,
Haryana Civil Secretariat Office,
Sector -1, Chandigarh,
[email protected].
5. DIRECTOR,
Mines of Geology,
Plot 9, I.T. Park, Sector 22,
Panchkula, Haryana.
6. SEIAA - HARYANA,
BAY'S NO. 55-58,
1st Floor, Paryatan Bhawan,
Sector -2, Panchkula,
Haryana.
7. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
Ambala , DM Office, Civil Lines,
Ambala , Haryana,
[email protected].
O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors.
-2-
8. M/s R. M. MINES AND INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,
149,Luxmi Garden, Yamuna Nagar,
Haryana, Yamunanagar-135001.
9. M/s SCP Commodities,
C-509, DDA Flats, Sector-29,
Rohini, New Delhi,
India-110085
10. M/s Reliable Mining Corporation,
R/o SR-68, DLF phase-3,
Gurugram, 122010,
Haryana.
Respondents
Counsel for Applicant:
Mr. Gaurav Kumar Bansal, Ms. Nandita Bansal & Ms. Komal Sharma,
Advocates.
Counsel for Respondents:
Mr. Rahul Khurana, Advocate for Respondents no.3 to 7.
Mr. Anshul Mangla, Advocates for Respondents no. 8 and 10.
Mr. Saurabh Rajpal & Mr. Vinay Kumar Singh, Advocates for Respondent no.
9.
None for Respondents No. 1 and 2.
PRESENT:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER
Judgment Reserved on:- 25.11.2024
Judgment pronounced on :- 22.04.2025
JUDGMENT
BY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The applicant-Balbir Sandhu has filed the present original application under Sections 14 and 18 of the National Green Tribunal seeking the following reliefs: -
"a) To quash the impugned letters dated 27/02/2023, 25/01/2023 and 18/05/2023 whereby the Director, Mines and Geology, Haryana has approved the Mining Plans of a). R M O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors.-3-
Mines, b), SCP Commodities and c). Reliable Mining Corporation, respectively as the same are in violation of District Survey Plan, Ambala as well as against the provisions of Environment Protection Rules, 1986 and the notifications issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change, Government of INDIA.
b) Direct Chief Secretary, Haryana to appoint NODAL OFFICER (Joint Secretary Rank) for the purpose securing riverine ecology of the Rivers mentioned in the District Survey Plan Ambala.
c) Direct Respondents and in particular Chief Secretary, Haryana to create effective mechanism that extraction of Mineable Minerals shall be done in accordance with District Survey Report, Ambala.
d) Pass any other or further orders, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case."
2. The applicant has submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Judgment dated 27.02.2012 in I.A. No.12-13 of 2011 in Special Leave Petition (C) No.19628-19629 of 2009 in the matter of Deepak Kumar etc. Vs. State of Haryana and Others etc. made prior Environment Clearance (EC) mandatory for mining of minor minerals irrespective of the area of mining lease. In order to comply with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change, Government of India (MoEF & CC) issued Notification No. S.O.141 (E) dated 15.01.2016. Further, MoEF&CC published Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 (SSMG, 2016) for scientific and sustainable sand mining in the Country. Vide order dated 05.04.2019 passed in O.A. No. 360/2015 titled as National Green Tribunal Bar Association & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. this Tribunal ordered revision of above said guidelines. In Compliance thereof, MoEF & CC issued Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020 (EMGSM, 2020). Notifications dated 15.01.2016 and 25.07.2018 issued by MoEF & CC empowered District Environment Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA) to deal and grant EC for mining falling under category 'B2' in the Schedule to EIA notification 2006 and to prepare District Survey Report for sand mining, river bed mining and mining of other minerals as per the O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -4- prescribed procedure. In accordance with the same State of Haryana prepared the District Survey Report for District Ambala, Haryana (Ambala DSR 2022).
3. The applicant has further submitted that vide letters dated 28.07.2022 respondent no. 5-Director, Mines and Geology, Haryana issued letters of intent (LOIs) in favour of respondent no. 8-M/s R. M. Mines & Infra Pvt. Ltd, respondent no. 9-M/s SCP Commodities and respondent no. 10-M/s Reliable Mining Corporation for extraction of Minor Mineral Boulder, Gravel and Sand having tentative area of 247 Acres, 99.09 Acres and 105.51 Acres respectively in District Ambala and directed them to obtain Environmental Clearance (EC) and to prepare Mining Plan along with Mine Closure Plan (Progressive as well as Final) and to get the same approved from the office of Director, Mines and Geology, Haryana. Respondent no. 8-M/s R. M. Mines & Infra Pvt. Ltd, respondent no. 9-M/s SCP Commodities and respondent no. 10-M/s Reliable Mining Corporation submitted their Form I to the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Haryana (SEIAA Haryana) and also submitted their Mining Plan and Mining Closure Plan to respondent no. 5- Director, Mines and Geology, Haryana. Respondent no. 5- Director, Mines and Geology, Haryana. approved the Mining Plans of respondent no. 8-M/s R. M. Mines & Infra Pvt. Ltd., respondent no. 9-M/s SCP Commodities and respondent no. 10-M/s Reliable Mining Corporation by impugned letters dated 27.02.2023, 25.01.2023, and 18.05.2023 respectively.
4. The applicant has further submitted that while approving the Mining Plans of respondent no. 8-M/s R. M. Mines & Infra Private Limited, respondent no. 9-M/s SCP Commodities and respondent no. 10-M/s Reliable Mining Corporation, respondent no. 5- Director, Mines and Geology, Haryana has failed to appreciate the following contradictions in their Form I and Mining Plans :-
O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors.-5-
(I) ISSUE REGARDING CAPACITY OF MINEABLE MINERALS Factual Status as per Claim by the Project Claim by M/s Claim by M/s.
District Survey Proponent M/s. R M SCP Commodities Reliable Mining Report and Letter of Mines & Infra Pvt. Ltd. Corporation Intent 38.29 Lakhs MT 44.60 Lakhs MT 15 Lakhs MT 12 lakhs MT As per Ambala DSR 2022 the total Mineable Mineral (Boulder, Gravel and Sand) in Ambala is 38.29 MT. By way of approving the Mining Plans of respondent no. 8-M/s R. M. Mines & Infra Pvt. Ltd., respondent no. 9-M/s SCP Commodities and respondent no. 10-M/s Reliable Mining Corporation, respondent no. 5- Director, Mines and Geology, Haryana has authorized them to extract around 71 Lakhs MT of Mineable Minerals in District Ambala in violation of Ambala DSR 2022.
(II) ISSUE REGARDING MINING IN TRILOKPUR RIVER Factual Status as per Claim by the Project Claim by M/s Claim by M/s. Reliable District Survey Report and Proponent M/s. R M SCP Commodities Mining Corporation Letter of Intent Mines & Infra Pvt. Ltd. District Ambala has only As per Form I, apart Extracting Mineable Extracting Mineable following Rivers: from other Blocks, R Minerals from Minerals from River i. Markanda M Mines will extract Markanda River only Begna only ii. Tangri Mineable minerals in iii. Begna Block Dera which is at iv. Roon Trilokpur River v. Sukroon O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -6-
The Director, Mines and Geology, Haryana Government has approved the Mining Plan of respondent no. 8-M/s R. M. Mines & Infra Pvt. Ltd. which says that the project Proponent can also do the mining in River Trilokpur, which is no where mentioned in Ambala DSR 2022 and the Director, Mines and Geology, Government of Haryana has thereby violated Ambala DSR 2022. (III) ISSUE REGARDING AREA PERMITTED FOR MINING IN DISTRCIT AMBALA Factual Status as per Claim by the Project Claim by M/s SCP Claim by M/s. Reliable District Survey Report Proponent M/s. R M Commodities Mining Corporation and Letter of Intent Mines & Infra Pvt.
Ltd.
Total area identified for Total Mining Lease Total Mining Lease Total Mining Lease area Mining of Mineable area authorized to area authorized to M/s. authorized to M/s. Minerals is around 10.11 M/s. RM Mines is 99.9 SCP Commodities is Reliable Hect. Area. Hect Area 39.636 Hect Mining Corporation is 42.70 Hect As per Ambala DSR 2022 total area where mining can be done is around 10.11 Hectares. The Director, Mines and Geology, Haryana has authorized around 180 Hectare area to the Project Proponents for extracting of Mineable Minerals which is far exceeding than the area identified in Ambala DSR 2022 where Mining is permissible.
(IV) ISSUE REGARDING BULK DENSITY OF MINEABLE MINERALS Claim by the Project Proponent Claim by M/s SCP Commodities As per EMGSM, 2020 issued M/s. R M Mines & Infra Pvt. Ltd. by MoEF & CC O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -7- NABL recognized Laboratory Not provided any document Not provided any document has to assess the Bulk Density showing Bulk Density assessed by showing Bulk Density assessed of NABL recognized Agency by NABL Mineable Minerals. recognized Agency
5. The applicant has further submitted that as per EMGSM-2020 issued by MoEF & CC, NABL recognized Laboratory has to assess the Bulk Density of Mineable Minerals but respondent no. 8-M/s R. M. Mines & Infra Pvt. Ltd. and respondent no. 9-M/s SCP Commodities have not provided any document showing Bulk Density assessed by NABL recognized Agency. Respondent no. 8-M/s. R.M Mines has also not reserved 33% of its Lease Areas as 'Blocked Reserve' and as such has failed to adhere with the terms and conditions of the LOI issued by the Director, Mines and Geology, Haryana. The applicant has submitted that impugned letters dated 27.02.2023, 25.01.2023, and 18.05.2023 respectively whereby the Director, Mines and Geology, Haryana has approved the Mining Plans of respondent no. 8-M/s R. M. Mines & Infra Pvt. Ltd., respondent no. 9-M/s SCP Commodities and respondent no. 10-M/s Reliable Mining Corporation respectively, are not only in violation of Ambala DSR 2022 but are also in contravention of the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, notifications dated 15.01.2016 and 25.07.2018 and SSMG-2016 and EMGSM-2020 issued by MOEF&CC.
6. Vide order dated 29.08.2023 this Tribunal constituted a Joint Committee comprising the Director, Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) deputed by its Member Secretary, the Member Secretary, Haryana State Pollution Control Board (HSPCB) and the District Magistrate, Ambala with direction to carry out the inspection, examine the concerned record and submit its report before this Tribunal on the issues involved in the matter within four weeks. By the said order notices were also ordered to be issued to the respondents for filing their replies.
O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -8-
7. In compliance thereof report of the Joint Committee was filed vide email dated 27.10.2023. The relevant part of the report of the Joint Committee reads as under:
"Status Report in compliance of Hon'ble NGT order dated 29.08.2023 A. Background:
Hon'ble NGT has taken the cognizance for a complaint filed by the complainant Sh. Balbir Sandhu with questioning the communications dated 27.02.2023, 25.01.2023 and 18.05.2023 made by the Director, Mines and Geology, Haryana wherein the mining plans of the following 3 no. of mining contractors in the District Ambala was approved by the Mining and Geology Department, Haryana. The mining contractors have also been made Respondents No. 8 to 10 as given below:
i. Respondent no. 8: M/s R. M. Mines and Infra Private Limited, 149, Luxmi Garden, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana.
ii. Respondent no. 9: M/s SCP Commodities, C-509, DDA Flats, Sector-29, Rohini, New Delhi, India-110085.
iii. Respondent no. 10: M/s Reliable Mining Corporation, R/o SR-68, DLF phase-3, Gurugram-122010, Haryana.
The main averments made by the applicant in his complaint are given as below:-
1. That the mining plan of Respondents No. 8 to 10 has been approved in violation of the District Survey Report (DSR) of Ambala District as in terms of said DSR, the total mineable mineral (boulder, gravel and sand) in District Ambala is given as 38.29 lakhs MT whereas the Mining Department, Haryana has permitted the Respondents No. 8 to 10 to extract around total 71 lakhs MT of mineable minerals in District Ambala which is clear violation of the District Survey Plan.
2. That in terms of the plan, the mining of concerned minor mineral is permissible only in the river or stream of Markanda, Tangri, Begna and Roon river, whereas the mining plan has been approved for the River Trilokpur also which is not covered by the District Survey Report (DSR) of District Ambala.
In view of above, the Hon'ble NGT vide its order dated 29.08.2023 has constituted a joint committee comprising of the Director, Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) deputed by Member Secretary, CPCB, Member Secretary, Haryana State Pollution Control Board (HSPCB) and District Magistrate, Ambala to carry-out the inspection, examine the concerned record and to submit its report before the Tribunal on the issue involved in the matter within four weeks. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Hon'ble NGT is reproduced as below:-
O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors.-9-
"5. In the meanwhile, a joint Committee is constituted comprising of the Director, Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) deputed by Member Secretary, CPCB, Member Secretary, Haryana State Pollution Control Board (HSPCB) and District Magistrate, Ambala. The Member Secretary, HSPCB will co-ordinate with other members of the Committee. The Committee will carry-out the inspection, examine the concerned record and submit the report before the Tribunal on the issue involved in the matter within four weeks. "
The CPCB has nominated/ appointed their representative i.e. Regional Director, CPCB, Chandigarh vide letter no. IPC-II/CM- 13011/132/2023 dated 11.09.2023 (copy enclosed as Annexure-A).
B. Status Report of Joint Committee in compliance of Hon'ble NGT order dated 29.08.2023:-
In view of directions issued by Hon'ble NGT and Joint Committee constituted vide order dated 29.08.2023, a meeting was convened amongst the committee members at Head Office, HSPCB, Panchkula on dated 10.10.2023 alongwith Mining Officer, Mines & Geology Department, Ambala to discuss the issues raised by Hon'ble NGT and in the Original application filed by the applicant. The copy of attendance sheet of the meeting held on 10.10.2023 is enclosed as Annexure-B. Further during meeting the Mining Officer, Ambala has admitted the discrepancies observed by Hon'ble NGT and raised by the applicant and other shortcomings/lacunae left in the District Survey Report (DSR) prepared for District Ambala by his previous incumbent and proposed rectification of the same in due course of time. The following decisions were taken during the meeting in order to comply with the directions issued by Hon'ble NGT:-
i. Mining Officer, Mine & Geology Department, Ambala was asked by the committee to provide the relevant record to the joint committee through Regional Officer, HSPCB, Ambala to rectify the discrepancies observed by Hon'ble NGT and raised by the applicant alongwith remedial action plan.
ii. Field visits were planned to be conducted by the Joint Committee on 12.10.2023 in order to assess the field conditions of the Mining sites allotted to the above mentioned 03 no. of Mining Contractors and to understand the River structure of District Ambala.
a. Findings of field inspections conducted by the Joint Committee:-
The field inspections of the mining sites allotted to 03 no. of Mining Contractors was carried out by the Joint Committee on 12.10.2023. Further, no mining work has started yet by any of the Mining Contractors in District Ambala and on site status is given as below:-
O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors.
-10-
Sr. Name of Mining Mining Type of Name of Status of EC Status of
No. Contractor Area Mineral River Mining
approved activity
as per
LOI
(in Acre/
Hectare)
1 105.51/ Boulder, Markanda, Public hearing
M/s Reliable Mining 42.7 Gravel & Begna not conducted No
Corporation, R/o Sand yet mining
SR-68, DLF phase-
Work
3, Gurugram-
started
122010, Haryana
yet
(Respondent No. 10)
2 247/ Boulder, Markanda, No
Public hearing
M/s R. M. Mines And 99.95 Gravel & Sukroon mining
conducted
Infra Private Limited, Sand (Trilokpur Work
and case is
149, Luxmi Garden, Nadi as per started
pending for
Yamuna Nagar, Survey of Yet
decision at the
Haryana (Respondent India) & level of
No. 8) Roon SEIAA, Hry.
3 99.09/ Sand Markanda Public hearing
M/s SCP 39.63 conducted and No
Commodities, C-509,
case is mining
DDA Flats, Sector-29,
pending for Work
Rohini, New Delhi,
decision at the started
India-110085
level of yet
(Respondent No. 9)
SEIAA, Hry.
Total 182.28
Hectare
The photographs of field inspections conducted by the Joint Committee are enclosed as Annexure-C. b. Pointwise Status of averments made by the applicant in compliance of Hon'ble NGT order dated 29.08.2023:-
Since both of the issues directed to be addressed by Hon'ble NGT relates to Mines & Geology Department, Haryana for District Ambala, hence the status against both of the averments made by the applicant was sought from Mining Officer, Mines & Geology Department, Ambala by Regional Officer, HSPCB, Ambala and reply submitted by Mining Officer, Ambala vide his letter dated 25.10.2023 (copy enclosed as Annexure-D) is considered by the Joint Committee. Therefore, after examination of the record provided by Mining Officer, Ambala the pointwise status w.r.t. both of the averments made by the applicant is given below:-
1. That the mining plan of Respondents No. 8 to 10 has been approved in violation of the District Survey Report (DSR) of Ambala District as in terms of said DSR, the total mineable mineral (boulder, gravel and sand) in District Ambala is given as 38.29 lakhs MT whereas the Mining Department, Haryana has permitted the Respondents No. 8 to 10 to extract around total 71 lakhs MT of mineable minerals in District Ambala which is clear violation of the District Survey Plan:-
Reply made by Mining Officer, Ambala:-
O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors.-11-
The quantity of total mineable mineral mentioned by the applicant/complainant for District Ambala as 38.29 lakhs MT is derived by the applicant from the table no. 4 & 5 of Para no. 12 of District Survey Report (DSR) of District Ambala which is already enclosed as Annexure-A1/2 at page no 138-196 of the original application wherein the total mineable mineral potential of 04 different portions of River or stream recommended for mineral concession of District Ambala is given. The relevant portion of the para is reproduced as below:-
Table No. 4 of DSR:-
Portion of Length of Average Area Mineable mineral
River or area width of area recommended potential (in MT) (60
stream recommende recommende for mineral % of total mineral
recommende d for mineral d for mineral concession potential)
d concession Concession (Sq Mt)
for mineral (in KM) (in MT)
concession
Kala Amb- 60 150 90,00,000 21,60,000
Dinarpur-
Dhunni
Fategarh- 47 125 58,75,000 14,10,000
UjjalMajri- 30 30 9,00,000 2,16,000
Mullana
Toka- Rasour 12 15 1,80,000 43,200
Total 38.29 Lacs MT/
Annum
Table No. 5 of DSR:-
Mineral potential:-
Boulder Bajri Sand Total Mineable Mineral potential
6,48,000 4,32,000 10,80,000 21,60,000
4,23,000 2,82,000 07,05,000 14,10,000
64,800 43,200 1,08,000 2,16,000
12,960 8,640 21,600 43,200
Total 38.29 Lacs MT/ Annum
Further, the total quantity of Mineable Mineral approved by the Mines & Geology, Department, Haryana of the quantity 71.6 Lacs MT/Annum is based upon the individual Net Mineable Area allocated to 03 no. of Mining Contractors and as per Mining Plans submitted by them, the details given as below:- O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors.
-12- Sr. Name of Mining Type of Ancillary Net Total Name of Details of No. Mining Area Mineral area and Mineable Quantity of River Mining Plan Contractor approved Blocked Area Area (in Mineable Approved by as per LOI where mining Hectare) mineral as Director (in Acre/ not allowed as per mining Mining vide Hectare) per Haryana plan approved Mining by Director Mineral Mining (In Concession M.T/ Rules, 2012 Annum) (in Hectare) 1 105.51/ 7.80 34.9 12 Lacs Markanda, Letter M/s Reliable 42.7 Boulder, Begna Dated Mining Gravel 18.05.2023 Corporation, & R/o SR-68, Sand DLF phase-3, Gurugram 122010, Haryana 2 M/s R. M. MINES AND Boulder, Markanda, 247/ 25.52 74.43 44.60 Lacs Letter INFRA Gravel Sukroon 99.95 Dated PRIVATE & (Trilokpur 27.02.2023 LIMITED, 149, Sand Nadi as per Luxmi Survey of Garden, India) & Yamuna Roon Nagar, Haryana 3 M/s SCP 99.09/ Sand 13.37 26.266 15 Lacs Markanda Commodities, 39.63 Letter dated C-509, DDA 25.01.2023 Flats, Sector- 29, Rohini, New Delhi, India-110085 Total 182.28 71.6 Lacs Hectare M.T/ Annum
Although there are total 08 no. of mineral bearing quarries/ Mineable sites existing in District Ambala and out of which Letter of Intent (LOI) has been issued by Mining Department, Haryana to only 05 no. of mining contractors with the details given in the table enclosed as Annexure-E and out of these 05, the mining plans have only been approved by the Mining Department to 03 No. of mining contractors, copies of same have already been annexed by the applicant.
Further, the justifications given by Mining Officer, Ambala for the difference in mineable mineral quantity of 38.29 Lacs MT/ Annum and 71.6 Lacs MT/ Annum as per the averment made by the applicant are given as below:-
i. The table no. 5 of para no. 12 of the DSR as reproduced above represent the mineral potential of Boulder, Bajri & Sand O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors.-13-
only and does not include with one of the remaining mineral i.e. Gravel which is a major constituent available in River beds and same is mistakenly left during compilation and preparation of DSR. However, the availability and mining of mineral Gravel is well considered by the Department while floating the E-auction notice dated 31.05.2022 (mentioned at inside Annexure-A of the document at page no. 17) alongwith approving the mining plans and issuance Letter of Intent (LOI) to 02 no. of Mining Contractors (wherein applicable) out of total 03 as tabulated above. Hence, after inclusion of same the overall mineable mineral quantity of District Ambala shall be increased. The copy of E-auction notice dated 31.05.2022 is enclosed as Annexure-F. ii. The Mineable portion of River Sukroon (which is also known as Trilokpur River) shown at Sr. No. 5 of Table no. 1 of Para no. 12 of District survey report (DSR) is inadvertently left to be mentioned at table no. 4 & 5 showing Mineral potential of District Ambala during the compilation & preparation of DSR and after consideration and counting of same the overall mineable mineral quantity of District Ambala shall be increased.
iii. The total quantity of Mineable Mineral should have been calculated as per total mining area which is mentioned alongwith detail of Khasra no. in the last pages of DSR resulting to total more than 1100 Acres≈445.1542 Hectares and as per methodology mentioned in the point no. 3.6.5 of para no. 3.6 of the DSR the mineable mineral quantity becoming approx. 266.20 Lacs MT/Annum subjected to the natural yearly post monsoon replenishment in the River bed area. The relevant portion of para no. 3.6 of the DSR is reproduced as below:-
"3.6.5 The Mineral reserves for river bed areas are calculated on the basis of maximum depth of 3 meters. The area multiplied with depth gives volume and volume multiplied with bulk density gives the quantity in M.T. in case of river bed areas per hectare area, maximum availability of mineral for actual mining is 60,000 MT. However, as explained above the mineral excavated from river gets replenished after every year. Thereafter, the same quantity remain available for mining again and again. "
But the quantity of total Mineable Mineral is not explained and defined in the DSR prepared and requires revision which is under process.
In view of justification given above, the Mining Officer, Ambala has undertaken the fact that the DSR of District Ambala needs to be revised and after revision of the same, issue in difference in mineable mineral quantity shall be resolved.
Comments & Findings of the Joint Committee:-
In view of status and justification submitted by the Mining Officer, Ambala, he himself admitted the fact that the DSR of District Ambala is having some shortcomings which left to be addressed during compilation and preparation of DSR and same needs to be revised after following the due procedure for rectification and finalization of uploading on the District Website in public domain for further objections/ suggestions. O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors.-14-
Therefore, the present averment made by the applicant regarding difference in mineable mineral quantity of 38.29 Lacs MT/ Annum as per DSR and 71.6 Lacs MT/ Annum as per mining plans can only be ruled out after necessary revision/ updation of DSR of District Ambala w.r.t. above mentioned shortcomings as already suggested by the Mining Department.
2. That in terms of the plan, the mining of concerned minor mineral is permissible only in the river or stream of Markanda, Tangri, Begna and Roon river, whereas the mining plan has been approved for the River Trilokpur also which is not covered by the District Survey Report (DSR) of District Ambala:-
Reply made by Mining Officer, Ambala:-
As per the E-auction notice dated 31.05.2022 which is enclosed as Annexure-F and Letter of Intents (LOIs) issued by the Mining Department the details of mineable mineral bearing areas are mentioned in shape of the names of the villages of District Ambala with mentioning Khasra/ Kila No. of the said land of River bed as per the revenue record available with revenue department rather than the name of River.
Further, some part of mining area allotted to one of the mining contractor i.e. M/s R. M. MINES AND INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED, 149, Luxmi Garden, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana (Respondent No.
8) is mentioned in Trilokpur River/Nadi in the mining plan submitted by the contractor based upon the data/ maps fetched by their consultant engaged by them namely M/s P & M Solution, Noida, UP which is a QCI-NABET accredited organization and by Recognized Qualified Person from the official website of Survey of India, Govt. of India wherein the said seasonal river stretch/Choe is termed/ shown as Trilokpur Nadi.
However, as per the revenue record of District Ambala and information gathered from the local inhabitants/villagers same is known as Sukroon River. The clarification in this regard has also been given by District Revenue Officer, Ambala vide his letter no. 4086 dated 16.10.2023, Copy of same enclosed as Annexure-G. Further, the clarification regarding the same has also been obtained from the said mining contractor to whom its area allotted (Respondent No. 8) by Mining Officer, Ambala and the contractor replied vide their letter dated 23.10.2023, which is enclosed as Annexure-H, wherein he has claimed that the name "Trilokpur Nadi" was used in the mining plan after fetching from an authenticated source as described below in comment section. Further, the Mining Officer, Ambala also undertaken the said shortcoming and rectification in this regard also being made during the revision of D.S.R. which is under process. Comments & Findings of the Joint Committee:-
The committee has visited the location of said Sukroon River/Trilokpur Nadi which is not a perennial river but a seasonal stretch originating from Shivalik foothills at Trilokpur, Kala Amb, Himachal Pradesh and enters under the jurisdiction of State of Haryana at Village Dera at Jhiriwala and further O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors.-15-
merging in to River Roon at Shahpur, Naraingarh, Haryana after flowing in a small stretch.
The River is known as Trilokpur Nadi in Himachal Pradesh and same is termed as Sukroon River by the local inhabitants of nearby villages of Haryana. The clarification in this regard has also been given by District Revenue Officer, Ambala vide his letter dated 16.10.2023, Copy of same enclosed as Annexure-G. Further, the mining contractor to whom its area allotted also replied to Mining Officer, Ambala vide his letter dated 23.10.2023, which is enclosed as Annexure-H, wherein he has claimed the following:-
"The Mining Block Toka-Hamidpur allotted to him consists of area in 8 different villages namely: Toka, Chichi Majra, Sangrani, Rao Majra, Shahpur, Dera, Hamidpur & Dehar.
The Entire mining area of the Block "Toka-Hamidpur" lies on the Toposheets no 53F/2 & 53F/3 of the Survey of India which is a body under the Department of Science & Technology, Government of India.
The mining area allotted in village namely "Dera" shown in Trilokpur Nadi as per the Toposheet issued by Survey of India; and hence the detail in mining plan is incorporated based upon the information fetched from the official website of Survey of India i.e.https://onlinemaps.surveyofindia.gov.in/Free Map Specification. aspx which is an authenticated source.
The superimposed image of the mining area in Village Dera allotted to the contractor (as Per the GPS co-ordinates provided in the E-Auction Notice) on the Toposheet fetched from the official website of Survey of India was submitted by the contractor to the Director Mines & Geology as Plate no 2 (Key Plan 5 Km radius) and Plate no 6 (Environmental Plan).
The use of these toposheets has been necessitated by the guidelines from Indian Bureau of Mines in the IBM Manual on appraisal of Mining Plan, 2014. The Page no 34 Point no. 10 "List of the Plans and Sections to be submitted" Sub point 1 states that:
"In case of fresh grant of mining lease a precise area demarcation map demarcating with survey nos./khasra nos. as well as longitude & latitude on survey of India toposheets/maps to be indicated..."
The copy of IBM Manual on appraisal of Mining Plan, 2014 is already enclosed with his reply dated 23.10.2023 which is an integral part of Annexure-H. In pursuance of the above-mentioned facts the name "Trilokpur Nadi" was used in the mining plan by the said contractor after fetching it from an authenticated source and same was approved by Mining Department without clarification that "Trilokpur Nadi"
and Sukroon River are two different names of same river stretch in its DSR prepared for district Ambala.
O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors.-16-
Further the Mining Officer, Ambala has also admitted the said shortcoming and rectification in this regard also being made at his level during the revision of D.S.R. which is under process.
Therefore, the present averment made by the applicant regarding name of Trilokpur River not mentioned in DSR shall also be ruled out after necessary revision/updation of DSR of District Ambala as already undertaken by the Mining Department.
3. Other Issues raised by the Applicant in Original Application:-
i. The issue raised by the applicant at Para No. 8 (IX) of the Original application w.r.t. total mineable area mentioned as 10.11 Hectare at the bottom of para no. 12 of DSR is also seems to be a typographical error at the end of Mining Department and making no sense against the actual total mineable area of approx. 1100 Acres 445.1542 Hectares as described above and same shall be rectified in the DSR under process for revision.
ii. The averment made by the applicant at Para No. 8 (XXXV) of the Original application regarding non assessment of Bulk Density of Mineable Minerals by the NABL recognized Laboratory as per the provisions laid down in Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines, 2020 issued by MoEF & CC, GOI, New Delhi in the mining plans submitted by both mining contractors i.e. M/s. SCP Commodities (Respondent No. 9) and M/s R. M. Mines and Infra Private Limited (Respondent No. 8) is valid and same must have been taken care of while preparation of their individual mining plans. Hence the said both mining contractors and Mining Department, Haryana may be directed to carry out the replenishment study as per methodology suggested at section 5.2 of said Guidelines, 2020 simultaneously with the pending revision of DSR.
C. Other key observations, Conclusions and Recommendations of the Joint Committee:
1. Director, Mines & Geology Department, Haryana may be directed to revise the District Survey Report (DSR) for District Ambala in view of submissions made by Mining Officer, Ambala in order to Rule out the said discrepancies at earliest in the time bound manner after following the due procedure.
2. Director, Mines & Geology Department, Haryana may be asked to direct the concerned field staff deputed throughout the State to take necessary precautions while preparation and compilation of the District Survey Report (DSR) of the concerned Districts to avoid such base line discrepancies in future.
3. Mining Officer, Mines & Geology Department, Ambala and District Level Task Force (DLTF) constituted in District Ambala may be directed to ensure that no Illegal mining activities shall be carried out in the District.
4. Mines & Geology Department, Haryana may be asked to monitor all the terms and conditions imposed while issuing Letter of Intent (LOI) and approval of Mining Plans to the Mining Contractors.
O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -17-
5. Mining contractors will obtain prior Environmental Clearance and will strictly adhere with the conditions imposed on Environmental Clearance granted by SEIAA and CTE & CTO granted by HSPCB."
8. Vide order dated 30.10.2023 this Tribunal passed interim order restraining respondents no. 8, 9 and 10 from carrying out mining activities. The relevant part of the order dated 03.10.2023 reads as under:
"5. Having regard to the circumstances of the case and considering the question of not adhering the DSR, we direct that the Respondents No. 8 to 10 will not start the mining activity without the leave of this Tribunal."
9. Replies have been filed by respondent no. 1 via email dated 06.10.2023, by respondents no. 3, 4, 5 and 7 via email dated 17.03.2024 and by respondents no. 8, 9 and 10 respectively via email dated 15.03.2024.
10. In its reply filed via email dated 06.10.2023 respondent no. 1-MoEF & CC has submitted that 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 (MMDR Act, 1957) and is entrusted with the enforcement and regulation of mining operations in the State including illegal mining. Further, the State Government is empowered under Section 23 C of the MMDR Act, 1957 to make rules for prevention of illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals. By amendment of notification dated 14.09.2006 vide Notification No. S.O 3611 (E) dated 25.07.2018 detailed procedure for preparation of DSR has been provided. In the matter of Civil Appeal no. 3661-3662 of 2020 titled as State of Bihar & Ors. vs Pawan Kumar & Ors. the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 10.11.2021 emphasized the importance of DSR by holding that the DSR is required to be prepared before the auction/e- auction/ grant of mining lease. The MoEF & CC has vide Notification No. S.O. O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -18- 1886 (E) dated 20.04.2022 delegated the power 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 to the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA).
11. In their reply filed through Sh. Deepak Kumar, State Geologist, Mines and Geology Department, Haryana, Panchkula via email dated 17.03.2024, respondents no. 3, 4, 5 & 7 have submitted that detailed Ambala DSR 2022 was prepared as per guidelines issued from time to time. Details of the land bearing minerals, were mentioned in the Annexure B appended with Ambala DSR 2022. The said areas were identified after a detailed ground truthing exercise undertaken by the then Committee consisting of officers from Mining Department, Water-Services (Irrigation), State Pollution Control Board, Forest Department, Revenue and Panchayat Departments headed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ambala. In Ambala DSR 2022 the details of the block wise area were not mentioned inadvertently but complete details of the Khasra numbers of the area for mining were annexed with the same. Total mineral bearing area in the various, riverbed/ rivulets passing through the district as per details attached with Ambala DSR 2022 as Annexure B is much more i.e. 838 Hectares. Auction notice (Annexure-R-5/3) was notified for mining contracts of 8-Quarries for mineable area of 373.37 Hectares along with ancillary area of 59.55 Hectares upon further identification of area from the area mentioned in Ambala DSR 2022. State created 8 numbers of mining blocks mentioned in auction notice dated 31.05.2023. The details mentioned in the auction notice are reproduced as under:-
Sr. Name of Unit Area for Area for Total area of
No. mining in ancillary unit in Acre
Acre activates
in Acre
O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors.
-19-
1 Toka-Hamidpur 228.64 18.37 247.01
2 Fatehpur-Nagoli 86.22 19.29 105.51
3 Badhauli-Tamnauli 142.33 31.34 173.67
4 Kakarkunda- 188.72 11.27 199.99
Binjalpur
5 Paplotha-Mullana 119.04 38.65 157.69
6 Rayawali- Sadhanpur 77.68 12.61 90.29
7 Gadauli-Ambli 83.59 15.50 99.09
8 Kharu-Khera 7.15 1.83 8.98
Total 933.37 148.86 1082.23
The 03-Units/Blocks were auctioned and remaining 05 blocks were merged in 03 Units/Blocks as per order dated 18.10.2022 of Additional Chief Secretary Mines and Geology, Department, Haryana Chandigarh. The details of said Units/Blocks are reproduced as under:-
Sr. No. Name of Area for mining Area for Total area Unit/Blocks in Acre ancillary of unit in activates in Acre Acre 1 Badhauli- 450.09 81.26 531.35 Mullana 2 Rayawali- 77.68 12.61 90.26 Sadhanpur 3 Kharu-Khera 7.15 1.83 8.98 Total 534.92 95.7 630.62 The area of 03 Units/Blocks which have been auctioned in favor of respondents no. 8, 9 and 10 is 159.38 Hectares (398.45 Acres) along with ancillary area of 27.42 Hectares (68.55 Acres) and total mineral potential for said area @ 60,000 M.T. per hectare comes out to 95.63 lacs M.T. O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors.-20-
12. So far as the contradiction regarding mineable area and mineable quantity of the minor mineral is concerned, respondents no. 3, 4, 5 and 7 have submitted that in riverbed areas maximum permissible depth for mining is 03 meters from the riverbed level. Based on the methodology explained in Paras.
No. 3.6.3 and 3.6.5 of Ambala DSR 2022, the mineable mineral potential shall be around 224 lacs M.T. per annum (373.35 hectares multiplied with 60,000 M.T.). Inadvertently in para number 12 of Ambala DSR 2022 total area of all the Khasra numbers falling in the riverbed areas identified in different villages of the District (which was to be shown as more than 373.35 hectares) was mentioned as 10.11 Hectares only and total mineable mineral (which was around 224 lacs M.T.) was mentioned as 38.29 lacs M.T. If mineral potential of 60000 M.T.per hectare is multiplied with wrongly shown area of 10.11 Hectares the same is not commensurate with 38.29 lacs M.T. mentioned in Ambala DSR 2022 which clearly indicates that it was inadvertent error.
13. So far as contradiction regarding not mentioning name of river Trilokpur in Ambala DSR 2022 is concerned, respondents no. 3, 4, 5 and 7 have submitted that this issue was also examined by the DSR Committee and it was noted that the Mining Block Toka-Hamidpur has area in the riverbed passing through villages Toka, Chechhi-Majra, Sangrani, Rao-Majra, Shahpur, Dera, Hamidpur and Dehar. River/Rivulet Sukroon, coming from foothills of Shivalik from Himachal side passes through village Trilokpur which is also locally referred as Trilokpur River. The factual position that River Sukroon is also referred as river Trilokpur was verified by the District Revenue Officer, Ambala also vide letter dated 16.10.2023. Respondents no. 3, 4, 5 and 7 have further submitted that in its Mining Plan respondent no. 8, the mining contractor of Toka-Hamidpur block, referred this river as Trilokpur River. In response to letter dated 20.10.2023 respondent no. 8 vide reply dated 20.10.2023 informed that the mining area of Toka-Hamidpur Mining Block falls on Toposheets No. O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -21- 53F/2 and 53F/3 of the Survey of India, Department of Science and Technology, Government of India and that mining area under Village Dera lies on River Trilokpur (which is also known as river Sukroon) as per the aforesaid Toposheets of the Survey of India. There is no change in area or location of the mining block on this account.
14. In their reply respondents no. 3, 4, 5 and 7 have submitted that after the matter was raised by the applicant and in view of the order dated 29.08.2023 passed by this Tribunal in the present case, a Joint Committee was constituted. Meeting of the Joint Committee was held on 10.10.2023 and the field inspection of the mining sites allotted to respondents no. 8, 9 and 10 respectively was conducted on 12.10.2023. Thereafter, the Mining Officer, Ambala submitted status report to the Joint Committee by way of letter bearing Memo No. MO/AMB/2830 dated 25.10.2023 wherein the Mining Officer, Ambala had provided specific response to the claim of the applicant qua the difference/variation in the total quantity of mineral potential at District Ambala as per the District Survey Report vis-a-vis the total quantity of mineable minerals mentioned in the respective mining plans of respondents no. 8, 9 and 10 respectively as approved by respondent no. 5. The Mining Officer, Ambala had also provided the necessary clarification with regard to the inclusion of River Trilokpur in the mining plan of respondent no. 8 vis-a-vis non-inclusion of the same in Ambala DSR 2022. The Mining Officer, Ambala had also submitted specific response to the issue with regards to the bulk density of minerals in the mining plans of respondents no. 8, 9 and 10 respectively. The issue regarding the rectification in Ambala DSR 2022 was discussed and deliberated by the Officers of the District Survey Report Committee (DSR Committee) during the District Level Task Force Committee (DLTFC) meeting on 28.11.2023. After due discussion and deliberation, on the basis of ground truthing report already prepared by the previous Committee, Draft O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -22- Corrigendum was prepared. The Chairman-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Ambala directed the Mining Officer, Ambala to upload the corrigendum on the District Website after obtaining signatures of the Chairman as well as the members of the DSR Committee as per the Government notification. Meeting of the DSR Committee was conducted on 29.12.2023 and all the Members approved the corrigendum after due discussion and deliberation. Thereafter, letter bearing Memo No. MO/AMB/10 dated 01.01.2024 was issued to the District Information Officer, NIC-Ambala for the purpose of uploading the Corrigendum on the website of District Ambala for a period of 21 days seeking comments and suggestions from the public. The Corrigendum was uploaded on the District Website on 02.01.2024 for 21 days, but no comments were received from the public. The Corrigendum was forwarded to respondent no. 6-SEIAA, Haryana by the Deputy Commissioner, Ambala by way of letter dated 07.02.2024. Respondents no. 3, 4, 5 and 7 have accordingly prayed that the original application may be dismissed.
15. In its written Statement respondent no. 8-M/s RM Mines and Infra Pvt. Ltd. has submitted that respondent no. 5 had issued an e-auction notice dated 31.05.2022 for the purpose of grant of mining contracts for extraction of minor minerals namely "Boulder, Gravel and Sand" from the mining block comprising land located in 8 villages Toka, Shahpur, Sangrani, Rau Majra, Hamidpur, Dera, Deher and Chechi Majra with a total area of 247 acres giving details of the minerals bearing area enshrined in consonance with Annexure B appended with Ambala DSR 2022 by mentioning khasra numbers of the land as per revenue report and incorporating the geo-coordinates of the land. Respondent no. 8 had participated in the e-auction which was conducted on 29.06.2022 in pursuance of e-auction notice dated 31.05.2022 and submitted highest bid. Respondent No. 5 communicated the acceptance of the bid by way of issuance of LOI dated 28.07.2022. Respondent no. 5 had issued a letter O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -23- dated 08.12.2022 whereby it was clarified that certain khasra numbers were wrongly mentioned in the LOI dated 28.07.2022 due to typographical mistake and the correct khasra numbers were mentioned in the said letter and the LOI was revised to that extent. After seeking NOC from the State Forest Department vide letter dated 23.12.2022, respondent no. 8 submitted the Mining Plan and Progressive Mine Closure Plan with respondent No. 5 on 16.02.2023 for the purpose of seeking approval. For the purpose of preparation of the Mining Plan, detailed map of the mining lease area was prepared by superimposing the mining lease area (through the geo- coordinates provided in the auction notice) on the toposheets available on the official website of Survey of India, Government of India. The Location Map and Key Plan 5 km Radius revealed that the Toka-Hamidpur mining block lies on Toposheets No. 53F/2 and 53F/3. Furthermore, as per Key Plan 5 Km Radius, the mining area located at Village Dera is within the riverbed area of Trilokpur Nadi, which is also known as Sukroon River. Entire mining lease area was identified with the help of geo-coordinates. While assessing the estimated quantity of mineral reserves, the established method was followed. Based upon detailed and scientific analysis, it was stated that the total mineable reserve in the area are 44,66,189 MT and the target production was fixed at 44,60,000 MT per annum. After careful analysis of the Mining Plan submitted by respondent no. 8, respondent No. 5 had granted approval for the same in exercise of powers available under the Haryana Minor Mineral Concession, Stocking, Transportation of Minerals and Prevention of Illegal Mining Rules, 2012. After seeking approval of the Mining Plan, respondent no. 8 had approached respondent no. 6 for grant of EC and the same is pending adjudication before respondent no. 6. The Mining Plan was prepared as per the prescribed procedure and there is no violation of Ambala DSR 2022 while granting approval to the Mining Plan submitted by respondent no. 8. In so far as the total quantity of the mineable minerals mentioned in Ambala DSR 2022 O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -24- is concerned, it is apparent that the same is a result of some inadvertent mistake considering the total area for proposed mining blocks. The issue with regards to inclusion of mining area at Trilokpur Nadi in the Mining Plan is completely misconceived since the Trilokpur Nadi is locally known as Sukroon River and the same is duly incorporated in Ambala DSR 2022. The quantity of the mineable reserves has been inadvertently mentioned as 38.29 lakhs MT and the mention of mineable area as 10.11 hectares is also a typographical mistake. As per Ambala DSR 2022, the minerals are available in the riverbed of 5 rivers i.e. Markanda, Tangri, Begna, Roon and Sukroon (Trilokpur). The methodology for calculation of the mineral potential is prescribed in SSMG, 2016. The total area recommended for mineral concession for first four of the aforesaid five rivers is 1,59,55,000 square meters which is 1595.5 hectares; and after including the area available in the fifth river i.e. Sukroon/Trilokpur, the total area shall be 1,60,00,000 square meters which is around 1600 hectares or 3953.686 acres. By taking the density of the riverbed material to be 2.00 grams/cubic centimeters (as mentioned in the mining plan) and considering the mineral potential @ 60%, the total quantity of minerals available shall be around 1,92,00,000 MT per annum. Since the total area available for mineral concession is 1,60,00,000 square meters or 1600 hectares or 3953.686 acres, mention of the same as 10.11 hectares at one place is a result of typographical mistake. Further to satisfy the averments made by the applicant, respondent no. 8 had engaged the services of NABL recognized Consultant which started the sampling for assessment of Bulk Density of Mineable Minerals as per the provisions laid down in EMGSM-2020 w.e.f. 28.10.2023 and the testing of the sample in the laboratory is under process. The report shall be duly submitted with the Mines and Geology Department, Government of Haryana in due course. The blocked reserves, as mentioned in the Mining Plan, are based upon scientific analysis and there is no violation of the conditions mentioned in the LOI. The Mining Plan was O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -25- prepared as per the prescribed procedure and the same was approved after exercise of due diligence. The Appendix A appended with notification dated 15.01.2016 was substituted by notification dated 25.07.2018 and the same has been duly complied with in the present case. There is no violation of Ambala DSR 2022 in the present case and no substantial question relating to the environment is involved in the present case. Respondent No. 8 has accordingly prayed for dismissal of the application.
16. In its reply respondent no. 9 - M/S SCP Commodities has taken preliminary objection that the Original Application is barred by limitation as the applicant has challenged the impugned letter dated 25.01.2023 approving its Mining Plan after six months on 17.08.2023 and the same is liable to dismissed on that score alone. In its reply respondent no. 9 - M/S SCP Commodities has also taken preliminary objection as to the applicant being resident of District- Yamuna Nagar Haryana and having no locus standi to challenge mining in District -Ambala, Haryana about 75 K.Ms. from the place of his residence.
17. In its reply respondent no. 9-M/s SCP Commodities has submitted that respondent no.9 was the highest bidder (Rs. 8,21,00,000/-) for the Sand Minor Mineral Mines of District Ambala for which e-auction was held on 05.07.2022 vide E-Auction Notice (DMG/HY/e-Auction/Amb./2022/ dated 09.06.2022. On 28.07.2022. Letter of Intent was issued by the Director General, Mines & Geology, Haryana vide Memo No DMG/HY/Cont./Gadauli- Ambli Block/AMB/2022/4862, for Mining of Sand (Minor Mineral) in revenue village of Gadauli - Ambli over an area of 99.06 acres (39.636 hectares) in District-Ambala, Haryana for a period of 08 Years. Respondent no. 9 prepared the Mining Plan and submitted the same before the Director General, Mines & Geology, Haryana. Respondent no.9 was the first allottee, whose Mining Plan was approved by the Director, Mines and Geology, Haryana vide approval letter dated 25.01.2023 and mining plans of respondent no. 8-M/s. R. M. Mines & O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -26- Infra Pvt. Ltd. and respondent no.10 M/s Reliable Mining Corporation were approved by the Director, Mines and Geology, Haryana vide approval letters dated 27.02.2023 and 18.05.2023 respectively. The concerned authority/body which prepared the DSR included Boulder, Bajri and Sand only and mistakenly/inadvertently left one of the minerals namely Gravel, which is a major constituent available in River beds and mistakenly/inadvertently also omitted to include the Mineable portion of River Sukroon, which is also known as Trilokpur River, during the compilation and preparation of DSR which led to decrease in the quantity of mineable minerals and mineable area as well. The Mining Officer, Ambala has undertaken revision of the DSR of District Ambala and after revision of the same, issue of difference in mineable mineral quantity shall be resolved. Respondent no.9 has further submitted that the mining plan of the respondent no.9 was the first plan which was approved after the DSR was formed among the three project proponents and therefore, it is within the permissible limit of the DSR and other plans which were approved after the Mining plan of respondent no.9 are beyond the limit mentioned in the DSR. Respondent No.9 has submitted that the applicant has made bald allegations without any proof/evidence to substantiate the same and the original application may be dismissed.
18. In its reply respondent No. 10-M/s. Reliable Mining Corporation has submitted that respondent No. 5 had issued e-auction notice dated 31.05.2022 in consonance with Ambala DSR 2022 for grant of mining contracts for extraction of minor minerals namely "Boulder, Gravel and Sand"
from various mining blocks including Fatehpur Nagoli Mining Block comprising land located in 6 villages- Fatehpur, Laha, Batoura, Nagoli, Banaudi, Bari Bassi with a total area of 105.51 acres mentioned by specific khasra numbers as per the revenue record of the minerals bearing area enshrined in Annexure B appended with Ambala DSR 2022 and incorporating O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors.-27-
the geo-coordinates of the same. Respondent no.10 had participated in the e-
auction which was conducted on 30.06.2022 in pursuance of e-auction notice dated 31.05.2022. Respondent no.10 had submitted the highest bid.
Respondent No. 5 had communicated the acceptance of the bid by way of issuance of LOI dated 28.07.2022. In pursuance thereof, respondent no.10 had submitted the Mining Plan and Progressive Mine Closure Plan with respondent no. 5 on 17.04.2023 for the purpose of seeking approval. For the purpose of preparation of the Mining Plan, detailed map of the mining lease area was prepared by superimposing the mining lease area (through the geo-
coordinates provided in the auction notice) on the toposheets available on the official website of Survey of India, Government of India. A bare perusal of the Mining Plan shall reveal that the mining lease area is located at River Begna and the mining lease area was identified with the help of the geo-coordinates.
Furthermore, for the purpose of assessing the estimated quantity of mineral reserves, all the parameters laid down under the Haryana Minor Minerals Concession, Stocking, Transportation of Minerals and Prevention of Illegal Mining Rules, 2012 as well as the EMGSM-2020 were considered. The Mining Plan also included the Replenishment Study Report on the basis of the pre-
monsoon and post-monsoon survey of the mining lease area by using Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS). On the basis of the detailed analysis, the proposed production capacity has been fixed at 12,00,000 MT per annum as the total mineable reserves established with the detailed replenishment study report are 12,05,432 MT per annum. After careful analysis of the Mining Plan submitted by respondent no.10, respondent no. 5 had granted approval for the same in exercise of powers available under the Haryana Minor Minerals Concession, Stocking, Transportation of Minerals and Prevention of Illegal Mining Rules, 2012 vide letter dated 18.05.2023.
After seeking approval of the Mining Plan, respondent no.9 had approached respondent no. 6 for EC and the same is pending before respondent no. 6. The O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors.-28-
Mining Plan was prepared as per the prescribed procedure and there is no violation of Ambala DSR 2022 while granting approval to the Mining Plan submitted by respondent no.10. In so far as the total quantity of the mineable minerals mentioned in Ambala DSR 2022 is concerned, it is apparent that the same is a result of some inadvertent mistake considering the total area for proposed mining blocks. The quantity of the mineable reserves has been inadvertently mentioned as 38.29 lakhs MT. Mention of 10.11 hectares is also a typographical mistake. In so far as the sources of the minerals with regards to rivers/streams is concerned, it is clarified that River Sukroon is formally known as Trilokpur Nadi/River. As per Ambala DSR 2022, the minerals are available in the riverbed of 5 rivers i.e. Markanda, Tangri, Begna, Roon and Sukroon (Trilokpur). The total area recommended for mineral concession for first four of the aforesaid five rivers is 1,59,55,000 square meters which is 1595.5 hectares; and after including the area available in the fifth river i.e. Sukroon/Trilokpur, the total area shall be 1,60,00,000 square meters which is around 1600 hectares or 3953.686 acres. By taking the bulk density of the riverbed material to be 2.00 grams/ cubic centimeters (as mentioned in the mining plan) and considering the mineral potential @ 60%, the total quantity of minerals available shall be around 1,92,00,000 MT per annum as per calculation methodology for calculation of mineral potential prescribed in SSMG-2016. There is no contradiction with regard to the capacity of the mineable minerals in the mining area. The estimate given in the Mining Plan is based upon scientific assessment and the quantity mentioned in Ambala DSR 2022 is a result of inadvertent mistake and the issue regarding mineable quantity at District Ambala is completely misconceived. Since the total area available for mineral concession is 1,60,00,000 square meters or 1600 hectares or 3953.686 acres, mention of mineable area as 10.11 hectares at one place is a result of typographical mistake. The issue regarding bulk density of mineable minerals is also misconceived and the assessment is O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors.-29-
based on scientific analysis. To satisfy the averments made by the applicant respondent no. 10 had engaged the services of consultant which is NABL recognized Laboratory. The consultant had started the sampling for assessment of Bulk Density of Mineable Minerals as per the provisions laid down in EMGSM-2020 and the testing reports were duly appended with Mining Plan submitted by respondent no.10. The Mining Plan was prepared as per the prescribed procedure and the same was approved after exercise of due diligence. There is no violation of Ambala DSR 2022 or applicable laws and no substantial question relating to the environment is involved in the present case. Respondent No.10 has accordingly submitted that the original application may be dismissed.
19. The applicant filed rejoinders to the replies filed by respondents no. 3, 4, 5 and 7, respondent no. 8, respondent no. 9 and respondent 10 respectively reiterating the averments made in the original application. In the rejoinders to replies filed by respondents no. 9 and 10 the applicant has submitted that respondents no. 9 and 10 have relied upon backdated affidavits which is not permissible and constitutes gross abuse of process. The present application pertains to ongoing and successive violations of environmental norms and statutory guidelines which rekindle the applicant's right to seek legal remedy.
The applicant has further submitted that the errors in Ambala DSR 2022 are not inadvertent clerical errors but are rather significant oversight which suggest negligence and have direct and material impact on the legal foundation of the approvals granted for mining which are in violation of Notifications dated 15.01.2016 and 25.07.2018 and SSMG- 2016 and EMGSM-2020 issued by MOEF&CC.
20. SEIAA, Haryana filed copy of memo no. SEIAA (180/HR/2024/261) dated 09.09.2024 written by Member Secretary, SEIAA, Haryana to the Deputy Commissioner, Ambala. The relevant part of above said memo reads as under:-
O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors.-30-
"Subject: Approval of District Survey Report (DSR) for Ambala District.
The matter was taken up during 296th Meeting of SEAC, Haryana held on 12.07.2024 for discussion. Shri Om Dutt, Mining Officer, representative of Directorate, Mines & Geology, Haryana was also present during the meeting. The committee thoroughly discussed the submissions made by Deputy Commissioner, Ambala regarding the DSR of District Ambala. After discussion, the SEAC, Haryana agreed with the submissions of the Deputy commissioner, Ambala and recommended that the District DSR may be sent to SEIAA for approval.
FINDINGS AND DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY (SEIAA):
The case was taken up during the 180th Meeting of SEIAA held on 10.08.2024. Upon perusal of relevant record placed on the file, the Authority decided to approve the District Survey Repot (DSR) for sustainable sand mining for Ambala district.
Accordingly, the authority grants its approval to the DSR forwarded by the DC, Ambala , Haryana under intimation to the Mines & Geology Department Haryana"
21. We have heard submissions made by Mr. Gaurav Kumar Bansal, Ms. Nandita Bansal and Ms. Komal Sharma, learned Counsels for the applicant, Mr. Rahul Khurana, learned Counsel for Respondents no.3 to 7, Mr. Anshul Mangla, learned Counsel for Respondents no. 8 and 10 and Mr. Saurabh Rajpal and Mr. Vinay Kumar Singh, learned Counsels for Respondent no. 9 and have gone through the material on record carefully.
22. Vide order dated 25.11.2024 this Tribunal granted time to the parties to file written submissions confining to the oral arguments within three days and in compliance thereof, written submissions dated 28.11.2024 have been filed by the applicant and respondent no. 9.
23. We have also gone through written submissions filed by the applicant and respondent no. 9 and also the judgments relied upon in support thereof.
24. In view of the pleadings of the parties and oral and written submissions the following questions arise for adjudication in the present case:-
O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors.-31-
(i) Whether the present original application has been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and is liable to be dismissed as being time barred?
(ii) Whether the applicant being resident of District Yamuna Nagar has no locus standi to file the present original application complaining about violation of environmental norms in District Ambala?
(iii) Whether replies filed by Respondents No. 9 and 10 are liable to be ignored due to not being supported by valid affidavit?
(iv) Whether letters dated 25.01.2023, 27.02.2023 and 18.05.2023 whereby the Director, Mines and Geology, Haryana approved the mining plans of Respondent No. 9- M/s SCP Commodities, Respondent No. 8-M/s.
R M Mines and Infra Pvt. Ltd. and Respondent No. 10-M/s. Reliable Mining Corporation respectively being contrary to the Ambala DSR 2022 and being violative of the Notifications dated 15.01.2016 and 25.07.2018 and SSMG- 2016 and EMGSM-2020 issued by MOEF&CC are illegal and liable to be set-aside?
25. Our findings on the above mentioned questions along-with the reasons for the same are given hereinafter.
(i) Whether the present original application has been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and is liable to be dismissed as being time barred?
26. Mr. Saurabh Rajpal, learned Counsel for respondent no. 9 has argued that the applicant has filed the present Application challenging the impugned letter dated 25.01.2023, whereby the Director, Mines and Geology, Haryana approved the mining plan of respondent no. 9- M/s SCP Commodities, on 17.08.2023 after expiry of the limitation period of 6 months prescribed under Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. The applicant has not filed any application for condonation of delay along with the present Original Application. Even no ground for condonation of delay is made out. Therefore, the Original Application may be dismissed at the threshold as being barred by limitation.
27. Mr. Anshul Mangla, learned Counsel for respondents no. 8 and 10 has also submitted that the original application being time barred may be dismissed.
O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -32-
28. On the other hand, Mr. Gaurav Kumar Bansal, learned Counsel for the applicant has argued that present original application was filed on 17.08.2023 within six months from the date of impugned letters dated 27.02.2023 and 18.05.2023. Even through the present original application has been filed after expiry of six months and 24 days from the date of impugned letter dated 25.01.2023 but the Joint Committee constituted by this Tribunal has acknowledged in its report that the original Ambala DSR 2022 is flawed and requires revision. Respondent no. 5 through letter dated 25.10.2023 also admitted the deficiencies in the original Ambala DSR 2022 with necessity for its revision. The Director of Mines and Geology, Haryana, has approved the mining plans of respondents no. 8, 9 and 10 in clear violation of the Notifications dated 15.01.2016 and 25.07.2018 and SSMG-2016 and EMGSM-2020 issued by MOEF&CC.
29. Mr. Gaurav Kumar Bansal, learned Counsel for the applicant has further argued that In these facts and circumstances, the present original application is within the period of limitation prescribed under section 14 of the NGT Act 2010 and if this Tribunal finds any delay in filing of the original application, then the same may be condoned as the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the application within the period of six months and the application may be allowed to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days.
30. Mr. Gaurav Kumar Bansal, learned Counsel for the applicant has further argued that due to the procedural prescriptions being the handmaid and not the mistress and lubricants and not resistants in the administration of Justice, the substantial rights of the litigants may not be allowed to be defeated by the same. In support of his submissions learned Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagwan Swaroop and others Vs. Mool Chand and others O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -33- (1983) 2 SCC 132 and State of Punjab and another Vs. Shamlal Murari and another (1976) 1 SCC 719.
31. Section 14 (1) of the NGT Act 2010 confers jurisdiction on this Tribunal over all civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment) is involved and such question arises out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I. Section 14 (3) of the NGT Act 2010, which provides the period of limitation for filing of application for adjudication of dispute under Section 14 of the NGT Act 2010, reads as under:-
"(3) No application for adjudication of dispute under this section shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a period of six months from the date on which the cause of action for such dispute first arose:
Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the application within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days. "
32. In the present case, the applicant has challenged the letters dated 25.01.2023, 27.02.2023 and 18.05.2023 whereby the Director, Mines and Geology, Haryana approved the mining plans of respondent no. 9- M/s SCP Commodities, respondent no. 8-M/s. R M Mines and Infra Pvt. Ltd. and respondent no. 10-M/s. Reliable Mining Corporation respectively. The present original application, which was filed on 17.08.2023, is within the prescribed period of limitation of six months from the date of impugned letters dated 27.02.2023 and 18.05.2023 but the same is beyond the prescribed period of limitation of six months from the date of impugned letter dated 25.01.2023 and there is delay of 24 days in filing of the original application. The delay appears to have occurred due to joinder of cause of action against respondent no. 9- M/s SCP Commodities with cause of action against respondent no. 8-M/s. R M Mines and Infra Pvt. Ltd. and respondent no. 10-M/s. Reliable Mining Corporation respectively. Under the proviso to Section 14 (3) of the NGT Act O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -34- 2010 this Tribunal is empowered to allow filing of the application within further period of 60 days if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the application within the period of six months. In the facts and circumstances of the case we are satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the application within the said period of six months from the date of impugned letter dated 25.01.2023 and the 24 days delay in filing of the original application deserves to be and is hereby condoned.
33. Even otherwise, the Joint Committee constituted by this Tribunal has acknowledged in its report that the original Ambala DSR 2022 is flawed and required revision/rectification. Respondent no. 5 through letter dated 25.10.2023 also admitted the deficiencies in the original Ambala DSR 2022 with necessity for its revision/rectification. Ambala DSR 2022 has been revised/rectified in 2024 during pendency of the present original application. In these facts and circumstances, the present original application is not liable to be dismissed as being time barred on the ground of having being filed after expiry of six months from the date of letter dated 25.01.2023 as the cause of action was revived and continued beyond the period of six months.
(ii) Whether the applicant being resident of District Yamuna Nagar has no locus standi to file the present original application complaining about violation of environmental norms in District Ambala?
34. Mr. Saurabh Rajpal, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 9 has argued that the mining is to be carried out in District Ambala, Haryana whereas the applicant is resident of District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana about 70 kms away from the mining blocks and will not be personally affected by the mining projects. No representation was ever made by the applicant raising concern qua the environmental issues involved. In these circumstances the applicant has no locus standi to challenge the approval of mining plans of respondent no. 8-M/s. R M Mines and Infra Pvt. Ltd., respondent no. 9- M/s O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -35- SCP Commodities and respondent no. 10-M/s. Reliable Mining Corporation and the present original application is not maintainable .
35. On the other hand, Mr. Gaurav Kumar Bansal, learned Counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant, as a concerned citizen, has every right to raise issues concerning environmental degradation and violations of statutory provisions, irrespective of the geographical proximity to the project site. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in various judgments, has consistently held that in matters related to the public interest, the concept of locus standi is to be interpreted liberally to allow for the protection of the environment, which is of public interest. Environmental harm transcends District boundaries, and activities such as mining have a far-reaching impact on ecosystems, water bodies, and public health, which are not limited to the immediate vicinity of the project. In view thereof the applicant has locus standi to file and maintain the present original application.
36. Admittedly, the applicant is not a resident of District Ambala and not being a person residing in the vicinity of the mining lease sites cannot be said to be personally affected in any manner by the approval of the mining plans of respondent no. 8-M/s. R M Mines and Infra Pvt. Ltd., respondent no. 9- M/s SCP Commodities and respondent no. 10-M/s. Reliable Mining Corporation by respondents no. 5.
37. However, this Tribunal cannot lose sight of the fact that right to life includes within its sweep right to clean and healthy environment which cannot be denied and has to be protected and implemented in the fullest measure by the State and all the instrumentalities of the State and also by the Project Proponents. The Applicant has raised substantial questions relating to environment while pleading serious violations of the MOEF&CC Notifications dated 15.01.2016 and 25.07.2018 and SSMG-2016 and EMSMG-2020 in Public Interest. In view of settled law governing Public Interest Litigation and O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -36- enforcement of fundamental rights, the applicant must be held to have locus standi.
38. Even otherwise, it is now well settled that this Tribunal can take cognizance of questions relating to environment arising out of implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I to the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 suo motu as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha (2021) SCC Online SC 897: Law Finder Doc Id # 1890858: 2021 AIR (Supreme Court) 5147 and can adjudicate upon the questions involved in the present case.
39. Consequently, the present original application is not liable to be dismissed on the ground of the applicant not having locus standi to file the present original application and the present original application being not maintainable.
(iii) Whether replies filed by Respondents No. 9 and 10 are liable to be ignored due to not being supported by valid affidavit thereof??
40. Mr. Gaurav Bansal, learned Counsel for the applicant has argued that Respondent No. 9- M/s SCP Commodities and Respondent No. 10-M/s. Reliable Mining Corporation have committed serious legal irregularities in connection with the filing of their respective written statements. Respondent No. 9- M/s SCP Commodities filed written statement dated 15.03.2024 while the accompanying affidavit was attested on 12.01.2024. Respondent No. 10-M/s. Reliable Mining Corporation filed written statement on 14.03.2024 while the accompanying affidavit was attested on 12.03.2024. Respondent No. 9- M/s SCP Commodities and Respondent No. 10-M/s. Reliable Mining Corporation have relied upon back dated affidavits in their submissions which is not permissible under the law. These discrepancies not only raise serious concerns about the authenticity and credibility of the written statements but also O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -37- constitute an attempt to deceive the court and engaging in conduct that undermines the sanctity of the judicial process. Therefore, the written statement may be discarded and State of Haryana may be directed to take penal action against them.
41. On the other hand, Mr. Saurabh Rajpal, learned Counsel for Respondent No.9- M/s SCP Commodities has argued that the affidavit was signed by Respondent No. 9- M/s SCP Commodities when the same was prepared but the reply was rectified later due to mistakes and written statement was filed alongwith the supporting affidavit after showing the same to Respondent No. 9- M/s SCP Commodities. According to the Indian Notaries Act, 1952 there is no specific time limit for the validity of an affidavit. Mr. Anshul Mangla, learned Counsel for Respondents no. 8-M/s. R M Mines and Infra Pvt. Ltd. and 10-M/s. Reliable Mining Corporation has also made identical submission.
42. Mr. Anshul Mangla, learned Counsel for Respondents no. 8-M/s. R M Mines and Infra Pvt. Ltd. and 10-M/s. Reliable Mining Corporation and Mr. Saurabh Rajpal, learned Counsel for Respondent No.9- M/s SCP Commodities have further submitted that the procedure is handmaid and not mistress of justice and the issue of dates of execution of affidavits cannot be a ground for not considering the replies filed by Respondent No. 9- M/s SCP Commodities and Respondent No. 10-M/s. Reliable Mining Corporation.
43. Mr. Saurabh Rajpal, learned Counsel for Respondent No.9- M/s SCP Commodities has also argued that the present Original Application has been filed on 17.08.2023 and affidavit has been signed and attested by the Applicant Balbir Sandhu on 19.08.2023 which clearly shows that the averments made in the Original Application were not known to the Applicant and the original application being abuse of process of law may be dismissed. O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -38-
44. In rebuttal thereto Mr. Saurabh Rajpal, learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that original application filed on 17.08.2023 is duly supported by affidavit dated 19.08.2023 and there is no irregularity in signing of the affidavit in support of the original application after filing of the same.
45. No doubt, Respondent No. 9- M/s SCP Commodities has filed written statement dated 15.03.2024 supported by affidavit sworn on earlier date 12.01.2024 and Respondent No. 10-M/s. Reliable Mining Corporation has filed written statement on 14.03.2024 supported by affidavit sworn on earlier date 12.03.2024 while the applicant has filed original application on 17.08.2023 supported by affidavit sworn on later date 19.08.2023 but in the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered view that this procedural irregularity of not filing affidavit sworn on the same date does not materially affect the authenticity of the pleadings which are not liable to be discarded on the ground thereof. Even otherwise, procedural prescriptions are the handmaid and not the mistress and are the lubricants and not the resistants in the administration of justice. Consequently, the original application filed by the Applicant and replies filed by Respondent No. 9- M/s SCP Commodities and Respondent No. 10-M/s. Reliable Mining Corporation are not liable to be discarded on the ground of alleged procedural defect.
(iv) Whether letters dated 25.01.2023, 27.02.2023 and 18.05.2023 whereby the Director, Mines and Geology, Haryana approved the mining plans of Respondent No. 9- M/s SCP Commodities, Respondent No. 8-M/s. R M Mines and Infra Pvt. Ltd. and Respondent No. 10-M/s. Reliable Mining Corporation respectively being contrary to the Ambala DSR 2022 and being violative of the Notifications dated 15.01.2016 and 25.07.2018 and SSMG- 2016 and EMGSM-2020 issued by MOEF&CC are illegal and liable to be set-aside?
46. Mr. Gaurav Bansal, learned Counsel for the Applicant has argued that the approvals granted by the Director, Mines and Geology, Haryana vide letters dated 25.01.2023, 27.02.2023 and 18.05.2023 to the Mining Plans of Respondent No. 9- M/s SCP Commodities, Respondent No. 8-M/s. R M Mines O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -39- and Infra Pvt. Ltd. and Respondent No. 10-M/s. Reliable Mining Corporation are in clear violation of Ambala DSR 2022 which specifies that the total mineable mineral reserves (boulders, gravel, and sand) are 38.29 lakh MT, and the total permissible mining area is 10.11 hectares. However, the Director, Mines and Geology, Haryana has authorized extraction of approximately 71 lakh MT of minerals-far exceeding the DSR limits--across a mining area of 180 hectares. Specifically, Respondent No. 8-M/s. R M Mines and Infra Pvt. Ltd. has been authorized to extract 44.60 lakh MT minor minerals from 99.9 hectares, Respondent No. 9- M/s SCP Commodities has been authorized to extract 15 lakh MT minor minerals from 39.636 hectares, and Respondent No. 10-M/s. Reliable Mining Corporation has been authorized to extract 12 lakh MT minor minerals from 42.70 hectares. This gross overextension of both the mineable mineral quantity and mining area not only violates Ambala DSR 2022 but also MoEF & CC Notifications dated 14.09.2006, 15.01.2016 and 25.07.2018 and SSMG-2016 and EMGSM-2020.
47. Mr. Gaurav Bansal, learned Counsel for the Applicant has further argued that the errors were acknowledged in the Joint Committee report and were also admitted by Respondents No. 3, 4, 5 and 7. The recalculated mineable area of 373.35 hectares and mineral potential of 224 lacs MT per annum and their defence of the misnomer regarding the Sukroon River are post-facto justifications that far exceed what was initially stated. These are not inadvertent clerical errors but substantial oversight suggesting their negligence, with a direct and material impact on the legal foundation of the approvals granted for mining in clear violation of Ambala DSR 2022 but also MoEF & CC Notifications dated 14.09.2006, 15.01.2016 and 25.07.2018 and SSMG-2016 and EMGSM-2020.
48. Mr. Gaurav Bansal, learned Counsel for the Applicant has further argued that Ambala DSR 2022 identifies five rivers--Markanda, Tangri, Begna, O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -40- Roon, and Sukroon--as sources of mineable minerals but the Director, Mines and Geology, Haryana has authorized Respondent No. 8 to extract minerals from Trilokpur River which is not mentioned in Ambala DSR 2022. The bulk density of mineable minerals was required to be assessed by an NABL- recognized laboratory but neither Respondent No. 8-M/s. R M Mines and Infra Pvt. Ltd. nor Respondent No. 9-M/s. SCP Commodities provided any document demonstrating compliance with requirement of assessment by an NABL- recognized agency. The approvals disregarded the annual capacity of mineable minerals, the permissible area for mining, and other critical parameters outlined in the DSR, thereby compromising the ecological integrity and regulatory framework established to safeguard the District's Natural Resources. The replenishment study, which is a critical component of the preparation of DSR has been completely overlooked in both the original Ambala DSR 2022 and the revised Ambala DSR 2022/2024 which failed to comply with Para 5 of the EMGSM 2020. The report of the Joint Committee and the replies filed by Respondent No. 9- M/s SCP Commodities, Respondent No. 8-M/s. R M Mines and Infra Pvt. Ltd. and Respondent No. 10-M/s. Reliable Mining Corporation do not indicate that replenishment study has been conducted. Mining operations carried out without assessing the replenishment rate could result in irreversible damage to the ecosystem, including the potential alteration of the river's natural course, and pose a significant risk of flooding in downstream villages and towns.
49. Mr. Gaurav Bansal, learned Counsel for the applicant has further argued that all the respondents have repeatedly admitted 'typographical errors', 'inadvertent mistakes' and the 'misnomer' regarding the Sukroon river in the original DSR clearly suggesting the flawed foundation upon which the mining plan was approved. These oversights suggest their negligence and have direct and material impact on the legal foundation of the approvals granted for mining. O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -41- After the filing of the present original application, Ambala DSR 2022 was subsequently corrected and amended to address the discrepancies identified and raised by the applicant in the Original Application not. However, the Letter of Intent (LOI), auction notice, and mining plan were issued and approved based on the old, erroneous Ambala DSR 2022 which contained critical errors regarding the mineral potential and mineable areas. Hence, the impugned letters dated 25.01.2023, 27.02.2023 and 18.05.2023 whereby the Director, Mines and Geology, Haryana has approved the Mining Plans of Respondent No. 9- M/s SCP Commodities, Respondent No. 8-M/s. R M Mines and Infra Pvt. Ltd. and Respondent No. 10-M/s. Reliable Mining Corporation respectively, being in clear violation of Ambala DSR 2022 and MoEF & CC Notifications dated 14.09.2006, 15.01.2016 and 25.07.2018 and SSMG-2016 and EMGSM- 2020 may be quashed by this Tribunal.
50. On the other, hand Mr. Saurabh Rajpal learned Counsel for Respondent No. 9- M/s SCP Commodities has argued that Respondent No. 9- M/s SCP Commodities was the first among the Respondents, whose Mining Plans were approved by the Director, Mines and Geology, Haryana. Mining Plan of Respondent No. 9- M/s SCP Commodities was approved vide letter dated 25.01.2023 for mining of sand 15 Lakhs metric tonnes at river Markanda in area/block at Gadauli and Ambli. Process for obtaining EC and other requisite approval was initiated and replenishment study was duly conducted from recognized institute in accordance with the rules. This Tribunal vide order dated 29.08.2023 constituted a Joint Committee which submitted report dated 27.10.2023 demonstrating the errors which had occurred but the Joint Committee report also depicted that the mining allotted to Respondent No.9- M/s SCP Commodities was well within the old approved Ambala DSR 2022 calculation. Respondent No.9-M/s. SCP Commodities has been allowed mining of "Sand" only and area allotted to the Respondent No.9-M/s. SCP Commodities O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -42- falls under the River Markanda, which was duly incorporated during the preparation of old Ambala DSR 2022. Respondent No.9- M/s SCP Commodities has been authorized to extract minor minerals in land falling in the area/block at Gadauli and Ambli khasra numbers of which were already mentioned in the old Ambala DSR 2022 (page no. 191, area Gadauli and page no. 193 area Ambli) which were also mentioned in the Ambala DSR 2022 rectified in 2024 (page no. 1455, Serial no. 40, area Gadauli and page no. 1456, Serial no. 53) and there is no change in the rectified DSR.
51. Mr. Saurabh Rajpal learned Counsel for Respondent No. 9- M/s SCP Commodities has further argued that there is no discrepancy/shortcoming with respect to Respondent No.9-M/s SCP Commodities and there is no violation of any kind of environment. The Applicant is unable to show any environmental degradation and in fact nothing has been placed on record in the rejoinder of the Applicant to counter the averments made by Respondent No.9-M/s SCP Commodities. The present original application has been filed mainly pointing out the rectifiable errors which were rectified by the State Government by issuing the corrigendum. The entire process cannot be set aside on issue of calculation mistakes particularly when in the case of Respondent No.9-M/s SCP Commodities there is no mistake at all. Respondent No.9-M/s SCP Commodities has been dragged with the other Project Proponents unnecessarily. The Applicant did not raise any objections when Old and Rectified DSR were uploaded and the same have also not been challenged by the Applicant in the present case. Hence, no relief may be given to the Applicant qua the DSR and the present Application may be dismissed qua the Respondent No.9-M/s SCP Commodities
52. Mr. Rahul Khurana, learned Counsel for Respondents no. 3 to 7, Mr. Anshul Mangla, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 8-M/s. R M Mines and Infra Pvt. Ltd. and Respondent No. 10-M/s. Reliable Mining Corporation and O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -43- Mr. Saurabh Rajpal learned Counsel for Respondent No. 9- M/s SCP Commodities have argued that the total area granted in three mining Blocks in favour of Respondent No. 9- M/s SCP Commodities, Respondent No. 8-M/s. R M Mines and Infra Pvt. Ltd. and Respondent No. 10-M/s. Reliable Mining Corporation is 159.38 Hectares (398.45 Acres) along with ancillary area of 27.42 Hectares (68.55 Acres) and total mineral potential for said area @ 60,000 M.T. per hectare comes out to be 95.63 lacs M.T. (Page No. 1336, para h) but approved Mining Plan permit extraction of Mineable Minerals of 71 lacs MT to Respondent No. 9- M/s SCP Commodities, Respondent No. 8-M/s. R M Mines and Infra Pvt. Ltd. and Respondent No. 10-M/s. Reliable Mining Corporation which is far less than the available Mineable Minerals. The concerned authority/body which has prepared the District Survey Report mistakenly/inadvertently left to mention one of the minerals namely Gravel and also left to mention the Mineable portion of River Sukroon (which is also known as Trilokpur River and was shown at Sr. No. 5 of Table no. 1) in table no. 4 and 5 of Para no. 12 of Ambala DSR 2022 showing Mineral potential during the compilation and preparation of Ambala DSR 2022. The Joint Committee justified that the total quantity of Mineable Mineral should have been calculated as per total mining area of more than 1100 Acres≈445.1542 Hectares which is mentioned alongwith details of Khasra numbers in the last pages of the Ambala DSR 2022. The Mining Officer, Ambala admitted the fact that the Ambala DSR 2022 is having some shortcomings. The Mining Department cured the clerical mistakes committed at the time of preparation of the Ambala DSR 2022. After rectification of the errors in the Ambala DSR 2022 in 2024 which have retrospective effect, the original application has become technically infructuous as there is no violation of the environmental laws and errors inadvertently made have been rectified as per law. Mr. Rahul Khurana, learned Counsel for Respondents no.3 to 7, Mr. Anshul Mangla, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 8-M/s. R M Mines and Infra Pvt. Ltd. and Respondent No. 10-M/s. Reliable O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -44- Mining Corporation and Mr. Saurabh Rajpal learned Counsel for Respondent No. 9- M/s SCP Commodities have prayed that the present original application may be dismissed with costs.
53. In rebuttal thereto, Mr. Gaurav Bansal, learned Counsel for the applicant has argued that in the present case, the Letters of Intent (LOIs), auction notices, and mining plans were approved based on an erroneous and incomplete original DSR with acknowledged errors. The original DSR was subsequently rectified by the State Government only after the filing of the present original application. This post-facto revision is contrary to the EMGSM- 2020. The retroactive rectification of the DSR does not cure the procedural defects. The defence of inadvertent error to include Gravel and the misnomer regarding the Sukroon River in the Ambala DSR 2022 taken by the Respondents are post-facto justifications that far exceed what was initially stated therein and these are not inadvertent clerical errors but substantial oversight suggesting negligence of the concerned authorities, with a direct and material impact on the legal foundation of the approvals granted for mining. The approval of mining plan of Respondent No.9-M/s SCP Commodities, even as the first among three Project Proponents, does not mitigate the fact that the original Ambala DSR 2022 on which it is based was flawed. Respondent No.9- M/s SCP Commodities cannot rely on a Mining Plan that is based on erroneous DSR to justify the permissible limits of extraction. In view of the EMGSM 2020 and the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar and others Vs. Pawan Kumar and others (2022) 2 Supreme Court Cases 348 issuance of auction notice without there being a valid DSR is bad in law and cannot be sustained. The auction notices, LOIs and approvals for the mining plans being in clear violation of Ambala DSR 2022 and MoEF & CC Notifications dated 14.09.2006, 15.01.2016 and 25.07.2018 and SSMG-2016 and EMGSM-2020 cannot be retrospectively validated. Consequently, the entire O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -45- process has to be revisited and the approvals granted on the basis of the flawed Ambala DSR 2022 may be quashed.
54. In support of his arguments learned Counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance on the observations in (i) order dated 04.09.2018 passed in O.A. No.173/2018 in the matter of Sudarsan Das vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., (ii) Judgment dated 08.12.2017 in the matter of Anjani Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors, 2017 SCC OnLine NGT 979 and (iii) Paristhithi Samrakshana Sangham v. State of Kerala, 2009 SCC OnLine Ker 1601, (iv) soman Vs. Geologist, 2004 SCC Online Ker 510, (v) Anumolu Gandhi Vs. State of A.P, 2019 SCC Online NGT 1712, (vi) W.P. No. 114 of 2014 in the matter of Common Cause Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2017) 9SCC 499.
55. Before deliberating upon the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties, adverse environmental impact of unregulated river bed sand mining and remedial measures taken for protection of environment and regulation of river bed sand mining including the notifications and guidelines issued by MOEF&CC may be noticed.
Adverse Environmental Impact of unregulated river bed sand mining
56. Increase in demand of sand has placed immense pressure in the supply of sand resource with the result that legal as well as illegal mining activities continue without requisite restrictions. Unregulated sand mining poses threat to bio-diversity and can destroy riverine vegetation, cause erosion, pollute water sources, badly affect riparian ecology, damage ecosystem of rivers, endanger safety of bridges, weaken riverbeds, cause destruction of natural habitats of organisms living on the riverbeds, affect fish breeding and migration, spell disaster for the conservation of bird species, increase saline water in the rivers. Unregulated sand mining may also have direct impact on the physical habitat characteristics of the rivers such as bed elevation, O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -46- substrate composition and stability, in-stream roughness elements, depth, velocity, turbidity, sediment transport, stream discharge and temperature and may thereby causes huge degradation of environment. Lack of proper planning and sand management may disturb marine ecosystem and upset the ability of natural marine processes to replenish the sand. Strict regulatory parameters are required for regulating mining of river bed sand mining.
57. In State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Sanjay, (2014) 9 SCC 772, at page 790 Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under :-
"32. The policy and object of the Mines and Minerals Act and Rules have a long history and are the result of an increasing awareness of the compelling need to restore the serious ecological imbalance and to stop the damages being caused to the nature. The Court cannot lose sight of the fact that adverse and destructive environmental impact of sand mining has been discussed in the UNEP Global Environmental Alert Service Report. As per the contents of the Report, lack of proper scientific methodology for river sand mining has led to indiscriminate sand mining, while weak governance and corruption have led to widespread illegal mining. While referring to the proposition in India, it was stated that sand trading is a lucrative business, and there is evidence of illegal trading such as the case of the influential mafias in our country."
"33. The mining of aggregates in rivers has led to severe damage to rivers, including pollution and changes in levels of pH. Removing sediment from rivers causes the river to cut its channel through the bed of the valley floor, or channel incision, both upstream and downstream of the extraction site. This leads to coarsening of bed material and lateral channel instability. It can change the riverbed itself. The removal of more than 12 million tonnes of sand a year from Vembanad Lake catchment in India has led to the lowering of the riverbed by 7 to 15 cm a year. Incision can also cause the alluvial aquifer to drain to a lower level, resulting in a loss of aquifer storage. It can also increase flood frequency and intensity by reducing flood regulation capacity. However, lowering the water table is most threatening to water supply exacerbating drought occurrence and severity as tributaries of major rivers dry up when sand mining reaches certain thresholds. Illegal sand mining also causes erosion. Damming and mining have reduced sediment delivery from rivers to many coastal areas, leading to accelerated beach erosion.
34. The Report also dealt with the astonishing impact of sand mining on the economy. It states that tourism may be affected through beach erosion. Fishing, both traditional and commercial, can be affected through destruction of benthic fauna. Agriculture could be affected through loss of agricultural land from river O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors.-47-
erosion and the lowering of the water table. The insurance sector is affected through exacerbation of the impact of extreme events such as floods, droughts and storm surges through decreased protection of beach fronts. The erosion of coastal areas and beaches affects houses and infrastructure. A decrease in bed load or channel shortening can cause downstream erosion including bank erosion and the undercutting or undermining of engineering structures such as bridges, side protection walls and structures for water supply.
35. Sand is often removed from beaches to build hotels, roads and other tourism-related infrastructure. In some locations, continued construction is likely to lead to an unsustainable situation and destruction of the main natural attraction for visitors--beaches themselves. Mining from, within or near a riverbed has a direct impact on the stream's physical characteristics, such as channel geometry, bed elevation, substratum composition and stability, instream roughness of the bed, flow velocity, discharge capacity, sediment transportation capacity, turbidity, temperature, etc. Alteration or modification of the above attributes may cause hazardous impact on ecological equilibrium of riverine regime. This may also cause adverse impact on instream biota and riparian habitats. This disturbance may also cause changes in channel configuration and flow paths.
.....Today, demand for sand and gravel continues to increase. Mining operators, instead of working in conjunction with cognizant resource agencies to ensure that sand mining is conducted in a responsible manner, are engaged in full-time profiteering. Excessive in-stream sand and gravel mining from riverbeds and like resources causes the degradation of rivers. In- stream mining lowers the stream bottom, which leads to bank erosion. Depletion of sand in the stream-bed and along coastal areas causes the deepening of rivers and estuaries and enlargement of river mouths and coastal inlets. It also leads to saline water intrusion from the nearby sea. The effect of mining is compounded by the effect of sea level rise. Any volume of sand exported from stream-beds and coastal areas is a loss to the system. Excessive in-stream sand mining is a threat to bridges, river banks and nearby structures. Sand mining also affects the adjoining groundwater system and the uses that local people make of the river. Further, according to researches, in-stream sand mining results in the destruction of aquatic and riparian habitat through wholesale changes in the channel morphology. The ill effects include bed degradation, bed coarsening, lowered water tables near the streambed and channel instability. These physical impacts cause degradation of riparian and aquatic biota and may lead to the undermining of bridges and other structures. Continued extraction of sand from riverbeds may also cause the entire stream-bed to degrade to the depth of excavation."
Remedial Measures taken for Protection of environment and regulation of sand mining O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -48-
58. In view of the decisions taken at the United Nation Conference on Human Environment held in Stockholm in 1972, in which India participated, the Parliament enacted the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 in September, 2006. However, prior to 1994 there was no specific regime in place in relation to mining activity being carried out.
Notifications issued by MoEF & CC
59. Notification no. S.O. 60 (E) dated 27.01.1994 issued by MOEF prescribed the requirement and procedure for seeking environmental clearance for the projects listed in Schedule I but Schedule I of the notification did not list mining projects of minor minerals and covered only mining projects of major mineral with lease area of more than 5 hectares. The notification provided for constitution of Expert Committees and preparation of Environmental Impact Assessment Report to be evaluated and assessed by the Impact Assessment Agency.
60. EIA Notification no. S.O. 1533 (E) dated 14.09.2006 was issued by the MoEF & CC with an endeavor to provide a substantive legal framework and comprehensive procedural mechanism for evaluation, assessment and monitoring of the Environmental Impact on the land, air and water due to various projects undertaken by persons in all sectors throughout the territory of India. In terms of the notification the projects as stated in the Schedule to the notification require prior Environmental Clearance as per the procedure. The projects are categorized into Category A and Category B. Projects under Category A are required to take prior environmental clearance from MOEF&CC and projects under Category B are to be given environmental clearance by State Environment Impact Assessment Authority.
O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -49-
61. Mining Projects of minor minerals were listed under Item No.1(a) in the Schedule of EIA Notification no. S.O. 1533 (E) dated 14.09.2006 which reads as under:-
Project or Activity Category with threshold limit Conditions if any A B 1 Mining, extraction of natural resources and power generation (for a specified production capacity (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) "1(a) (i)Mining of ≥50 ha of mining < 50 ha of mining General minerals lease area in lease area in Conditions shall respect of non- respect of non- apply except:
coal mine lease coal mine lease (i) for project or activity of mining >150 ha of mining ≤ 150 ha of of minor minerals lease area in mining lease area of Category 'B2' respect of coal in respect of coal (up to 25 ha of mine lease mine lease. mining lease Asbestos mining area);
irrespective of mining area (ii) River bed mining projects on account of inter-state boundary. Note: (1) Mineral prospecting is exempted. ; (2) The prescribed procedure for environmental clearance for mining of minor minerals including cluster situation is given in Appendix XI.; (3) The mining leases which have obtained environmental clearance under Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 1994 and Environment Impact (ii)Slurry pipelines All Projects Assessment (coal, lignite and Notification, 2006 other ores) passing shall not require through national fresh parks or environmental sanctuaries or clearance during coral reefs, renewal provided ecologically the project has sensitive areas. valid and subsisting environmental clearance O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -50-
62. It may be observed here that the mining of minerals, both major and minor, were brought under the ambit of the EIA Notification no. S.O. 1533 (E) dated 14.09.2006 and the mining lease area of more than equal to 50 ha was kept in category A and mining lease area less than 50 ha and more than equal to 5 ha was kept in category B but mining lease area of less than 5 ha, for mining of minerals, both minor and major, was kept out of purview of the EIA Notification no. S.O. 1533 (E) dated 14.09.2006.
Directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in I.A. No.12-13 of 2011 in Special Leave Petition (C) No.19628-19629 of 2009, in the matter of Deepak Kumar etc. Vs. State of Haryana and Others etc.
63. The Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Haryana issued an auction notice dated 03.06.2011 proposing to auction the extraction of minor mineral boulder, gravel and sand quarries of an area not exceeding 4.5 hectares in each case in the District of Panchkula, auction notices dated 08.08.2011 in the District of Panchkula, Ambala and Yamuna Nagar exceeding 5 hectares and above, quarrying minor mineral, road metal and masonry stone mines in the District of Bhiwani, stone, sand mines in the District of Mohindergarh, slate stone mines in the District of Rewari, and also in the Districts of Kurukshetra, Karnal, Faridabad and Palwal, with certain restrictions for quarrying in the river beds of Yamuna, Tangri, Markanda, Ghaggar, Krishnavati River basin, Dohan River basin etc. The validity of the auction notices was challenged before Hon'ble Supreme Court, apart from the complaint of illegal mining going on in the State of Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh in I.A. No.12-13 of 2011 in Special Leave Petition (C) No.19628- 19629 of 2009, in the matter of Deepak Kumar etc. Vs. State of Haryana and Others etc. In its order dated 27.02.2012 Hon'ble Supreme Court noticed the adverse impact of sand mining on river ecology and aquatic life and observed as under:-
O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors.-51-
"7. We have no materials before us to come to the conclusion that the removal of minor mineral boulder, gravel, sand quarries etc. covered by the auction notices dated 3.6.2011 and 8.8.2011, in the places notified therein and also in the river beds of Yamuna, Ghaggar, Tangri, Markanda, Krishnavati river basin, Dohan river basin etc. would not cause environmental degradation or threat to the biodiversity, destroy riverine vegetation, cause erosion, pollute water sources etc. Sand mining on either side of the rivers, upstream and in-stream, is one of the causes for environmental degradation and also a threat to the biodiversity. Over the years, India's rivers and Riparian ecology have been badly affected by the alarming rate of unrestricted sand mining which damage the ecosystem of rivers and the safety of bridges, weakening of river beds, destruction of natural habitats of organisms living on the river beds, affects fish breeding and migration, spells disaster for the conservation of many bird species, increases saline water in the rivers etc. Extraction of alluvial material from within or near a streambed has a direct impact on the stream's physical habitat characteristics. These characteristics include bed elevation, substrate composition and stability, in-stream roughness elements, depth, velocity, turbidity, sediment transport, stream discharge and temperature. Altering these habitat characteristics can have deleterious impacts on both in-stream biota and the associated riparian habitat. The demand for sand continues to increase day by day as building and construction of new infrastructures and expansion of existing ones is continuous thereby placing immense pressure on the supply of the sand resource and hence mining activities are going on legally and illegally without any restrictions. Lack of proper planning and sand management cause disturbance of marine ecosystem and also upset the ability of natural marine processes to replenish the sand.
8. We are expressing our deep concern since we are faced with a situation where the auction notices dated 3.6.2011 and 8.8.2011 have permitted quarrying mining and removal of sand from in-stream and upstream of several rivers, which may have serious environmental impact on ephemeral, seasonal and perennial rivers and river beds and sand extraction may have an adverse effect on bio-diversity as well. Further it may also lead to bed degradation and sedimentation having a negative effect on the aquatic life. Rivers mentioned in the auction notices are on the foothills of the fragile Shivalik hills. Shivalik hills are the source of rivers like Ghaggar, Tangri, Markanda etc. River Ghaggar is a seasonal river which rises up in the outer Himalayas between Yamuna and Satluj and enters Haryana near Pinjore, District Panchkula, which passes through Ambala and Hissar and reaches Bikaner in Rajasthan. River Markanda is also a seasonal river like Ghaggar, which also originates from the lower Shivalik hills and enters Haryana near Ambala. During monsoon, this stream swells up into a raging torrent, notorious for its devastating power, as also, river Yamuna."
64. In the above mentioned case Hon'ble Supreme Court, while directing all the States, Union Territories, MoEF and the Ministry of Mines to give effect O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -52- to the recommendations made by MoEF in its report of March 2010 and the model guidelines framed by the Ministry of Mines, made prior environment clearance mandatory for mining of minor minerals irrespective of the area of mining lease. The Relevant part of the order is reproduced as under:-
"14. We are of the view that all State Governments/Union Territories have to give due weight to the above mentioned recommendations of the MoEF which are made in consultation with all the State Governments and Union Territories. Model Rules of 2010 issued by the Ministry of Mines are very vital from the environmental, ecological and biodiversity point of view and therefore the State Governments have to frame proper rules in accordance with the recommendations, under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.
15. Quarrying of river sand, it is true, is an important economic activity in the country with river sand forming a crucial raw material for the infrastructural development and for the construction industry but excessive in-stream sand and gravel mining causes the degradation of rivers. Instream mining lowers the stream bottom of rivers which may lead to bank erosion. Depletion of sand in the streambed and along coastal areas causes the deepening of rivers which may result in destruction of aquatic and riparian habitats as well. Extraction of alluvial material as already mentioned from within or near a streambed has a direct impact on the stream's physical habitat characteristics.
16. We are of the considered view that it is highly necessary to have an effective framework of mining plan which will take care of all environmental issues and also evolve a long term rational and sustainable use of natural resource base and also the bio assessment protocol. Sand mining, it may be noted, may have an adverse effect on biodiversity as loss of habitat caused by sand mining will effect various species, flora and fauna and it may also destabilize the soil structure of river banks and often leaves isolated islands. We find that, taking note of those technical, scientific and environmental matters, MoEF, Government of India, issued various recommendations in March 2010 followed by the Model Rules, 2010 framed by the Ministry of Mines which have to be given effect to, inculcating the spirit of Article 48A, Article 51A(g) read with Article 21 of the Constitution.
17. The State of Haryana and various other States have not so far implemented the above recommendations of the MoEF or the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Mines before issuing auction notices granting short term permits by way of auction of minor mineral boulders, gravel, sand etc., in the river beds and elsewhere of less than 5 hectares. We, therefore, direct to all the States, Union Territories, MoEF and the Ministry of Mines to give effect to the recommendations made by MoEF in its report of March 2010 and the model guidelines framed by the Ministry of Mines, within a period of six months from today and submit their compliance reports.
O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors.-53-
18. Central Government also should take steps to bring into force the Minor Minerals Conservation and Development Rules 2010 at the earliest. State Governments and UTs also should take immediate steps to frame necessary rules under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 taking into consideration the recommendations of MoEF in its Report of March 2010 and model guidelines framed by the Ministry of Mines, Govt. of India. Communicate the copy of this order to the MoEF, Secretary, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi, Ministry of Water Resources, Central Government Water Authority, the Chief Secretaries of the respective States and Union Territories, who would circulate this order to the concerned Departments.
19. We, in the meanwhile, order that leases of minor mineral including their renewal for an area of less than five hectares be granted by the States/Union Territories only after getting environmental clearance from the MoEF."
65. The MoEF & CC issued Notification no. S.O.141(E) dated 15.01.2016 amending the EIA Notification, 2006. The same provided for constitution of District Environment Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA) and District Expert Appraisal Committee (DEAC) at the District Level for matters falling under Category 'B2' for mining of minor minerals in the said Schedule.
66. Notification no. S.O.141(E) dated 15.01.2016 substituted item 1 (a) and the entries relating thereto making EC mandatory for mining less than 5 ha and inserted clause 7 (iii) which mandated Preparation of District Survey Report for Sand Mining or River Bed Mining and Mining of other Minor Minerals. The prescribed procedure for preparation of District Survey Report for sand mining or river bed mining and mining of other minor minerals was given in Appendix X.
67. Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in its orders dated the 11.04.2018 and 19.06.2018 in W.P. (PIL) No. 1806 of 2015, in the matter of Court on its Own Motion Versus the State of Jharkhand & Others with W.P. (PIL) No. 290 of 2013, in the matter of Hemant Kumar Shilkarwar Versus the State of Jharkhand & Others inter-alia directed the preparation of District Survey Report for minor minerals other than Sand and Bajri or O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -54- delegation of the powers for preparation of format of District Survey Report of minor minerals other than sand and bajri to the State Government and/or District Environment Impact Assessment Authority and District Expert Appraisal Committee.
68. In compliance thereof MoEF & CC issued Notification No. S.O. 3611(E) dated 25.07.2018 which substituted Appendix X inserted by Notification no. S.O.141(E) dated 15.01.2016.
69. Appendix X Notification no. S.O.141 (E) dated 15.01.2016 as well as Notification No. S.O. 3611(E) dated 25.07.2018 highlighted that the main objective of the preparation of District Survey Report is to ensure the identification of areas of aggradations or deposition where mining can be allowed; and identification of areas of erosion and proximity to infrastructural structures and installations where mining should be prohibited and calculation of annual rate of replenishment and allowing time for replenishment after mining in that area.
70. As per the prescribed procedures given in appendix X, the District Survey Report must have the following structure:
1. Introduction
2. Overview of Mining Activity in the District
3. The List of Mining Leases in the District with location, area and period of validity
4. Details of Royalty or Revenue received in last three years
5. Detail of Production of Sand or Bajari or minor mineral in last three years
6. Process of Deposition of Sediments in the rivers of the District
7. General Profile of the District O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors.-55-
8. Land Utilization Patten in the district: Forest, Agriculture, Horticulture, Mining etc.
9. Physiography of the District
10. Rainfall: month-wise
11. Geology and Mineral Wealth In addition to the above, the report shall contain the following:
(a) District wise detail of river or stream and other sand source;
(b) District wise availability of sand or gravel or aggregate resources;
(c) District wise detail of existing mining leases of sand and aggregates.
A survey shall be carried out by the District Environment Impact Assessment Authority with the assistance of Geology Department or Irrigation Department or Forest Department or Public Works Department or Ground Water Boards or Remote Sensing Department or Mining Department etc. in the district.
Drainage System with description of main rivers.
Sl. No. Name of River Area Drained % Area Drained
(Sq. Km in the District
(1)
(2)
Salient Features of Important Rivers and Streams:
Sl. No. Name of River or Total Length Place of Altitude Stream in the District origin at (in Km) Origin (1) (2) O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors.-56-
Portion of the Length of area Average width Area Mineable River or Stream recommended of area recommended mineral Recommended for mineral recommended for mineral potential (in for Mineral concession for mineral concession metric tonne) Concession (in Kilometer) concession (in square (60 % of total (in meters) meters) mineral potential) Mineral Potential Boulder (MT) Bajari (MT) Sand (MT) Total Mineable Mineral Potential (MT) Annual Deposition Sl. River or Portion of the Length of Average Area Mineable No. Stream river or area width of area recommended mineral stream recommended recommended for mineral potential recommended for mineral for mineral concession (in metric for mineral concession concession (in square tonne) concession (in kilometer) (in meters) meters) (60 % of total mineral potential) O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors.-57-
Total for the District
71. Notification no. S.O.141 (E) dated 15.01.2016 and Notification no.
S.O.3611 (E) dated 25.07.2018 provided that a Sub-Divisional Committee comprising of (i) Sub-Divisional Magistrate, (ii) Officers from (a) Irrigation Department, (b) State Pollution Control Board or Committee, (c) Forest Department, (d) Geology or Mining Officer shall visit each site for which environmental clearance has been applied for and make recommendation on suitability of site for mining or prohibition thereof.
72. Notification no. S.O.141 (E) dated 15.01.2016 and Notification no. S.O.3611 (E) dated 25.07.2018 also laid down the methodology to be adopted for calculating of mineral potential and provided that the mineral potential is calculated based on field investigation and geology of the catchment area of the river/streams. As per the site conditions and location, depth of minable mineral is defined. The area for removal of the mineral in a river or stream can be decided depending on geo-morphology and other factors, it can be 50% to 60% of the area of a particular river/stream. For example in some hill States mineral constituents like boulders, river born bajari, sand up to a depth of one meter are considered as resource mineral. Other constituents like clay and silt are excluded as waste while calculating the mineral potential of particular river/stream.
73. Notification no. S.O.141 (E) dated 15.01.2016 and Notification no. S.O.3611 (E) dated 25.07.2018 also provided that the District Survey Report shall be prepared for each minor mineral in the District separately and its draft shall be placed in the public domain by keeping its copy in Collectorate and posting it on District's website for twenty-one days. The comments received shall be considered and if found fit, shall be incorporated in the final Report to be finalized within six months by the District Environment Impact O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -58- Assessment Authority. Notification no. S.O.141 (E) dated 15.01.2016 and Notification no. S.O.3611 (E) dated 25.07.2018 also required that the report be updated once every five years.
74. Notification no. S.O.141 (E) dated 15.01.2016 and Notification no. S.O.3611 (E) dated 25.07.2018 also mandated that the District Survey Report shall form the basis for application for environmental clearance, preparation of reports and appraisal of projects.
75. Notifications dated 15.01.2016, 20.01.2016 and 01.07.2016 were challenged before this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 186/2016 titled as Satendra Pandey vs. MoEF & CC & Anr., and connected applications. This Tribunal allowed the applications vide order dated 13.09.2018 and relevant part of the order reads as under:-
"21. Dispensing with the requirement of Public Hearing which forms a part of the Public Consultation under Stage-III of the Environmental Clearance process under EIA Notification, 2006 for areas measuring 0 to 25 ha for individual mine areas and in cluster situation where public hearing has been provided, has resulted in gross dilution of EIA Notification dated 14th September, 2006. Such dilution would, in our view, result in its misuse by unscrupulous elements and the situation would revert back to the lawless state prevailing prior to the decision in the case of Deepak Kumar (supra). Stringent measures are, therefore, necessary if the rampant exploitation of the minor minerals is to be curbed. This apparently was also the view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Kumar (supra).
22. For all these reasons, we direct that the procedure laid down in the impugned Notification be brought in consonance and in accord with the directions passed in the case of Deepak Kumar (supra) by (i) providing for EIA, EMP and therefore, Public Consultation for all areas from 5 to 25 ha falling under Category B-2 at par with Category B-1 by SEAC/ SIEAA as well as for cluster situation wherever it is not provided; (ii) Form-1M be made more comprehensive for areas of 0 to 5 ha by dispensing with the requirement for Public Consultation to be evaluated by SEAC for recommendation of grant EC by SEIAA instead of DEAC/DEIAA; (iii) if a cluster or an individual lease size exceeds 5 ha the EIA/EMP be made applicable in the process of grant of prior environmental clearance; (iv) EIA and/or EMP be prepared for the entire cluster in terms of recommendation 5 (supra) of the Guidelines for the purpose of recommendations 6, 7 and 8 thereof; (v) revise the procedure to also incorporate procedure with respect to annual rate of replenishment and timeframe for replenishment after mining closure in an area; (vi) the MoEF&CC O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors.-59-
to prepare guidelines for calculation of the cost of restitution of damage caused to mined-out areas along with the Net Present Value of Ecological Services forgone because of illegal or unscientific mining.
23. We have permitted retention of 0-5 ha as a category keeping in view that some States grant isolated single lease of 5 ha and less not falling in cluster situation for which stringent requirements in Form-1M will serve the purpose of providing safeguards for protection of the environment and sustainable mining of minor minerals. This is particularly true in smaller and mountainous States as will also appear from condition no. 2 under "The Issues and Management of Mining in Cluster"
referred to earlier in para 20 of this order.
24. It is reiterated that any attempt to split the lease area for the purpose of avoiding the applicable regulatory regime shall be viewed seriously. This in our view will be in the interest of the environment as deliberated in detail in the case of Deepak Kumar (supra) and would also satisfy the Precautionary Principle and the Principle of Sustainable Development contemplated under Section 20 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
25. The MoEF&CC shall, therefore, take appropriate steps to revise the procedure laid down in the impugned Notification dated 15th January, 2016 in terms of the above directions and observations so that it is conformity with the letter and spirit of the directions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar (supra).
The applications stand disposed of."
Guidelines issued by MoEF & CC
76. MoEF & CC issued the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 (the SSMG-2016) with an endeavor to ensure that sand and gravel mining is done in an environmentally sustainable and socially responsible manner, and to further ensure the conservation of river equilibrium and its natural environment by protection and restoration of the ecological system.
77. The SSMG-2016 recognize that the broad principle on which any sustainable sand mining Guidelines / policy can be based is that river/ natural resources must be utilized for the benefit of the present and future generation, so river resources should be prudently managed and developed and declare that the preparation of District Survey Report is an important initial step. O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -60-
78. SSMG-2016 also identify the processes for preparation of DSR under the above said guidelines which are reproduced as under:
"(a) Identification of areas of aggradation / deposition where mining can be allowed; and identification of areas of erosion and proximity to infrastructural structures and installations where mining should be prohibited. Use of satellite imagery for identifying areas of sand deposit and quantity be done.
(b) Calculation of annual rate of replenishment and allowing time for replenishment after mining in area,
(c) Identifying ways of scientific and systematic mining.
(d) Identifying measures for protection of environment and ecology.
(e) Determining measures for protection of bank erosion.
(f) A bench mark (BM) with respect to mean sea level (MSL) should be made essential to in mining channel reaches (MCR). Below which no mining shall be allowed.
(g) Identifying steps for conservation of mineral.
(h) Permanent gauging facilities (for discharge and sediment both) should be made compulsory for the sites having excessive mining in consultation with Central Water Commission ot any competent State Agency.
(i) Implementing safeguards for checking illegal and indiscrete mining."
79. The SSMG-2016 required preparation of District Survey Report for every District by the District Environment Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA) with the assistance of Geology Department, Irrigation Department, Forest Department, Public Works Department, Ground Water Boards, Remote Sensing Department and Mining Department etc. in the district at regular intervals by taking the river stretch in that district as an ecological unit and inventorising other sources of sand in the district based on direct and indirect benefits of mining and identification of the potential threats to the river / stream beds in the district.
80. The SSMG-2016 also require that the District Survey Report shall contain (1) District wise detail of river or stream and other sand source (2) District wise availability of sand or gravel or aggregate resources and (3) District wise detail of existing mining leases of sand and aggregates and based on the survey document, the action plan shall divide the river/ stream/ other sources of the District into the categories of (1) River/ Stream beds sections / O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -61- other sources suitable for extraction of sand and aggregates and (2) River/ Stream beds sections / other sources prohibited for extraction of sand and aggregates. The SSMG-2016 also lays down the parameters on which the river/ streams/ other sources of sand and aggregate are to be studied and the points to be considered while selecting the river / stream for mining and require that DSR should be prepared in the district based on direct and indirect benefits of mining and identification of the potential threats to the river / stream beds in the district. Besides, calculating the carrying capacity of the river / stream beds / other sources to find out maximum quantity available to be allowed for removal each year from the sources, it should also provide various measures to regulate sand and aggregate mining in a systemic way. It has to provide for environmentally safe depth of mining and safeguards of banks by prescribing safe distance from banks.
81. The SSMG-2016 also mandate that there should be a Sub-Divisional Committee which should visit each site and make recommendation. The Committee, which should comprise of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Officers from Irrigation department, State Pollution Control Board or Committee, Forest department, Geology or mining officer, shall visit each site for which environmental clearance has been applied for and make recommendation on suitability of site for mining or prohibition thereof.
82. The SSMG-2016 also prescribed the structure of the District Survey Report which was also given in Appendix X of Notification no. S.O.141 (E) dated 15.01.2016 and substituted Appendix X of Notification no. S.O. 3611 (E) notification dated 25.07.2018.
83. The SSMG-2016 also provide that a river / stream can be divided into two zones-the zone of erosion and zone of deposition extended in different patches in the river and mining activity can be allowed only in the zone of the deposition.
O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -62-
84. Vide order dated 05.04.2019 passed in O.A. 360/2015 titled as National Green Tribunal Bar Association & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. this Tribunal ordered revision of above said guidelines.in the light of report of the High Power Committee.
85. In compliance thereof, MoEF & CC issued Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020 (EMGSM 2020).
86. Guideline 4.1 of EMGSM 2020 provides for "Identification of possible sand mining sources and preparation of District Survey Report (DSR). Para 4.1.1 deals with "Preparation of District Survey Report". The same reads as under:-
"4.1.1 Preparation of District Survey Report "Sustainable Sand Mining Guidelines, 2016" issued by MOEF&CC requires preparation of District Survey Report (DSR), which is an important initial step before grant of mining lease/Lol. The guidelines emphasize detailed procedure to be followed for the purpose of identification of areas of aggradation/ deposition where mining can be allowed and identification of areas of erosion and proximity to infrastructural structures and installation where mining should be prohibited. Calculation of annual rate of replenishment, allowing time for replenishment after mining, identification of ways of scientific and systematic mining; identifying measures for protection of environment and ecology and determining measures for protection of bank erosion, benchmark (BM) with respect to mean Sea Level (MSL) should be made essential in mining channel reaches (MCR) below which no mining shall be allowed."
87. In EMGSM 2020 reference was made to orders dated 11.04.2018 and 19.06.2018 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in W.P. (PIL) No. 1806 of 2015, in the matter of Court on its Own Motion Versus the State of Jharkhand and Others with W.P. (PIL) No. 290 of 2013, in the matter of Hemant Kumar Shilkarwar Versus the State of Jharkhand and Others and issuance of Notification no. S.O. 3611(E) dated 25.07.2018 wherein the procedure of preparation of DSR is mentioned while mentioning O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -63- that it was felt that still there is other information that needs to be reported in DSR to make it a comprehensive DSR. Considering the importance of DSR being a very important step on quality of which sustainable mining in any part of the country will depend, MOEF&CC after consultation with experts dealing with mining-related matters formulated the following guidelines for preparation of comprehensive DSR for sand mining:-
"a) District Survey Report for sand mining shall be prepared before the auction/e-auction/grant of the mining lease/Letter of Intent (Lol) by Mining department or department dealing the mining activity in respective states.
b) The first step is to develop the inventory of the River Bed Material and Other sand sources in the District. In order to make the inventory of River Bed Material, a detailed survey of the district needs to be carried out, to identify the source of River Bed Material and alternative source of sand (M-Sand). The source will include rivers, de-siltation of reservoir/dams, Patta lands/Khatedari Land, M-sand etc. The revenue department of Kerala already conducted river mapping and sand auditing of around 20 rivers of Kerala which is a good example wherein the profile of rivers was created at regular intervals and aggradation/deposition was identified along with water level. In the same study, benchmarks were also created at a prominent location at regular interval for future surveying. Such study helps the mining departments to identify the source of sand.
Thus, it is proposed that for preparation of district survey report, the auditing of rivers needs to be carried out. There is already a provision under MMDR Act 2015 for National Mineral Exploration Trust (MET) wherein a 2% of royalty amount to be deposited in the trust. This fund is used for mineral exploration in the country. The Sand Auditing is also a sort of identification of mineral and State Government may request Central Govt. for proving funds for river auditing. The Central Govt. (Ministry of Mines) may also explore the possibilities for providing the funds for river auditing. The other option is the State Govt. may conduct such studies by its own fund and the same may be recovered from the leaseholders to whom the mining lease will be allocated.
c) District Survey Report is to be prepared in such a way that it not only identifies the mineral-bearing area but also define the mining and no mining zones considering various environmental and social factors.
d) Identification of the source of Sand & M-Sand. The sources may be from Rivers, Lakes, Ponds, Dams, De-silting locations, Patta land/ Khatedari lands. The details in case of Rivers such as [name, length of river, type (Perennial or Non-Perennial ), Villages, Tehsil, District], in case of Lakes, Ponds, Dams, De-silting locations [Name, owned/maintained by (State Govt./PSU), area, O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -64- Villages, Tehsil, District] in case of Patta land/Khatedari lands [Owner Name, Sy No, Area, Agricultural/Non-Agricultural, Villages, Tehsil, District], in case of M-Sand Plant [Owner Name, Sy No, Area, Quantity/Annum, Villages, Tehsil, District], needs to be recorded as per format given in Annexure-I.
e) Defining the sources of Sand/M-Sand in the district is the next step for identification of the potential area of deposition/aggradation wherein mining lease could be granted. Detailed survey needs to be carried out for quantification of minerals. The purpose of mining in the river bed is for channelization of rivers so as to avoid the possibility of flooding and to maintain the flow of the rivers. For this, the entire river stretch needs to be surveyed and original ground level (OGL) to be recorded and area of aggradation/deposition needs to be ascertained by comparing the level difference between the outside riverbed OGL and water level. Once the area of aggradation/deposition are identified, then the quantity of River Bed Material available needs to be calculated. The next step is channelization of the river bed and for this central ¾th part of the river, width needs to be identified on a map. Out of the ¾th part area, where there is a deposition/aggradation of the material needs to be identified. The remaining ¼th area needs to be kept as no mining zone for the protection of banks. The specific gravity of the material also needs to be ascertained by analyzing the sample from a NABL accredited lab. Thus, the quantity of material available in metric ton needs to be calculated for mining and no mining zone.
Note: As physical survey with conventional method is time- consuming, use of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) may be explored to carry out the survey and finalizing the original ground level and for developing a 3D model of the area.
f) The permanent boundary pillars need to be erected after identification of an area of aggradation and deposition outside the bank of the river at a safe location for future surveying. The distance between boundary pillars on each side of the bank shall not be more than 100 meters.
g) Identifying the mining and no mining zone shall follow with defining the area of sensitivity by ascertaining the distance of the mining area from the protected area, forest, bridges, important structures, habitation etc. and based on the sensitivity the area needs to be defined in sensitive and non-sensitive area.
h) Demand and supply of the Riverbed Material through market survey needs to be carried out. In addition to this future demand for the next 5 years also needs to be considered.
i) It is suggested that as far as possible the sensitive areas should be avoided for mining, unless local safety condition arises. Such deviation shall be temporary & shall not be a permanent feature.
j) The final area selected for the mining should be then divided into mining lease as per the requirement of State Government. It is suggested the mining lease area should be so selected as to cover the entire deposition area. Dividing a large area of deposition/aggradation into smaller mining leases should be O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -65- avoided as it leads to loss of mineral and indirectly promote illegal mining.
k) Cluster situation shall be examined. A cluster is formed when one mining lease of homogenous mineral is within 500 meters of the other mining lease. In order to reduce the cluster formation mining lease size should be defined in such a way that distance between any two clusters preferably should not be less than 2.5 Km. Mining lease should be defined in such a way that the total area of the mining leases in a cluster should not be more than 10 Ha.
I) The number of a contiguous cluster needs to be ascertained. Contiguous cluster is formed when one cluster is at a distance of 2.5 Km from the other cluster.
m) The mining outside the riverbed on Patta land/Khatedari land be granted when there is possibility of replenishment of material. In case, there is no replenishment then mining lease shall only be granted when there is no riverbed mining possibility within 5 KM of the Patta land/Khatedari land. For government projects, mining could be allowed on Patta land/Khatedari land but the mining should only be done by the Government agency and material should not be used for sale in the open market. Cluster situation as mentioned in para k above is also applicable for the mining in Patta land/Khatedari land.
n) The State Government should define the transportation route from the mining lease considering the maximum production from the mines as at this stage the size of mining leases, their location, the quantity of mineral that can be mined safely etc. is available with the State Government. It is suggested that the transportation route should be selected in such a way that the movement of trucks/tippers/tractors from the villages having habitation should be avoided. The transportation route so selected should be verified by the State Government for its carrying capacity.
o) Potential site for mining having its impact on the forest, protected area, habitation, bridges etc, shall be avoided. For this, a sub-divisional committee may be formed which after the site visit shall decide its suitability for mining. The list of mining lease after the recommendation of the Committee needs to be defined in the following format given in as Annexure-II. The Sub-Divisional Committee after the site visit shall make a recommendation on the site for its suitability of mining and also records the reason for selecting the mining lease in the Patta land. The details regarding cluster and contiguous cluster needs to be provided as in Annexure-III. The details of the transportation need to be provided as in Annexure IV.
p) Public consultation-The Comments of the various stakeholders may be sought on the list of mining lease to be auctioned. The State Government shall give an advertisement in the local and national newspaper for seeking comments of the general public on the list of mining lease included in the DSR. The DSR should be placed in the public domain for at least one month from the date of publication of the advertisement for obtaining comments of the general public. The comments so received shall be placed before O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -66-
the sub-divisional committee for active consideration. The final list of sand mining areas [leases to be granted on riverbed & Patta land/Khatedari land, desiltation location (ponds/lakes/dams), M-Sand Plants (alternate source of sand)] after the public hearing needs to be defined in the final DSR in the format as per Annexure- V. The details regarding cluster and contiguous cluster needs to be provided in Annexure-VI. The details of the transportation need to be provided in Annexure-VII."
Grant of Letter of Intent
88. Para 4.2 of EMGSM 2020 provide that the State Government shall issue letter of intent as per procedure laid down in their Minor Mineral Concession Rules with due consideration of final district survey report. The State Government shall ensure that all the letter of intent shall have complete details of the mining lease including geo-coordinates of the corner points, the involvement of forest land, distance from the forest land, distance from the protected area, distance from other sites of archaeological importance, details of the cluster situation etc. The demarcation of the boundaries of LOI/Lease area shall be placed in public domain along with LOI/lease deed details.
89. Para 4.2 of EMGSM 2020 further provides that LOI should not be granted for mining area falling on both riverbed and outside riverbed. Therefore, in the same lease both types of area should not be included Mining Plan
90. Para 4.3 of EMGSM 2020 provides that the preparation of Mining Plan is also very important. The mining plan should include the original ground level recorded at an interval not more than 10M x 10M along & across the length of the river. In addition to this-levels, outside the mining lease and bank of the river up to meters needs to be recorded. In the mining plan, there should be 3 plates for each year production & development planning (pre-monsoon, monsoon and post-monsoon). The time period of monsoon should be defined in the DSR. At the time of review of the mining plan, the details of the replenishment study conducted for all the years needs to be included in the O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -67- mining plan. The Mining Plan should include the certificate from PCCF on forest land, distance from the protected area, past production details for mining leases seeking expansion. Para 4.3 of EMGSM 2020 also specifies the consideration to be kept in mind for sand/gravel mining while approving mining plan.
Obtaining environmental and other statutory clearances
91. Para 4.4 of EMGSM 2020 requires the LOI Holder/Lease Holder to obtain Environmental and Other Statutory Clearances from the concerned authorities as per provision of applicable laws.
Replenishment Study
92. Para 5.0 of EMGSM 2020 emphasizes the need for replenishment study for river bed sand in order to nullify the adverse impacts arising due to excessing sand extraction. Para 5.1 of EMGSM 2020 specifies generic structure of replenishment study. Para 5.2 of EMGSM 2020 enumerates the methodology for replenishment study. The same read as under:-
"5.0 REPLENISHMENT STUDY The need for replenishment study for river bed sand is required in order to nullify the adverse impacts arising due to excessing sand extraction. Mining within or near riverbed has a direct impact on the stream's physical characteristics, such as channel geometry, bed elevation, substratum composition and stability, in-stream roughness of the bed, flow velocity, discharge capacity, sediment transport capacity, turbidity, temperature etc. Alteration or modification of the above attributes may cause an impact on the ecological equilibrium of the riverine regime, disturbance in channel configuration and flow-paths. This may also cause an adverse impact on instream biota and riparian habitats. It is assumed that the riparian habitat disturbance is minimum if the replenishment is equal to excavation for a given stretch. Therefore, to minimize the adverse impact arising out of sand mining in a given river stretch, it is imperative to have a study of replenishment of material during the defined period.
5.1 Generic Structure of Replenishment Study O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors.-68-
Initially replenishment study requires four surveys. The first survey needs to be carried out in the month of April for recording the level of mining lease before the monsoon. The second survey is at the time of closing of mines for monsoon season. This survey will provide the quantity of the material excavated before the offset of monsoon. The third survey needs to be carried out after the monsoon to know the quantum of material deposited/replenished in the mining lease. The fourth survey at the end of March to know the quantity of material excavated during the financial year. For the subsequent years, there will be a requirement of only three surveys. The results of year-wise surveys help the state government to establish the replenishment rate of the river. Based on the replenishment rate future auction may be planned.
The replenishment period may vary on nature of the channel and season of deposition arising due to variation in the flow. Such period and season may vary on the geographical and precipitation characteristic of the region and requires to be defined by the local agencies preferable with the help of the Central Water Commission and Indian Meteorological Department. The excavation will, therefore, be limited to estimated replenishment estimated with consideration of other regulatory provisions.
5.2 Methodology for Replenishment Study The replenishment estimation is based on a theoretical empirical formula with the estimation of bedload transport comprising of analytical models to calculate the replenishment estimation. The iso-pluvial maps of IMD can be used for estimation of rainfall. Catchment yield is computed using different standard empirical formulas relevant to the geographical and channel attributes. eg. Strange's Monsoon runoff curves for runoff coefficient). Peak flood discharge for the study area can be calculated by using Dickens, Jarvis and Rational formula at 25, 50 and 100 years return period. The estimation of bed load transport using Ackers and White Equation or similar can be made. A simulation model is used with basic data generated from the field in the pre-study and post-study period (preferably pre-monsoon and post-monsoon) to estimate the volume of replenished material. The particle size distribution and bulk density of the deposited material are required to be assessed from a NABL recognized laboratory. Considering the bulk density and the volume, the estimation of replenishment in weight will be calculated after considering safeguards and stability of the slopes and riverine regime. Some of the common methods used for field data acquisition for replenishment study"
93. Para 5.2.1 of EMGSM 2020 mentions about physical survey of the field by the conventional method. Para 5.2.2 of EMGSM 2020 discusses use of UAV/Dron and other image data processing techniques. Para 5.2.3 of EMGSM 2020 requires accuracy assessment of aerial data.
O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -69-
94. Para 5.2.4 of EMGSM 2020 provides that replenishment study shall have details of the following:-
"• List of instruments • List of software • Establishment of Benchmark by putting No. of pillar points and various Ground Control Points (GCP) at the site.
• Ground Control Points (GCP) Collection: - Various GCPs were observed by using DGPS for Permanent Benchmarks and for control points.
• The summary of the elevation data from each section's profile based on the post-monsoon the survey should have mentioned in the table form.
• The detail of post-monsoon survey data in the tabular form shall be • The detailed comparison of both pre-monsoon and post- monsoon elevation data shall be attached • Cross-sectional depiction of deposition and erosion for each section in pre and post-deposition season shall be given supported by relevant field study data and plan."
Directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3661-3662 of 2020 titled State of Bihar and Ors vs. Pawan Kumar and Ors. etc.
95. In O.A. No. 40/2020/EZ titled Pawan Kumar vs. State of Bihar with O.A. No. 57/2020/EZ this Tribunal issued the following directions:-
"(i) Having regard to the findings at (a), (b) and (c) above, we direct the State to undertake further exercise for preparation of a fresh DSR for the Banka district.
(ii) As the DEIAA is not functioning as a consequence of the decision of the Tribunal in Satendra Pandey (supra) 1 , the DSR shall be prepared through a consultant(s) accredited by the National Accreditation Board of Education and Training/Quality Control Council of India in terms of O.M. of MoEF & CC dated 16.03.2010.
(iii) The DSR so prepared shall be submitted to the District Magistrate who shall verify the DSR only in respect of the relevant facts pertaining to the physical and geographical features of the district which shall be distinct from the scientific findings based on the parameters prescribed in the SSMMG- 2016. After such 1 Satendra Pandey Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, 2018 SCC Online NGT 2388 O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors.-70-
verification, the District Magistrate shall forward the DSR for examination and evaluation by the State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) having regarding to the fact that the SEIAA comprises of technical/scientific experts. The SEAC after appraisal of the report shall forward it to the SEIAA for consideration and approval if it meets all scientific/technical requirements.
(iv) While preparing the DSR, the MoEF & CC Accredited Agency/Consultant shall scrupulously follow the procedure and the parameters laid down under the SSMMG-2016 and EMGSM2020 read in sync with each other."
96. Civil Appeal No. 3661-3662 of 2020 titled State of Bihar and Ors vs. Pawan Kumar and Ors etc. was filed against judgment passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 40/2020/EZ titled Pawan Kumar vs. State of Bihar with O.A. No. 57/2020/EZ. In its interim order dated 10.11.2021 Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India considered the essentiality and prerequisite of DSR and held as follows:
"7. It cannot be in dispute that though the developmental activities are not stalled, the environmental issues are also required to be addressed. A balanced approach of sustainable development ensuring environmental safeguards, needs to be resorted to. At the same time, it also cannot be ignored that when legal mining is banned, it gives rise to mushroom growth of illegal mining, resulting into clashes between sand mafias, criminalization and at times, loss of human lives. It also cannot be disputed that sand is required for construction of public infrastructural projects as well as public and private construction activities. A total ban on legal mining, apart from giving rise to illegal mining, also causes huge loss to the public exchequer.
8. Taking into consideration these aspects of the matter, we propose to issue certain interim directions.
9. The Tribunal, in the case of Satendra Pandey (supra), has found that the notification dated 15th January 2016, which provided Environmental Clearance to be given by the District Environment Impact Assessment Authority (hereinafter referred to as the "DEIAA") was not in consonance with the judgment of this Court in the case of Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others2. The Tribunal therefore in Satendra Pandey (supra), had directed Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (hereinafter referred to as "MoEF and CC) to take steps to revise the procedure laid down in the notification dated 15th January 2016. It is to be noted that MoEF and CC, in accordance with the directions of the Tribunal, had issued Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining (hereinafter to referred to as "the 2020 guidelines") in the month of January 2020. Chapter 4 of the 2020 guidelines deals with identification of possible sand mining sources and preparation of DSR. It will be relevant to refer to Clause 4.1.1 (a), (o) and (p) of the 2020 guidelines:
"4.1 Identification of possible sand mining sources and O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors.-71-
preparation of District Survey Report (DSR) 4.1.1 Preparation of District Survey Report.
District Survey Report for sand mining shall be prepared before the auction/e-auction/ grant of the mining lease/Letter of Intent (Loi) by Mining department or department dealing the mining activity in respective states.
o) Potential site for mining having its impact on the forest, protected area, habitation, bridges etc, shall be avoided. For this, a sub divisional committee may be formed which after the site visit shall decide its suitability for mining. The list of mining lease after the recommendation of the Committee needs to be defined in the following format given in as Annexure II. The Sub Divisional Committee after the site visit shall make a recommendation on the site for its suitability of mining and also records the reason for selecting the mining lease in the Patta land. The details regarding cluster and contiguous cluster needs to be provided as in Annexure III. The details of the transportation need to ~e provided as in Annexure IV.
p) Public consultation- The Comments of the various stakeholders may be sought on the list of mining lease to be auctioned. The State Government shall give an advertisement in the local and national newspaper for seeking comments of the general public on the list of mining' lease included in the DSR.
The DSR should be placed in the public domain for at least one month from the date of publication of the advertisement for obtaining comments of the general public. The comments so received shall be placed before the sub divisional committee for active consideration. The final list of sand mining areas [leases to be granted on riverbed & Patta land/Khatedari land, de- siltation location (ponds/lakes/dams), M-Sand Plants (alternate source of sand)] after the public hearing needs to be defined in the final DSR in the format as per Annexure-V. The details regarding cluster and contiguous cluster needs to be provided in Annexure-VI. The details of the transportation need to be provided in Annexure-VII."
10. It could thus be seen that in accordance with the 2020 guidelines, the DSR is required to be prepared before the auction/e-auction/ grant of mining lease by Mining Department or Department dealing with mining activity in the respective States. It is further provided that the potential site for mining having its impact on the forest, protected area, habitation and bridges should be avoided. For this, a sub divisional committee is required to be formed which, after the site visit, is required to decide regarding the suitability of the sites for mining. The sub divisional committee is further required to record its reasons for selecting the mining lease in the patta land. Various details are required to be given in the annexure appended to the said policy.
11. It is further to be noted that Appendix-X of the notification dated 15th January 2016, issued by MoEF and CC also provides for composition of the sub divisional committee:
"A Sub Divisional Committee comprising of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Officers from Irrigation department, State Pollution Control Board or Committee, Forest department, Geology or O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors.-72-
mining officer shall visit each site for which environmental clearance has been applied for and make recommendation on suitability of site for mining or prohibition thereof."
12. It is to be noted that with the advent of modern technology, various technological gadgets like Drones and satellite imaging etc. can be used for identification of the potential sites and preparation of the DSR and also to check misuse and unauthorized mining.
13. We further find that when the 2020 guidelines as well as the notification issued by MoEF and CC of 2016 itself provide for constitution of sub divisional committees comprising of the officers of the State Government from various Departments for identification of the potential sites for mining, there would be no necessity of the DSRs being prepared through private consultants as directed by the Tribunal in the impugned order. The sub divisional committee consists of various officers from Revenue Department, Irrigation Department, State Pollution Control Board, Forest Department and Geology Mining Department of the State Government. They are better equipped to visit the sites and prepare the draft DSR for the concerned district. Apart from that, preparation of DSR through private consultants would also unnecessarily burden the public exchequer. We are therefore of the view that the direction in that regard issued by the Tribunal requires to be modified. We are further of the considered view that until the DSRs are finalized and granted approval by SEAC and SEIAA, it is appropriate that certain necessary arrangements are permitted so that the State can continue with legal mining activities. This apart from preventing illegal mining activities, would also ensure that the public exchequer is not deprived of its share in legalized mining.
14. We therefore find it appropriate to substitute the directions issued by the Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 14th October 2020, with the following directions:-
(i) The exercise of preparation of DSR for the purpose of mining in the State of Bihar in all the districts shall be undertaken afresh. The draft DSRs shall be prepared by the sub divisional committees consisting of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Officers from Irrigation Department, State Pollution Control Board or Committee, Forest Department, Geological or mining officer. The same shall be prepared by undertaking site visits and also by using modern technology.
The said draft DSRs shall be prepared within a period of 6 weeks from the date of this order. After the draft DSRs are prepared, the District Magistrate of the concerned District shall forward the same for examination and evaluation by the SEAC. The same shall be examined by the SEAC within a period of 6 weeks and its report shall be forwarded to the SEIAA within the aforesaid period of 6 weeks from the receipt of it. The SEIAA will thereafter consider the grant of approval to such DSRs within a period of 6 weeks from the receipt thereon;
(ii) Needless to state that while preparing DSRs and the appraisal thereof by SEAC and SEIAA, it should be ensured that a strict adherence to the procedure and parameters O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -73-
laid down in the policy of January 2020 should be followed;
(iii) Until further orders, we permit the State Government to carry on mining activities through Bihar State Mining Corporation for which it may employ the services of the contractors. However, while doing so, the State Government shall ensure that all environmental concerns are taken care of and no damage is caused to the environment."
District Survey Report-District Ambala (Ambala DSR 2022)
97. The District Survey Report for District Ambala prepared/approved in 2022 (Ambala DSR 2022) contains detailed reference to Geology of the area, Brief of Mineral Deposits, Overview of Mining Activity in the District including Mode of grant of mineral concession/mining contract, Method of mining and conditions in which mining in river bed areas is to be allowed, General Regulation relating to mining, areas selected for mining in District Ambala, Annual Capacity of areas selected for mining of minor minerals and process of deposit of sediments in the rivers of the District. Ambala DSR 2022 also mentions profile of District Ambala, General Characteristics of the District, Rainfall and Climate, Meteorology, Population, Land Utilization Patterns, Physiography of the District and Geology and Mineral Wealth.
98. In para 4 captioned 'List of mining lease in District with location, area and period of validity' it was mentioned that in District Ambala 04 mining lease/contract for excavation of boulder/gravel/sand, were granted in auction held on 2013 but all the mining contracts were closed due to termination/surrender etc. The location, area and period of validity of old contracts and proposed mining block village wise details were attached as Annexure-A (22 pages) and Annexure-B (12 pages) respectively.
99. The District wise details of river/stream and sand sources were mentioned in para no. 12 of the DSR which reads as under:-
Para No.12: District Wise detail of river/steam and other Sand Sources O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors.
-74- S.No. Name of Entry Pont in District Exit point in Width Length in River District (in Mt) Ambala Distt. (km) 1 Markanda Shivalik Dinarpur 100-200 75 Foothill near Kala Amb 2 Tangri Fatehgarh Dhunni 100-150 60 3 Begna Ujjal Majri Mullana 20-40 40 4 Roon Toka Rasour 10-20 12 5 Sukroon/ Jiriwala Sahpur 10-20 3
Drainage system with description of main rivers:-
Sr. Name of River Area Drained % Area Drained in
No. (Sq. Km) Distt.
1 Markanda 18000 62.5
2 Tangri 11250 66.6
3 Begna 6390 18
Salient features of important rivers and streams:-
Sr. Name of River or stream Total Length in Place of Origin Altitude at No. Distt. (in km) origin (in feet) 1 Markanda 75 Shivalik Foothill 3000-4000 2 Tangri 60 Shivalik Foothill 2000-2800 3 Begna 40 Shivalik Foothill 1000-1500 4 Roon 12 Shivalik Foothill 500-600 Portion of river/stream Length of Average Average Mineable Mineral recommended for area width of area recommended Potential mineral concession recommended recommended for mineral (in MT) (60 % of (in Km) for mineral for mineral concession the total mineral concession concession (Sq Mt) potential) (in Km) (in Mt) Kala Amb-Dinarpur- 60 150 90,00,000 21,60,000 Dhunni Fatehgar - 47 125 58,75,000 14,10,000 Ujjal Majri-Mullana 30 30 9,00,000 2,16,000 Toka-Rasour 12 15 1,80,000 43,200 Mineral Potential:-
Boulder Bajri Sand Total
Mineable
Mineral
Potential
6,48,000 4,32,000 10,80,000 21,60,000
4,23,000 2,82,000 07,05,000 14,10,000
64,800 43,200 1,08,000 02,16,000
12,960 8,640 21,600 43,200
Annual Deposition:-
O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors.
-75-
Sr. No. River or Portion of Length of Average Area Mineral
Stream river or area width of area recommende potential
stream recommende recommende d for mineral % of total
recommende d for mineral d for mineral concession mineral
d for mineral concession concession (in Sq. Mt) potential)
concession (Km) (in Mt)
(in Km)
1 Markand Kala Amb- 60 150 90,00,000 21,60,00
a Dinarpur- 0
Dhunni
2 Tangri Fatehgar- 47 125 58,75,000 14,10,00
0
3 Begna Ujjal Majri- 30 30 9,00,000 2,16,000
Mullana
4 Roon Toka-Rasour 12 15 1,80,000 43,200
Total 149 1,59,55,000 38,29,20
for the 0
Distric
t
In district Ambala 10.11 hect area (aprox) has been identified for mining of minor minerals. The use of mineral deposit and exploration /excavation in respect of minerals is an going activities, therefore, as per requirement the area used for mining of minor minerals may have to be revised from time to time."
100. List of Stone Crushers and Screening Plants in District Ambala was given in para 13 of Ambala DSR 2022.
Mining Contracts in favour of respondents No. 8, 9 and 10.
101. In the present case e-auction notice was issued on 31.05.2022, e- auctions were held on 29.06.2022, 05.07.2022 and 30.06.2022 and LOIs were issued in favour of respondent no. 8-M/s R. M. Mines & Infra Pvt. Ltd. respondent no. 9-M/s SCP Commodities and respondent no. 10-M/s Reliable Mining Corporation on 28.07.2022 after preparation/approval of Ambala DSR-2022.
102. On acceptance of highest bid of respondent no. 8-M/s R. M. Mines & Infra Pvt. Ltd. in e-auction held on 29.06.2022, LOI dated 28.07.2022 was issued in its favour for mining contract of minor mineral Boulder, Gravel and Sand in minor mineral mine named Toka Hamidpur (BGS) having total area of 247 Acres in District Ambala for 10 years to commence from the grant of O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -76- EC by the Competent Authority and CTO by HSPCB whichever is later or on expiry of period of 12 months from the date of issuance of LOI, whichever is earlier. The details of Khasra number of the area under above said Mining (228.63 hectares in riverbed for mining and 18.37 hectares for ancillary activities) were attached with LOI as Annexure A.
103. On acceptance of highest bid of respondent no. 9-M/s SCP Commodities in e-auction held on 05.07.2022, LOI dated 28.07.2022 was issued in its favour for mining contract of minor mineral Sand in minor mineral mine named Gadauli Ambli (BGS) having total area of 99.09 Acres (39.636 hectares) in District Ambala for 08 years to commence on the grant of EC by the Competent Authority and CTO by HSPCB whichever is later or on expiry of period of 12 months from the date of issuance of LOI, whichever is earlier. The details of Khasra number of the area under above said Mining (83.59 hectares in riverbed for mining and 15.50 hectares for ancillary activities) were attached with LOI as Annexure A.
104. On acceptance of highest bid of respondent no. 10-M/s Reliable Mining Corporation in e-auction held on 30.06.2022, LOI dated 28.07.2022 was issued in its favour for mining contract of minor mineral Boulder, Gravel and Sand in minor mineral mine named Fatehpur Nagdli (BGS) having total area of 105.51 Acres in District Ambala for 10 years to commence on the grant of EC by the Competent Authority and CTO by HSPCB whichever is later or on expiry of period of 12 months from the date of issuance of LOI, whichever is earlier. The details of Khasra numbers of the area under above said Mining (86.22 hectares in riverbed for mining and 19.29 hectares for ancillary activities) were attached with LOI as Annexure A.
105. It may be observed here that in Ambala DSR 2022 the details of mineable mineral bearing areas were mentioned by names of the villages and Khasra/ Kila numbers of the land in the revenue record as mentioned in O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -77- Annexure B and not by the name of the River/rivulet and Geo-coordinates of the mineable mineral bearing areas of land were not mentioned in Annexure B whereas in the E-auction notice dated 31.05.2022 and LOIs issued by the Mining & Geology Department names of the villages and Khasra/ Kila numbers of the land as mentioned in Annexure B and geo-coordinates thereof were mentioned.
106. Respondent no. 8-M/s R. M. Mines & Infra Pvt. Ltd, respondent no. 9- M/s SCP Commodities and respondent no. 10-M/s Reliable Mining Corporation submitted their FORM I to Haryana SEIAA and also submitted their Mining Plan and Mining Closure Plan to the Director, Mines and Geology, Haryana. The Director, Mines and Geology, Haryana approved the Mining Plans of respondent no. 8-M/s R. M. Mines & Infra Pvt. Ltd., respondent no. 9-M/s SCP Commodities and respondent no. 10-M/s Reliable Mining Corporation by impugned letters dated 27.02.2023, 25.01.2023 and 18.05.2023 respectively.
107. Even though, no objections were made to the concerned authorities and no original application was filed before this Tribunal against Ambala DSR- 2022, E-auction notice dated 31.05.2022 and LOIs dated 28.07.2022 by anyone including the applicant before filing of the present original application, but this fact does not by itself bar raising of the grievances regarding validity of the impugned letters dated 27.02.2023, 25.01.2023 and 18.05.2023 respectively and adjudication thereof.
Violation of original Ambala DSR 2022 by approval letters dated 27.02.2023, 25.01.2023 and 18.05.2023 whereby the Director, Mines and Geology, Haryana
108. The question which arises first is as to whether letters dated 27.02.2023, 25.01.2023 and 18.05.2023 whereby the Director, Mines and O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -78- Geology, Haryana approved the Mining Plans of respondent no. 8-M/s R. M. Mines & Infra Pvt. Ltd., respondent no. 9-M/s SCP Commodities and respondent no. 10-M/s Reliable Mining Corporation were in conformity with Ambala DSR 2022 as the same stood on above mentioned dates.
109. The Ambala DSR-2022 specified the total mineral potential as 38,29,200 MT and the total permissible mining area as 10.11 hectares. However, the Director, Mining and Geology, Haryana authorized extraction of approximately 71 lakh MT of minerals across mining area of 180 hectares. Specifically, respondent no. 8-M/s. RM Mines and Infra Pvt. Ltd. has been authorized to extract minor mineral 44.60 lakh MT from 99.9 hectares, respondent no. 9- M/s. SCP Commodities has been authorized to extract minor mineral 15 lakh MT from 39.636 hectares, and respondent 10- M/s. Reliable Mining Corporation has been authorized to extract minor mineral 12 lakh MT from 42.70 hectares. Impugned letters dated 25.01.2023, 27.02.2023 and 18.05.2023 respectively (whereby the Director, Mines and Geology, Haryana approved Mining Plans submitted by Respondent no. 8-M/s R. M. Mines & Infra Pvt. Ltd, respondent no. 9-M/s SCP Commodities and respondent no. 10-M/s Reliable Mining Corporation) violated Ambala DSR-2022 as it stood on the date of approval due to overextension of both the mineable area and mineral quantity with consequential violation of the notifications dated 15.01.2016 and 25.07.2018 and SSMG-2016 and EMGSM-2020 issued by MOEF&CC.
110. In view of LOI in favour of Respondent no. 9- M/s SCP Commodities being for mineable area of 99.09 Acres (39.636 hectares) against mention of mineable area in Ambala DSR 2022 as 10.11 hectares, the argument of learned Counsel for Respondent no. 9- M/s SCP Commodities as to LOI and approval of its mining plan being within the limits of Ambala DSR 2022 is devoid of any merit.
Rectification of Ambala DSR-2022 O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -79-
111. The question which next arises is as to whether Ambala DSR 2022, as the same stood on the dates of approval of the Mining Plans of respondent no. 8-M/s R. M. Mines & Infra Pvt. Ltd., respondent no. 9-M/s SCP Commodities and respondent no. 10-M/s Reliable Mining Corporation, suffered from inadvertent mistakes requiring rectification thereof.
112. During meeting of the Joint Committee constituted by this Tribunal, the Mining Officer, Ambala admitted the discrepancies observed by this Tribunal and raised by the applicant and other shortcomings/lacunae left in Ambala DSR 2022 by his predecessor and proposed rectification of the same in due course of time.
113. The issue regarding the rectification in the DSR was discussed and deliberated by the DSR Committee during the District Level Task Force Committee (DLTFC) meeting on 28.11.2023. After due discussion and deliberation, on the basis of ground truthing report prepared by the previous Committee, "Draft Corrigendum" was prepared.
114. The DSR Committee decided in its meeting that River wise (with optional name of Sukroon River as Trilokpur) mineral potential and proposed mining areas should be rectified in Para No. 12 of existing Ambala DSR 2022 and to upload the Corrigendum in this regard on the District Website. The relevant part of the corrigendum reads as under:-
"Corrigendum for Para No: 12 or the District Survey Report of Ambala District Survey Report of Ambala District as per requirements of the Sustainable Sand Mining Guidelines of the MoEF & CC. Govt. of India prepared and uploaded on the website of the District. The District Survey Report did contained details of the mineral bearing areas in the district which could be granted for mining of minerals after leaving such mineral bearing areas which were not considered to be allowed for mining. The same was prepared under the supervision of Chairman Cum Deputy Commissioner alter due consultation process with other concerned departments including the Revenue Department, Irrigation (Water Services) Department. Forest Department. District Development and Panchayat Department, State Pollution Control Board Department and Mining Department. O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors.-80-
2. The Mining Officer Cum Member Secretary of the Committee of District Survey Report constituted by the State Government brought to the notice of the Committee that some typographical errors in the DSR had come to notice on pointing out in the O.A No. 532 of 2023 filed by one Sh. Balbir Sandhu before the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal, New Delhi. in the light of same entire DSR was reconsidered and discussed by the Committee on dated 28-11-2023 and 29-12-2023 during meetings. The major issues for deliberation were related to details of the total proposed area identified for mining, mineral reserves and missing of the name of Sukroo River indicated in the DSR required to be mentioned correctly in DSR as per averments raised by complainant.
3. Village wise details of total proposed mining areas reproduced before committee which was attached with existing DSR as Annexure B and found more than 2096 Acres. Mining areas of existing Auctioned Quarries of Ambala District found as 933.36 Acres belongs to above proposed mining areas. In addition to this, missing of some Kimmel/killa numbers also noticed as per all Auctioned Quarries of District. Consequently, it was decided by committee members that the detail of missing, killa numbers should be mentioned and attached as Annexure B-I in place of Annexure B with corrigendum regarding above averments.
4. It was explained that all the mining areas arc situated in the riverbed and in case of riverbed maximum permissible depth shall not exceed 03 meters measured from the un-mined bed level at any point in time. Further, in case of riverbed mining the mining is not permissible during monsoon season during the period from July to 15"' September]. The areas mined pot during permissible period gets refilled with mineral brought from hilly area due to fluvial action. It was also brought to notice of the Committee that from one Hectare of minable area in riverbed may have maximum volume 30,000/- Cubic Meter of mineral up to permissible depth of 3 Meters Taking the bulk density/ specific gravity as 2.6 for sand/ boulder in the riverbed, 78000 MT of sand can be excavated. However, considering that in most of the cases for preparing the Mining Plans had been taking the bulk density/ specific gravity as 2 and in that case about 60,000f- MT of BGS/ Sand per Hectare considered up to 3 meters depth from riverbed level. The minerals reserve for river bed area is calculated on the basis of maximum depth of 3 meters and margins width and other dimensions. The area multiplied by depth gives the volume and volume multiplied with bulk density gives the quantity in Metric Ton. In case of river bed, mineable material per hectare area available for actual mining shall not exceed the maximum quantity of 60.000 MT per Annum. The same is also mentioned in Para no: 3.6.3 and 3.6.5 in existing DSR of District. Accordingly, it was decided by the committee that River wise (With optional name of Sukroo River as Trilokpur) mineral potential and proposed mining areas should be rectified in Para No: 12 of existing DSR and to the uploaded the Corrigendum in this regard on District Website as per averments of O.A No: 532 of H'NGT New Delhi. Hence on after rectification/ clarification the Para No: 12 of existing DSR of District Ambala shall be considered as under:
Para No.12: River/Stream wise mineral sources of District and other Sand Sources S.No. Name of River Entry Pont in Exit point in Width Length in District District (in Mt) Ambala O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors.-81-
Distt. (km) 1 Markanda Shivalik Foothill Dinarpur 100-200 75 near Kala Amb 2 Tangri Fatehgarh Dhunni 100-150 60 3 Begna Ujjal Majri Mullana 20-40 40 4 Roon Toka Rasour 10-20 12 5 Sukroon/ Jiriwala Sahpur 10-20 3 Trilokpur (as per Survey of India Toposheets No. 53F/2 and 53F/3 Drainage system with description of main rivers Sl. No. Name of River Area Drained % Area Drained (Sq. Km in Distt.
1 Markanda 18000 60.5 2 Tangri 11250 66.6 3 Begna 6390 18 Salient features of important rivers and streams Sr. Name of River or stream Total Length Place of Origin Altitude of No. in Distt. (in origin KM) (in feet) 1 Markanda 75 Shivalik Foothill 3000-4000 2 Tangri 60 Foothill 2000-2800 3 Begna 40 Foothill 1000-1600 4 Roon 12 Foothill 500-600 5 Sukroon/ Trilokpur (as per 3 Foothill Survey of 1000-1200 India Toposheets No. 53F/2 and 53F/3 Sr. Portion of Length of Average Average Total Mineral No. river/stream area width of recommend Geological Potential recommended recommend area ed for reserves (in MT) (60 for mineral ed for recommend mineral (in MT) % of the concession mineral ed for concession total) concession mineral (Sq Mt) (in KM) concession (in Mt) 1 Kala Amb- 60 150 90,00,000 5,10,30,000 3,06,18,000 Dinarpur-
Dhunni 2 Fatehgar- 47 125 58,75,000 3,33,11,250 1,99,86,750 Dhunni 3 Ujjal Majri- 30 30 9,00,000 51,03,000 30,61,800 Mullana 4 Toka-Rasour 12 15 1,80,000 10,20,600 6,12,360 5 Jhiriwala- 3 15 45,000 2,55,150 1,53,090 Shahpur Mineral Potential Ratio O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors.
-82- Sr. Portion of Boulder Bajri/Gravel Sand Mineable Mineral No. river/stream Potential in M.T. recommended for mineral concession 1 Kala Amb- 91,85,400 61,23,600 1,53,09,000 3,06,18,000 Dinarpur-Dhunni 2 Fatehgar-Dhunni 59,96,025 39,97,350 99,93,375 1,99,86,750 3 Ujjal Majri- 9,18,540 6,12,360 15,30,900 30,61,800 Mullana 4 Toka-Rasour 1,83,708 1,22,472 3,06,180 6,12,360 5 Jhiriwala- 45,927 30,618 76,545 1,53,090 Shahpur Sr. River or Portion of Length of Average Area Total Mineral N Stream river or area width of recommen Geologic potential o. stream recommen area ded for al % of recommen ded for recommen mineral reserves total ded for mineral ded for concession (in MT) mineral mineral concession mineral (Sq. Mt) potential concession (Km) concession ) in M. (Mtr) T. 1 Markand Kala Amb- 60 150 90,00,000 5,10,30,0 3,06,18,0 Dinarpur- 00 00 Dhunni 2 Tangri Fatehgar- 47 125 58,75,000 3,33,11,2 1,99,86,7 Dhunni 50 50 3 Begna Ujjal 30 30 9,00,000 51,03,00 30,61,80 Majri- 0 0 Mullana 4 Roon Toka- 12 15 1,80,000 10,20,60 6,12,360 Rasour 0 5 Sukroon/Trilok Jhiriwala- 3 5 45,000 2,55,150 1,53,090 pur Shahpur Total 1,60,00,00 9,07,20,0 5,44,32,0 0 00 00
The total proposed mining area is more than 2096 Acres whose details of revenue record attached herewith as Annexure B-I. The use of mineral deposit exploration /excavation in respect of minerals is ongoing activity, therefore as per requirement the arca used for mining of minor minerals may have to be revised time to time. The proposed areas and arc in general selected for mining of minerals and while selecting/covering out mining blocks from these selected areas villages, the size of mining blocks may vary from time to time but the same will not exceed the total area so selected of that particular village.
115. The question which arises is as to whether the stand taken by the Respondents as to inadvertent mistakes in Ambala DSR 2022 requiring rectification thereof is also supported by the material produced before this Tribunal.
Plea regarding Trilokpur Nadi being known as Sukroon river mentioned in Ambala DSR 2022 O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -83-
116. The grievance of the applicant is that as per Ambala DSR 2022 mining of minor mineral is permissible only in the river or stream of Markanda, Tangri, Begna and Roon river, whereas the Director, Mines and Geology, Haryana has approved the Mining Plan of respondent no. 8-M/s R. M. Mines & Infra Pvt. Ltd. permitting mining in River Trilokpur, which is no where mentioned in Ambala DSR 2022 and the Director, Mines and Geology, Government of Haryana has thereby violated the same.
117. In response thereto, Respondents no. 3,4,5 and 7 and respondents no, 8, 9 and 10 have claimed that as per the revenue record of District Ambala and information gathered from the local inhabitants/villagers river Trilokpur is known as Sukroon River in District Ambala which was mentioned in Ambala DSR 2022.
118. It may be observed here that the e-auction notice and LOI issued in favour of respondent no. 8-M/s R. M. Mines & Infra Pvt. Ltd. incorporated the khasra numbers, names of villages and geo-coordinates of the land comprised in the Toka-Hamidpur Mining Block which is located at Villages -- Toka, Shahpur, Sangrani, Rau Majra, Hamidpur, Dera, Deher and Chechi Majra.
119. In the mining plan submitted by respondent no.8 M/s R. M. Mines Infra Pvt. Ltd., based upon the data/ maps fetched by its consultant M/s P & M Solution, Noida, U.P. from the official website of Survey of India, Govt. of India, part of mining area allotted to respondent no.8 M/s R. M. Mines Infra Pvt. Ltd. is mentioned to be in Trilokpur River/Nadi.
120. In letter dated 23.10.2023 written to the Mining Officer, Ambala respondent no.8 M/s R. M. Mines Infra Pvt. Ltd. has given the explanation that the name "Trilokpur Nadi" was incorporated in the mining plan based upon the information fetched from the official website of Survey of India O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -84- i.e.https://onlinemaps.surveyofindia.gov in/FreeMapSpecification.aspx. and that "Trilokpur Nadi" is also known as Sukroon in District Ambala.
121. This fact has also been verified the District Revenue Officer, Ambala vide his letter no. 4086 dated 16.10.2023 that the River known as Trilokpur Nadi in Himachal Pradesh is named as Sukroon River by the local inhabitants of nearby villages in Haryana.
122. The Joint Committee constituted by this Tribunal visited the location of said Sukroon River/Trilokpur Nadi and observed that Sukroon River/Trilokpur Nadi is not a perennial river but a seasonal stretch originating from Shivalik foothills at Trilokpur, Kala Amb, Himachal Pradesh which enters under the jurisdiction of State of Haryana at Village Dera at Jhiriwala and further merges in to River Sukroon at Shahpur, Naraingarh, Haryana after flowing in a small stretch. The River is known as Trilokpur Nadi in Himachal Pradesh and same is termed as Sukroon River by the local inhabitants of nearby villages in Haryana.
123. The applicant has not controverted by asserting and rebutted by producing any cogent material that river known as Trilokpur Nadi in Himachal Pradesh is not the same river which is known as Sukroon River by the local inhabitants of nearby villages in Haryana.
124. It is thus evident that "Trilokpur Nadi" and "Sukroon River" are two different names of the same river which is mentioned as Sukroon River in Ambala DSR 2022 and "Trilokpur Nadi" in the mining plan submitted by respondent no.8 M/s R. M. Mines Infra Pvt. Ltd. and approved by the Director, Mining & Geology.
Plea regarding mineable area being more than 10.11 hectares O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -85-
125. The grievance of the applicant is that the mining plans of respondent no. 8-M/s R. M. Mines & Infra Pvt. Ltd., respondent no. 9-M/s SCP Commodities and respondent no. 10-M/s Reliable Mining Corporation have been approved in violation of the original Ambala DSR 2022 as in terms thereof, the total mineable area is 10.11 hectares whereas the Director, Mining & Geology, Haryana has permitted respondent no. 8-M/s R. M. Mines & Infra Pvt. Ltd., respondent no. 9-M/s SCP Commodities and respondent no. 10-M/s Reliable Mining Corporation to extract mineable minerals from159.38 Hectares (398.45 Acres) along with ancillary area of 27.42 Hectares (68.55 Acres) in District Ambala far exceeding than the area identified in the original Ambala DSR 2022 where mining is permissible.
126. The mineable area of 10.11 hectares has been mentioned by the applicant from Para no. 12 of original Ambala DSR 2022 where the same is so mentioned.
127. Respondents no. 3,4,5 and 7 and respondents no, 8, 9 and 10 have claimed that in original Ambala DSR 2022 names of the villages and Khasra numbers of the mineable area for mining were mentioned in Annexure B annexed therewith and total area recommended for mineral concession for first four of the aforesaid five rivers is 1,59,55,000 square meters which is 1595.5 hectares; and after including the area available in the fifth river i.e. Sukroon/Trilokpur, the total area shall be 1,60,00,000 square meters which is around 1600 hectares or 3953.686 acres.
128. It may be observed here that in original Ambala DSR 2022 the details of mineable mineral bearing areas are mentioned by names of the villages and Khasra/Kila numbers of the said land as per the revenue record in Annexure B but the total area of the said land is not specifically mentioned in Annexure B. In its report the Joint Committee submitted the mineable area mentioned in Ambala DSR 2022 to be more than 1100 Acres (445.1542 hectares). In their O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -86- reply respondents no. 3, 4, 5 and 7 submitted that the mineable area mentioned in Ambala DSR 2022 Annexure B to be more than 838 hectares. In their replies respondents no. 8 and 10 have submitted that the mineable area mentioned in Ambala DSR 2022 Annexure B is more than 3953.686 acres (1600 hectares). In corrigendum approved by DSR Committee the proposed mining area of Ambala DSR 2022 Annexure B as rectified by Annexure B1 is mentioned to be more than 2096 acres. These differences regarding mineable area mentioned in Ambala DSR 2022 by itself demonstrates the material structural deficiencies of old Ambala DSR 2022 and vagueness thereof with the consequence that total mineable area mentioned therein cannot be easily and accurately ascertained from the same. However, the E-auction notices dated 31.05.2022 and LOIs were also issued by the Mining & Geology Department by mentioning names of the villages and Khasra/ Kila numbers of the said land mentioned as per the revenue record in Annexure B and geo- coordinates thereof and patently total area thereof would be more than 10.11 hectares which conclusively establishes that mineable area of the above said land was (presumably) wrongly mentioned as 10.11 hectares and the total mineable area would be more than 10.11 hectares.
Plea regarding mineable quantity being more than 71 lakh MT
129. The grievance of the applicant is that the mining plans of respondent no. 8-M/s R. M. Mines & Infra Pvt. Ltd., respondent no. 9-M/s SCP Commodities and respondent no. 10-M/s Reliable Mining Corporation have been approved in violation of the original Ambala DSR 2022 as in terms thereof, the total mineral potential in District Ambala is 38.29 lakhs MT/Annum whereas the Director, Mining & Geology, Haryana has permitted respondent no. 8-M/s R. M. Mines & Infra Pvt. Ltd., respondent no. 9-M/s SCP Commodities and respondent no. 10-M/s Reliable Mining Corporation to O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -87- extract about 71 lakhs MT of mineable minerals in District Ambala which is clear violation of the original Ambala DSR 2022.
130. The quantity of total mineral potential in District Ambala mentioned by the applicant as 38.29 lakhs MT/Annum is derived by the applicant from the table no. 4 and 5 of Para no. 12 of original Ambala DSR 2022.
131. Respondents no. 3,4,5 and 7 and respondents no, 8, 9 and 10 have claimed that in original Ambala DSR 2022 'gravel' was inadvertently omitted and inclusion thereof in mineral potential of District Ambala will increase the mineable quantity. Respondents no. 3,4,5 and 7 and respondents no, 8, 9 and 10 have further claimed that the total quantity of Mineable Mineral would have to be calculated as per total mining area mentioned in Annexure B of original Ambala DSR 2022 in accordance with the guidelines.
132. It may be observed here that in table no. 5 in para no. 12 of the original Ambala DSR 2022 the mineral potential of 'Boulder, Bajri and Sand' was mentioned. Since Hindi word 'Bajri' is the vernacular of English word 'Gravel' and Bajri (Gravel) was already included in mineral potential of District Ambala in Ambala DSR 2022, the plea as to inadvertent omission of minor mineral 'Gravel' during compilation/ preparation of Ambala DSR 2022 is factually wrong and is devoid of any merit.
133. By the material on record it is established that the mineable area of River Sukroon (which is known as Trilokpur River in Himachal Pradesh) was shown at Sr. No. 5 of Table no. 1 of Para no. 12 of original Ambala DSR 2022 and the same was inadvertently omitted in tables no. 4 and 5 showing Mineral potential of District Ambala during the compilation and preparation of original Ambala DSR 2022 and after consideration and counting of same the overall mineable quantity of minor minerals in District Ambala will increase. O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -88-
134. Respondents no. 3,4,5 and 7 and respondents no, 8, 9 and 10 have claimed that total area recommended for mineral concession for first four of the five rivers namely, Markanda, Tangari, Begna, Roon and Sukroon/Trilokpur is 1,59,55,000 square meters which comes to 1595.5 hectares and after including the area available in the fifth river i.e. Sukroon/Trilokpur, the total area shall be 1,60,00,000 square meters which comes to around 1600 hectares or 3953.686 acres.
135. The total mineable quantity of minor minerals has to be calculated as per total mineable area mentioned in Annexure B of original Ambala DSR 2022 in accordance with SSMG-2016.
136. Para 14 of SSMG-2016 captioned 'Methodology Adopted for Calculating of Mineral Potential' prescribes the methodology to be adopted for calculation of mineral potential and the same reads as under:-
"Methodology Adopted for Calculating of Mineral Potential The mineral potential is calculated based on field investigation and geology of the catchment area of the river/ streams. As per the policy of the State and location, depth of minable mineral is defined. The area for removal of mineral in a river or stream can be decided depending on geo-morphology and other factors, it can be 50% to 60% of the area of a particular river/stream, e.g. in Himachal Pradesh mineral constituents like boulders, river born bajari, sand up to a depth of one meter are considered as resource mineral. Other constituents like clay and silt are excluded as waste while calculating the mineral potential of particular river/ stream. The specific gravity of each mineral constituent is different, While calculating the mineral potential, the average specific gravity is taken as 2.25. The percent of mineral constituent like boulder, river bajari, sand also varies for different river and streams. While calculating the mineral potential the percentage of each mineral constituent is taken as. Boulders 35-40%, Bajari - 30-35%, Sand 25- 30% and 5-10% for silt and clay. The quantum of deposition varies from stream to stream depending upon factors like catchment lithology, discharge, river profile and geomorphology of the river course. There are certain geomorphological features developed in the river beds such as channel bar, point bar etc. where annual deposition is more even two to three meters.
O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors.-89-
137. In para no. 3.6.5 of the original Ambala DSR 2022 methodology of calculation was mentioned which is reproduced below:-
"3.6.5 The Mineral reserves for river bed areas are calculated on the basis of maximum depth of 3 meters. The area multiplied with depth gives volume and volume multiplied with bulk density gives the quantity in M.T. in case of river bed areas per hectare area, maximum availability of mineral for actual mining is 60,000 MT. However, as explained above the mineral excavated from river gets replenished after every year. Thereafter, the same quantity remain available for mining again and again. "
138. Respondent no. 8-M/s R. M. Mines & Infra Pvt. Ltd. has submitted in its reply that while assessing the estimated quantity of mineral reserves, the established method was followed. Based upon detailed and scientific analysis, it was stated that the total mineable reserve in the area are 44,66,189 MT and the target production was fixed at 44,60,000 MT per annum.
139. Respondent No.10-M/s Reliable Mining Corporation has submitted in its reply that the Mining Plan also included the Replenishment Study Report on the basis of the pre-monsoon and post-monsoon survey of the mining lease area by using Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS). On the basis of the detailed analysis, the proposed production capacity has been fixed at 12,00,000 MT per annum as the total mineable reserves established with the detailed replenishment study report are 12,05,432 MT per annum.
140. However, there is serious problem in such calculation of mineral potential of District Ambala as per Ambala DSR 2022. In Ambala DSR 2022 the details of proposed mineable mineral bearing areas were mentioned in Annexure B appended to the original Ambala DSR 2022 by mentioning names of the villages and Khasra/ Kila numbers of the said land as per the revenue record but in Annexure B requisite details regarding mineable area of the (i) land included in the Khasra numbers mentioned, (ii) total area comprised in the villages and blocks named and (iii) total mineable area in the District were not mentioned and Annexure B appended to the original Ambala DSR O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -90- 2022 is vague to that extent. In the original Ambala DSR 2022 the actual calculation of mineable quantity made for inclusion therein was not quoted and how the total mineable area (wrongly) mentioned as 10.11 hectares and total mineable quantity (wrongly) mentioned as 38.29 Lakh MT were arrived at has also not been mentioned.
141. However, calculation of mineral potential cannot be made simply on the basis of abstract values of density, volume and area by any mathematical computation and the same has to be based on replenishment study which plays decisive role in assessment of mineral potential and determination of mineable quantity particularly so when the mineable area is a complex mixture of sand, gravel and boulders.
142. It may be observed here that original Ambala DSR 2022 does not contain any reference to replenishment study conducted for preparation of the original Ambala DSR 2022 and copy of any replenishment study carried out for preparation of the original Ambala DSR 2022 is also not enclosed with the same.
143. Ambala DSR 2022 did not divide the rivers/ streams/ other sources of the District into the categories of (1) River/ Stream beds sections / other sources suitable for extraction of sand and aggregates and (2) River/ Stream beds sections / other sources prohibited for extraction of sand and aggregates and did not divide the rivers/streams into Zone of Erosion and Zone of Deposition in different stretches thereof.
144. It may be added here that after the public hearing the Final List of sand mining areas, leases to be granted on riverbed and Patta land/Khatedari land, de-siltation location (ponds/lakes/dams), M-Sand Plants (alternate source of sand) was not given in Ambala DSR 2022 in the format as per Annexure-V. O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -91-
145. The grievance of the applicant is that as per Para 5.2 of EMGSM-2020 issued by MoEF & CC, NABL recognized Laboratory was to assess the Bulk Density of Mineable Minerals but respondent no. 8-M/s R. M. Mines & Infra Pvt. Ltd. and respondent no. 9-M/s SCP Commodities have not provided any document showing Bulk Density assessed by NABL recognized Agency.
146. It may be observed here that respondent no. 10-M/s Reliable Mining Corporation has submitted in its reply that respondent no. 10 had engaged the services of consultant which is NABL recognized Laboratory and the consultant had started the sampling for assessment of Bulk Density of Mineable Minerals as per the provisions laid down in EMGSM-2020 and the testing reports were duly appended with Mining Plan submitted by respondent no.10. The applicant has also not disputed such compliance by respondent no. 10-M/s Reliable Mining Corporation.
147. So far as respondent no. 8-M/s R. M. Mines & Infra Pvt. Ltd. and respondent no. 9-M/s SCP Commodities are concerned, the Joint Committee constituted by this Tribunal has submitted in its report that the averment made by the applicant at Para No. 8 (XXXV) of the Original application regarding non assessment of Bulk Density of Mineable Minerals by the NABL recognized Laboratory as per the provisions laid down in EMGSM 2020 issued by MoEF & CC in the mining plans submitted by respondent no.8 M/s R. M. Mines and Infra Pvt. Ltd. and respondent no.9 M/S SCP Commodities is valid and the same must have been taken care of while preparation of their individual mining plans. The Joint Committee has recommended that respondent no.8 M/s R. M. Mines and Infra Pvt. Ltd. and respondent no.9 M/S SCP Commodities may be directed to carry out the replenishment study as per methodology suggested at Para 5.2 of EMGSM 2020 simultaneously with the pending revision of DSR.
O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -92-
148. Respondent no. 8-M/s R. M. Mines & Infra Pvt. Ltd. has submitted in its reply that respondent no. 8-M/s R. M. Mines & Infra Pvt. Ltd. had engaged the services of Consultant recognized by NABL which started the sampling for assessment of Bulk Density of Mineable Minerals as per the provisions laid down in EMGSM-2020 w.e.f. 28.10.2023 and the testing of the sample in the laboratory is under process. The report shall be duly submitted with the Mines and Geology Department, Government of Haryana in due course. In its reply respondent No.9 has not mentioned anything about compliance regarding assessment of Bulk Density of Mineable Minerals through NABL recognized laboratory.
149. Para 5 of EMGSM 2020 provides a detailed mechanism for replenishment study and determining the rate of sand deposition during the monsoon season. This replenishment study is vital to ensure that the rate of sand extraction remains lower than the rate of deposition, thereby protecting the riverine ecosystem. Permitting mining operations without ascertaining the exact replenishment rate would lead to irreversible ecological damage, may even result in the river changing its natural course, placing downstream villages and towns at heightened risk of flooding during the monsoon season. It needs to be emphasized here that replenishment study and sampling for assessment of bulk density as mandated by Paras 5.0 and 5.2 of EMGSM 2020 have to be carried out for assessment of mineral potential before preparation of DSR for the District for determination of mineable quantity therein and there cannot be any auction/e-auction/issuance of LOI/grant of mining before finalization of DSR by its approval by SEIAA on the basis of such replenishment study and assessment of mineral potential and mineable quantity.
150. Para 4.1.1. of the EMGSM 2020 mandates that District Survey Report for sand mining shall be prepared before the auction/e-auction/ grant of the O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -93- mining lease/Letter of Intent (LOI) by Mining department or department dealing the mining activity in respective states.
151. This Tribunal, in the case titled Anjani Kumar v. State of U.P. 2017 SCC Online NGT 979 vide its Judgment dated 08.12.2017 held that a District Survey Report (DSR) is a pre-requisite and condition precedent before the grant of any mining leases of sand and bajri. The Relevant portion is extracted below:
"31. From the extracted portion, it could well be understood that to begin with the process prescribed for preparing of survey document mapping the status of the sand sources in a District is an integral but an essential part. The Survey has to be conducted and report be prepared for each District. It must also be noticed that while taking into consideration the fact that rivers cut across districts and States and every river is an ecosystem in itself but keeping in mind the fact that district is a most established unit of administration conduct of survey, planning and monitoring can be ensured effectively, the scheme proposed that every district will prepare this document (District Survey Report) taking river stretch in that district as an ecological and inventorising other sources of sand in the district...
65. Thus there is merit in the contention of the applicant that the District Survey Report is not only an important act but it should be conducted prior to sanctioning of the permission/concession.
71. In other words it is evident that absence of the factual District Survey Report after due inspection grant of mining lease will be in conflict of the environmental laws as sand mining lease could be granted in an area only when aspect of replenishment of miner mineral especially in river sand is clearly established.
96. It is true that under the Mining Policy, Rules the State is empowered to conduct survey for the purpose of inviting bids opine. The preparation of DSR and obtaining of Environmental Clearance is also a condition precedent to carrying on mining activity. It is for the State Government to ensure that there is no conflict between two and they are balanced so as to ensure that neither there is scope for illegal mining nor there should be environmental degradation."
152. In O.A. No. 360/2015 National Green Tribunal Bar Association Vs. Virender Singh (State of Gujarat) and other connected cases disposed of vide order dated 26.02.21 this Tribunal directed all the States/UTs to strictly follow the SSMG, 2016 read with EMGSM, 2020 reinforced by mechanism for preparation of DSRs (in terms of directions of this Tribunal dated 14.10.2020 in O.A. No. 40/2020/EZ Pawan Kumar vs. State of Bihar and others and O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -94- 04.11.2020 in O.A. No. 726/2018 Rupesh Pethe vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others), Environment Management Plans, replenishment studies, mine closure plans, grant of EC (in terms of directions dated 13.09.2018 in O.A. No. 186/2016 Satendra Pandey vs. MoEF & CC and another), assessment and recovery of compensation (as per discussion in Para
25), seizure and release of vehicles involved in illegal mining (in terms of order dated 19.02.2020 in O.A. no. 44/2016 Mushtakeem vs. MoEF & CC and others), other safeguards against violations, grievance redressal, accountability of the designated officers and periodical review at higher levels.
153. In the matter of SLP (Civil) No. 10589/2019 title Bajri Lease LOI Holder Welfare Society Vs. State of Rajasthan, Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 17.11.2017 directed that no river sand mining shall be permitted unless scientific replenishment study is completed and EC is granted.
154. In O.A. No. 140/2021 title Rajkumar Vs. State of U.P. and others and O.A. No. 141/2021 title Ramkaran Karn Vs. State of U.P. and others this Tribunal took note of the statement made by ACS, Mining, Uttar Pradesh that replenishment study will be conducted prior to auctions in future; with regard to the current leases, ongoing replenishment study will be expedited and in the light thereof, the leases will be renewed, if necessary and such studies for all Districts in U.P. will be completed by 31.12.2022 and for Banda by 30.06.2022. This Tribunal directed that replenishment studies be completed by credible institutions, following due procedure, in accordance with para 5 of EMGSM, 2020 and no mining be permitted till replenishment studies are completed beyond the schedule laid down above. On appeal Hon'ble Supreme Court of India did not interfere with the Judgment. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India merely clarified that State Authorities shall undertake the replenishment studies and accepted the request for completion of O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -95- replenishment studies for District Banda, which was required to be completed till 30.06.2022, on or before 31.12.2022.
155. In O.A. No. 801/2023 title Mohan Prakash Vs. MoEF&CC and others this Tribunal held that e-auction notice cannot be issued and lease cannot be granted without replenishment study and DSR prepared by the District Magistrate and approved by SEIAA and e-auction notice/NIT issued prior to finalization of DSR cannot be sustained.
156. It is established by the material on record that Ambala DSR 2022 has been prepared and that auctions have been conducted, LOIs have been issued and mining plans have been approved without proper replenishment study and assessment of bulk density.
157. The questions which arise here are as to whether the original Ambala DSR 2022 has been rectified by following the prescribed procedure and what is the effect of rectification of original Ambala DSR 2022 on impugned letters whereby Mining Plans of respondents no. 8, 9 and 10 were approved.
158. The Chairman-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Ambala directed the Mining Officer, Ambala to upload the Corrigendum on the District Website after obtaining signatures of the Chairman as well as the members of the DSR Committee as per the Government notification. Meeting of the DSR Committee was held on 29.12.2023 and all the Members approved the Corrigendum after due discussion and deliberation. Thereafter, letter bearing Memo No. MO/AMB/10 dated 01.01.2024 was issued to the District Information Officer, NIC-Ambala for the purpose of uploading the Corrigendum on the website of District Ambala for a period of 21 days seeking comments and suggestions from the public. The Corrigendum was uploaded on the District Website on 02.01.2024 for 21 days, but no comments were received from the public. The Corrigendum was forwarded to respondent no. 6-SEIAA, Haryana by the O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -96- Chairman-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Ambala by way of letter dated 07.02.2024. The matter of approval of rectified/revised DSR was taken up during 296th Meeting of SEAC, Haryana held on 12.07.2024 for discussion. Shri Om Dutt, Mining Officer, representative of Directorate, Mines & Geology, Haryana was also present during the meeting. SEAC, Haryana thoroughly discussed the submissions made by Deputy Commissioner, Ambala regarding the rectified/revised DSR. SEAC, Haryana agreed with the submissions of the Deputy commissioner, Ambala and recommended that rectified/revised DSR may be sent to SEIAA, Haryana for approval. The case was taken up during the 180th Meeting of SEIAA, Haryana held on 10.02.2024. Upon perusal of relevant record placed on the file, SEIAA, Haryana decided to approve the rectified/revised DSR. The Member Secretary, SEIAA, Haryana sent memo no. SEIAA (180/HR/2024/261) dated 09.09.2024 to the Deputy Commissioner, Ambala in this regard.
159. Appendix X attached to the notification no. S.O. 141 (E) dated 15.01.2016 and substituted Appendix X to the notification no. S.O. 3611(E) dated 25.07.2018 prescribed that the draft DSR shall be placed in the public domain by keeping its copy in Collectorate and posting it on the District's website for twenty-one days. The comments received shall be considered and if found correct, shall be incorporated in the final Report to be finalised within six months by the District Environment Impact Assessment Authority.
160. However, para 4.1.1. (p) Public Consultation of Chapter 4 of the EMGSM, 2020 prescribes different procedure for public consultation and the same is, at the cost of repetition, is reproduced here as under:-
p) Public consultation- The Comments of the various stakeholders may be sought on the list of mining lease to be auctioned. The State Government shall give an advertisement in the local and national newspaper for seeking comments of the general public on the list of mining' lease included in the DSR.
The DSR should be placed in the public domain for at least one month from the date of publication of the advertisement for O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -97-
obtaining comments of the general public. The comments so received shall be placed before the sub divisional committee for active consideration. The final list of sand mining areas [leases to be granted on riverbed & Patta land/Khatedari land, de- siltation location (ponds/lakes/dams), M-Sand Plants (alternate source of sand)] after the public hearing needs to be defined in the final DSR in the format as per Annexure-V. The details regarding cluster and contiguous cluster needs to be provided in Annexure-VI. The details of the transportation need to be provided in Annexure-VII."
161. In State of Bihar and others Vs. Pawan Kumar and others (2022) 2 Supreme Court Cases 348 Hon'ble Supreme Court vide para no. 14 (ii) of its order dated 10.11.2021 directed that while preparing DSRs and the appraisal thereof by SEAC/SEIAA, it should be ensured that a strict adherence to the procedure and parameters laid down in the policy of January 2020 (EMGSM 2020) should be followed. Para no. 14 (ii) of its order dated 10.11.2021 is, at the cost of repetition, reproduced as under:-
"14. We therefore find it appropriate to substitute the directions issued by the Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 14th October 2020, with the following directions:-
X X X X
(ii) Needless to state that while preparing DSRs and the appraisal thereof by SEAC and SEIAA, it should be ensured that a strict adherence to the procedure and parameters laid down in the policy of January 2020 should be followed;
X X X X"
162. It may be observed here that in the present case the procedure laid down in para 4.1.1. (p) of Chapter 4 of the EMGSM, 2020 was not followed by State Government for seeking comments of the various stakeholders on the list of mining lease to be auctioned and SEAC/SEIAA, Haryana in appraisal of corrigendum of Ambala DSR-2022. The State Government is not stated to have given any advertisement in the local and national newspaper for seeking comments of the general public on the list of mining' lease included in the original Ambala DSR 2022. The corrigendum of original Ambala DSR 2022 was not placed in the public domain for at least one month from the date of O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors.-98-
publication of the advertisement for obtaining comments of the general public. On the other hand, the corrigendum was placed in the public domain by keeping its copy in Collectorate and posting it on the District's website for twenty-one days.
163. It is evident from the material on record that the original Ambala DSR 2022 has not been rectified by following the prescribed procedure and the rectification made is liable to be set-aside with the consequence that the corrigendum for rectification of original Ambala DSR 2022 has to be treated to be pending and the original Ambala DSR 2022 which suffers from structural deficiencies requiring revision thereof cannot be said to have been finalized.
164. Since the original Ambala DSR 2022 has not been finalized so far and is deemed to be pending for revision/rectification, no mining lease can be granted in respect of the mineable area and mineable quantity of mineable minerals in District Ambala before finalization of the same.
165. Even otherwise, even if it be assumed for arguments sake that the original Ambala DSR 2022 has been duly rectified, the illegalities/irregularities committed in preparation of the Ambala DSR 2022 and approval of Mining Plans of respondent no. 8-M/s R. M. Mines & Infra Pvt. Ltd., respondent no. 9-M/s SCP Commodities and respondent no. 10-M/s Reliable Mining Corporation before such rectification cannot be deemed to have been rectified and cured by subsequent rectification of the Ambala DSR 2022 in 2024 with retrospective effect for the simple reason that any such rectification will operate prospectively from the date of approval of Rectified Ambala DSR 2024.
166. It follows from above discussion that letters dated 25.01.2023, 27.02.2023 and 18.05.2023 whereby the Director, Mines and Geology, Haryana approved the mining plans of Respondent No. 9- M/s SCP O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -99- Commodities, Respondent No. 8-M/s. R M Mines and Infra Pvt. Ltd. and Respondent No. 10-M/s. Reliable Mining Corporation respectively being contrary to the original Ambala DSR 2022 and being violative of the Notifications dated 15.01.2016 and 25.07.2018 and SSMG-2016 and EMGSM-2020 issued by MOEF&CC are illegal and liable to be set-aside. Recommendations of the Joint Committee
167. It may be observed here that in the present case the Joint Committee constituted by this Tribunal made the following recommendations:-
1. Director, Mines & Geology Department, Haryana may be directed to revise the District Survey Report (DSR) for District Ambala in view of submissions made by Mining Officer, Ambala in order to Rule out the said discrepancies at earliest in the time bound manner after following the due procedure.
2. Director, Mines & Geology Department, Haryana may be asked to direct the concerned field staff deputed throughout the State to take necessary precautions while preparation and compilation of the District Survey Report (DSR) of the concerned Districts to avoid such base line discrepancies in future.
3. Mining Officer, Mines & Geology Department, Ambala and District Level Task Force (DLTF) constituted in District Ambala may be directed to ensure that no Illegal mining activities shall be carried out in the District.
4. Mines & Geology Department, Haryana may be asked to monitor all the terms and conditions imposed while issuing Letter of Intent (LOI) and approval of Mining Plans to the Mining Contractors.
O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -100-
5. Mining contractors will obtain prior Environmental Clearance and will strictly adhere with the conditions imposed on Environmental Clearance granted by SEIAA and CTE & CTO granted by HSPCB.
168. The recommendations of the Joint Committee need to be accepted with the requisite modifications as per above discussion. Directions by the Tribunal
169. In view of the above discussed facts and circumstances of the case the present original application is disposed of with the following directions:-
(i) letters dated 25.01.2023, 27.02.2023 and 18.05.2023 whereby the Director, Mines and Geology, Haryana approved the mining plans of Respondent No. 9- M/s SCP Commodities, Respondent No. 8-
M/s. R M Mines and Infra Pvt. Ltd. and Respondent No. 10-M/s. Reliable Mining Corporation respectively being contrary to the original Ambala DSR 2022 and being violative of the Notifications dated 15.01.2016 and 25.07.2018 and SSMG- 2016 and EMGSM- 2020 issued by MOEF&CC as discussed above are held to be illegal and are set-aside with all consequential effects;
(ii) the Director, Mines & Geology, Haryana is directed to ensure that e-auctions/auctions are conducted, LOIs are issued and mining leases are granted in accordance with SSMG-2016 and EMGSM- 2020 and approved DSR and Quantity of minerals directed to be mined should not exceed the quantity under replenishment study and should be limited to auctioned as well as sustainably permissible quantity;
(iii) the Director, Mines & Geology, Haryana is directed to instruct the concerned field staff deputed throughout the State to take necessary precautions at the time of preparation and compilation O.A. No. 532/2023 Balbir Sandhu Vs. Union of India & Ors. -101-
of the DSR of the concerned District to avoid such base line discrepancies in future;
(iv) the DSR Committee, Ambala is directed to revise the Ambala DSR 2022 to bring the same in conformity with Notifications dated 15.01.2016 and 25.07.2018 and SSMG-2016 and EMGSM-2020 issued by MOEF&CC as discussed hereinabove; and
(v) the Director, Mines & Geology, Haryana is directed to ensure that e-
auction notices are issued, auctions are conducted and mining leases are granted only after such revision of the Ambala DSR 2022.
170. I.A. No. 681/2023 for ad-interim status quo order stands disposed of accordingly.
171. A copy of this order be sent to the applicant for information and to the respondents, the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, the Director, Mines & Geology, Haryana and the Member Secretary, SEIAA, Haryana by email for requisite compliance.
Prakash Shrivastava, CP Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM April 22nd, 2025 Original Application No. 532/2023 (I.A. No. 681/2023) AG