National Green Tribunal
T. Saravanakumar S/O.Thangavel ... vs The Tamilnadu State Environment Impact ... on 27 March, 2026
Item No.1 & 2:- Supplementary List
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Friday, the 27th day of March 2026.
[Through Physical Hearing (Hybrid Option)]
Original Application No.77 of 2023 (SZ)
WITH
Appeal No.80 of 2022 (SZ)
IN THE MATTER OF:
O.A. No.77/2023 (SZ):
T. Saravanakumar
S/o. Thangavel,
Residing at No.6/121,
Chinnathambipalayam,
Kumaripalayam,
Namakkal District - 637 015.
...Applicant(s)
Versus
1) The Tamil Nadu State Environment
Impact Assessment Authority,
Rep. by the Member Secretary,
3rd Floor, Panagal Maligai,
No.1, Jeenis Maligai,
Saidapet, Chennai - 15.
2) The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department
Mines and Monitoring Department,
Pudhukotai Road, Thiruchirapalli - 620 007.
3) Ministry of Environment, Forest and
Climate Change,
Rep. by its Member Secretary,
Paryavaran Bhavan, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003.
(R3 - Suo Motu impleaded as per order dt.06.10.2023)
...Respondent(s)
WITH
Appeal No.80/2022 (SZ):
1) Anaithu Vivasaykalin Kanimavala,
Neervala, Sutrusoolal Padhukapu Iyakkam
Registration No. 108/2021,
Represented by its President - M.S. Thirumalai
Door No.2/184, Chinna Kaliamman Kovil Street,
Pisindi Village, Kariyapatti Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
Page 1 of 25
2) Nenmeni Panchayat
Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District
Represented by its President,
Mrs. S. Velammal,
Wife of Sakthivel,
Nenmeni, Sattur Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
...Appellant(s)
Versus
1) The Secretary
Government of India,
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change,
Paryavaran Bhavan, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003.
2) The Secretary to Government
Department of Environment, Climate Change & Forest,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort George, Chennai - 600 009.
3) The Member Secretary
State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority
(Tamil Nadu)
3rd Floor, Panagal Maligai,
No.1, Jeenis Road, Saidapet,
Chennai - 600 015.
4) The Executive Engineer
PWD, WRO, MMD,
Tallakulam,
Madurai - 625 002.
5) The District Collector
Virduhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
...Respondent(s)
O.A. No.77/2023 (SZ):-
For Applicant(s): M/s. A. Yogeshwaran & B. Poongkhulali.
For Respondent(s): Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for R1.
Mr. P.S. Raman, AG a/w.
Dr. D. Shanmuganathan for R2.
Mr. T. Raghavan for R3.
Appeal No.80/2022 (SZ):-
For Applicant(s): M/s. T. Kokilavane & Nishant.
For Respondent(s): Mr. AR. L. Sundaresan, ASGI a/w.
Mr. G.M. Syed Nurullah Sheriff for R1.
Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for R3.
Mr. P.S. Raman, AG a/w.
Dr. D. Shanmuganathan for R2, R4 & R5.
Judgment Reserved on: 11th February, 2026.
Page 2 of 25
CORAM:
HON'BLE Smt. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Dr. PRASHANT GARGAVA, EXPERT MEMBER
COMMON JUDGMENT
Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member "அகழ் வாரைத் தாங் கும் நிலம் ப ாலத் தம் ரம இகழ் வாை் ் ப ாறுத்தல் தரல."
(குறள் 151: ப ொறறயுறைறை)
1) The above verse (151) in the Thirukkural highlights the patience of the earth, which continues to support and provide for those who dig, till or wound it for their own gain.
2) In the context of modern sand mining, this ancient wisdom serves as both an environmental ethic and a stark warning. While the Earth 'bears' those who dig, modern sand mining often exceeds the natural 'patience' of the environment. Unlike traditional manual mining, large scale extraction leads to irreversible damage like riverbed degradation and falling water tables. Thiruvalluvar often warned that prosperity without limits will perish. In sand mining, when the Earth's patience is exhausted, it manifests as environmental collapse.
3) In this context, the above-captioned application [Original Application No.77 of 2023 (SZ)] is filed alleging the mechanization of river sand mining lease by the Project Proponent (Respondent No.2), namely the Public Works Department (PWD).
4) The dispute refers to the illegal mechanized mining by the 2nd Respondent at S.F. No.643/1 Part (Mile 77/2+150 to 77/5 + 150), Oruvandhoor Village, Namakkal District, in an extent of 16.18.0 Hectares on the Cauvery Riverbed.
Page 3 of 255) The Project Proponent had secured the Environmental Clearance by classifying the project category as 'B2' and stated that two poclains can be used. The Environmental Clearance was issued on 10.08.2016 with a validity period of two years. However, the same was amended on 09.10.2017, permitting the use of four poclains. As the Project Proponent has been deploying heavy machinery particularly poclains, which was added by way of an amendment, had unilaterally altered the method of mining. Thus alleging, the applicant prays for restricting of the operation to the manual method only, as the mechanization converts the project into 'B1' Category, which requires a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and mandatory public hearing component.
6) Similar is the challenge in Appeal No.80 of 2022 (SZ) to the Environmental Clearance dated 10.09.2022 granted for sand quarrying in an extent of 4.95.5 Hectares situated at Sy. No.1095 Part, Nenmeni Village, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District.
7) It is alleged that the 4th Respondent/Public Works Department had not complied with the orders passed in W.P. (MD) No.20903 of 2016 dated 12.02.2021, wherein the Hon'ble High Court ordered the constitution of the Committee for conducting studies on the availability of river sand on the adjacent patta lands to the river Vaippar in the village limits of Nenmeni and adjoining villages.
8) The appellant has alleged that the Project Proponent had purposely obtained the Environmental Clearance under 'B2' Category, showing an extent as 4.95.5 Hectares in order to avoid a public hearing. The Environmental Clearance was issued under 'B2' Category for a period of six months and it allowed the usage of the opencast method by mechanical means without providing means for replenishment. Hence, the appeal.
Page 4 of 259) In both the Original Application and the Appeal, the question involved is whether the 'mechanical mining' can be allowed when the Environmental Clearance is issued under the 'B2' Category, which allows only the 'manual mining' method.
10) In Original Application No.77 of 2023 (SZ), the original Environmental Clearance was granted on 10.08.2016, allowing semi-mechanized mining with an ultimate depth of 1 Meter below the riverbed for a period of two years. However, an amended Environmental Clearance was issued on 09.10.2017, increasing the number of poclains that can be employed.
11) Similarly, in Appeal No.80 of 2022 (SZ), the Project Proponent had applied for Environmental Clearance under 'B2' Category to do only the manual mining and avoid public hearing, limiting the mining area to 4.95.5 Hectares, whereas the Environmental Clearance was granted, allowing the usage of opencast method by mechanical means without providing for means of replenishment.
12) The river and its beds are not merely geographical features but the life blood of the fertile agricultural landscape. 'Sand Mining', which is a modern term, is not known to the ancient text. However, the ecological and spiritual importance of the river sand is deeply embedded in their descriptions of prosperity and conservation. River sand has its own ecological significance, as it acts as a water filter and storage. Rivers like the Cauvery are natural aquifers with regulated flow.
13) The famous Tamil poetess Avvaiyar explained the interconnectedness of the land and water and stated that:
"வை ் புயை நீ ை் உயரும் நீ ை் உயை பநல் உயரும் பநல் உயைக் குடி உயரும் குடி உயைக் பகால் உயரும் பகால் உயைக் பகான் உயை்வான்"
"As the bunds rise, the water level will rise As the water level rises, the paddy crop will rise/thrive As the paddy crop rises, the citizens lives will rise/prosper As the citizens prosper, the sceptre will rise As the sceptre rises, the king himself will rise"Page 5 of 25
14) When the ridge is raised, the water level rises. This reflects the understanding of maintaining the physical integrity of the river environment, including its beds and banks, which, in fact, directly impacts the kingdom's survival. Besides the ecological significance, river sand had high cultural and aesthetic value. Rivers were revered and personified as nurturing mothers. River sand symbolized a clean, thriving environment. Harming the riverbed was seen as an act against the mother who sustains life. The river and river sand were used in various rituals, highlighting its presence in daily spiritual life.
15) The Tamil Literature emphasise that it is the duty of the King to protect the waterbodies and that allowing the degradation of the river (over-extraction) was considered a failure of moral leadership.
16) The renowned ancient poet and philosopher, Thiruvalluvar, in one of his celebrated couplets, states:
நீ ை்இன்று அரமயாது உலபகனின் யாை்யாை்க்கும் வான்இன்று அரமயாது ஒழுக்கு "No living being regardless of their status or power can survive or function without water"
("The world cannot exist without water.")
17) This couplet emphasizes that without proper management of natural resources, particularly the protection of rivers, both morality and the fabric of society would deteriorate.
Whether it is economic and political chain or the existential necessity, water is the fundamental basis for all life.
18) However, in the modern context, the sand is deemed as gold and traded for a short-term profit at the cost of a lifeline. While the river sand is classified as a 'minor mineral', which is primarily under the control of the State, the environmental laws and the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India restrict the extraction. In fact, there is an active ban on private river sand mining from 2019 and the State operates a limited number of legal quarries under strict monitoring.
Page 6 of 2519) The Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006, imposes certain restrictions and prohibitions on new projects/activities unless the prior Environmental Clearance has been accorded in accordance with the objectives of the National Environment Policy. Accordingly, the projects/activities are classified into Category 'A' - requires Central-level appraisal and Category 'B' - requires State-level appraisal. Category 'B' is further divided into 'B1' Category, which mandates the EIA Study and public hearing, whereas the 'B2' Category does not warrant either the EIA Study or public hearing. Over the years, the amendments were brought about in this EIA Notification, 2006, for the purpose of strengthening the Environmental Clearance norms and laying down further procedures for close scrutiny.
20) The O.M. dated 18.05.2012 was issued after the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2012) 4 SCC 629 - Deepak Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. dated 27.02.2012, orders that include the mining of minor lease area less than 5 Hectares also within the ambit of the prior Environmental Clearance, which includes the renewal of the ongoing lease also.
"8. .... .... .... Sand mining on either side of the rivers, upstream and instream, 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 riverbeds, destruction of natural habitats of organisms living on the riverbeds, affects fish breeding and migration, spells disaster for the conservation of many bird species, increases saline water in the rivers, etc.
9. 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, instream roughness elements, depth, velocity, turbidity, sediment transport, stream discharge and temperature. Altering these habitat characteristics can have deleterious impacts on both instream 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.
10. 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 Page 7 of 25 removal of sand from instream and upstream of several rivers, which may have serious environmental impact on ephemeral, seasonal and perennial rivers and riverbeds and sand extraction may have an adverse effect on biodiversity as well. Further, it may also lead to bed degradation and sedimentation having a negative effect on the aquatic life. The 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.
11. We find that it is without conducting any study on the possible environmental impact on/in the riverbeds and elsewhere the auction notices have been issued. We are of the considered view that when we are faced with a situation where extraction of alluvial material within or near a riverbed has an impact on the river's physical habitat characteristics, like river stability, flood risk, environmental degradation, loss of habitat, decline in biodiversity, it is not an answer to say that the extraction is in blocks of less than 5 ha, separated by 1 km, because their collective impact may be significant, hence the necessity of a proper environmental assessment plan.
... ... ...
25. 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 instream 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.
26. 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 affect various species, flora and fauna and it may also destabilise 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 48-A and Article 51-A(g) read with Article 21 of the Constitution."
(emphasis supplied)
21) The above quoted paras became the jurisprudential basis for river sand mining to be framed in a neutral, technical and legally precise manner highlighting both common practices and regulatory concerns. The Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) had issued the Official Memorandum Page 8 of 25 (O.M.) dated 24.12.2013, which is a guideline for consideration of the proposal for grant of Environmental Clearance regarding the categorization of Category 'B' projects into 'B1' and 'B2'. The sand, which is a minor mineral, was categorized as 'B2' Category. As per the above-mentioned O.M., no river sand mining project with a mine lease area less than 5 Hectares may be considered for granting Environmental Clearance. The river sand mining projects with a mining lease area greater than 5 Hectares and less than 25 Hectares will be categorized as 'B2' Category. In addition to the requirement of documents such projects will be subject to stipulations, namely (1) Mining activity shall be done manually, (2) The depth of the mining shall be restricted to 3 Meters/water level whichever is less, (3) No instream mining, (4) Mining lease period will be for a maximum period of five years, (5) If the periphery of the one lease is less than 1 Km from another and the total area exceeds 25 Hectares, the project becomes 'B1' Category regardless of individual size.
22) The O.M. dated 24.12.2013 categorize the projects/activities into 'B1' and 'B2'. It is pertinent to note that the said O.M. does not include rough stone, gravel, brick earth, ordinary earth in the method of extract, except for the river sand mining. 'B2' Category also includes metallurgical industry, cement plant, leather, skin industries, chemical industries, etc. River sand mining is categorized predominantly based on the method of extraction, in addition to the area of the mining lease. 'B2' Category project, less than 5 Hectares, did not require Environmental Clearance only in non-cluster mining. In the cluster method, where adjacent blocks are taken up, separate quarrying plans and Environmental Clearance should be obtained, yet cumulative impact remains the determinative factor. This assumes importance to prevent the mischief of segmentation, whereby a large contiguous mining is fragmented into smaller leases to evade the 'B1' threshold. For the said reason, if the periphery of one lease is within 500 meters of another and the total area exceeds 25 Hectares, the rigorous EIA protocol will apply. The classification of 'B1' and 'B2' categories is rooted in the 'Precautionary Principle' and the physical impact on the river ecology. The exemption under 'B2' Category is technically restricted to the shallow depths typically of 1 meter, thereby Page 9 of 25 preserving the riverbed and protecting the aquifers' natural filtration capacity. Hence, deploying poclains or mechanical opencast mining will result in deep pit extraction, resulting in bank instability and an increase in turbidity.
23) While so, the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 (SSMMG-2016) was issued by the MoEF&CC. The said guidelines highlight the need for sand mining compliance. While the above guidelines allow for semi-mechanized operation in certain conditions based on the period of operation, they strictly enforce that the mining plan must match the Environmental Clearance category.
24) It was argued on the side of the State of Tamil Nadu that the SSMMG-2016 has superseded the O.M. dated 24.12.2013 insofar as the sand mining is concerned. To support the said contention, it was stated that while issuing the SSMMG-2016, it did not specify the conditions mentioned in O.M. dated 24.12.2013. Therefore, it was argued that the intention was to go only by the SSMMG-2016 and not by the O.M. and the Environmental Clearances, though issued under 'B2' Category, mechanical mining is permitted.
25) The Environmental Clearances referred to in both the Original Application and Appeal impose conditions to the Project Proponent to have judicious use of a minimum number of poclains and not more than two poclains on the project site till the expiry of the lease period or excavation of the approved quantity, whichever is earlier. However, in the Oruvandhoor mining operation, a later amendment permits the use of four poclains in the Oruvandhoor Sand Quarry for loading sand into trucks by scooping it from the riverbed. [O.A. No.77 of 2023 (SZ)]
26) Whether the said operation would be legally authorized under the approved mining plan and does not constitute a violation. Certainly, this would be a circumvention by obtaining a clearance under 'B2' category, which is meant for manual mining only, but using heavy machinery.
Page 10 of 2527) In the next scenario [Appeal No.80 of 2022 (SZ)], where the decision to grant Environmental Clearance was not arbitrary but based on the rigorous appraisal on the specific recommendations of the State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC), then it is by adopting segmentation obtained the clearance under 'B2' Category, bringing it under the threshold of 4.95.5 Hectares and not account for the cluster impacts to avoid the public hearing and replenishment study requirements.
28) Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General and Mr. P.S. Raman, the Advocate General, State of Tamil Nadu, categorically stated that the O.M. is rendered otiose after the SSMMG-2016 were framed. Appendix - XI of the EIA Notification, 2006, provides for the procedure for Environmental Clearance for mining minor minerals, including cluster. The schematic presentation of requirements on Environmental Clearance of minor minerals, including cluster situation is provided therein.
29) If the arguments of the learned Additional Solicitor General and the Advocate General, State of Tamil Nadu, are to be accepted that the SSMMG-2016 had superseded the O.M. dated 24.12.2013, then the categorization of 'B2' so far as the sand mining is concerned, is not in existence. If that is so, the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) would not have issued Environmental Clearances under 'B2' Category for sand mining after 2016. Ironically, the Environmental Clearance under challenge in Appeal No.80 of 2022 (SZ) was issued on 10.09.2022 in favour of the Public Works Department, Thallakulam, Madurai, which is only under 'B2' Category and permits opencast method by mechanized means poclains/excavators and tippers. So, the argument of the learned Additional Solicitor General and the Advocate General do not support their stand.
30) The appellant in Appeal No.80 of 2022 (SZ) also had produced several of the Environmental Clearances issued under 'B2' Category across the country for sand mining.
Page 11 of 2531) In Himmat Singh Shekhawat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [Original Application No.123 of 2014 (PB)] reported in 2015 SCC Online NGT 846, the Principal Bench of this Tribunal, vide Judgment dated 13.01.2015, has held that:
"60. In the case before the Tribunal .... ...
... ... ...
However, in so far as the Office Memorandum dated 24 th June, 2013 placing a prohibition under paragraph 4(b) (i) is concerned, it apparently is beyond the scope of such guidelines. Prohibition of carrying on of mining activity or excavation activity which is otherwise permitted by the Notification of 2006 cannot be done by an Office Order, because it would apparently run contra to the provisions of Notification of 2006.
... ... ...
Similarly, the Office Memorandum dated 24th December, 2013 in so far as it declares that river sand mining of a lease area of less than 5 hectares would not be considered for grant of Environmental Clearance is again violative of the above settled principles. No such restriction has been placed under the Notification of 2006 or under the provisions of the Act and the Rules of 1986. The executive therefore, cannot take away the right which is impermissible under the principle or subordinate legislation.
... ... ...
This only furthers the cause of fair classification of projects, which is the primary purpose of the Notification. For these reasons, we quash paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Office Memorandum dated 24th June 2013 and part of paragraph 2(iii) in so far as it prohibits grant of Environmental Clearance to the mine area of less than 5 hectares as being violative of the Notification of 2006 and the Rules of 1986."
(emphasis supplied)
32) SSMMG-2016 refers to the O.M. dated 24.12.2013. The O.M. dated 24.12.2013 has to be read with S.O. 141 (E) dated 15.01.2016.
33) The relevant portion of the SSMMG-2016 is usefully quoted below:
"It is seen that the categorization of mines into 'B1' and 'B2' category in which Category 'B2' leases are being exempted from the requirement of Environment Impact Assessment, Environment Management Plan, and Public Consultation for grant of EC, in many cases now the mining leases are being given for 25 hectares or less. This defeats the purpose and intent of Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment which orders environment clearance for all mining leases irrespective of size. The environment clearance without Environment Impact Assessment, Environment Management Plan, and Public Consultation does not serve the purpose of environment clearance which is to ensure environmentally sustainable and socially responsible mining. So, if a cluster or individual lease size exceeds 5 hectare, the EIA/ EMP should be completed in the process of grant of prior environment clearance."Page 12 of 25
34) In similar facts, one of us, Hon'ble Judicial Member, had occasion to deal with the same issue in Original Application No.152 of 2021 (SZ) & batch [D. Hema Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors.] reported in 2023 SCC Online NGT 2192 and the relevant para of the judgment dated 23.03.2023 is extracted below:
"59. .... .... .... As per MoEF O.M. No. J-
13012/12/2013-IA-II(I) dated 24.12.2013, the following condition interalia is imposed i.e., "in respect of "B2"
Category mining is to be done manually". So the permission granted under specific condition (ii) and (xi) are contrary to each other. Since as per the above referred O.M under „B2‟ category only manual mining is permitted. This shows that besides nonconformity to the guidelines enforced, there is non-application of mind while imposing specific conditions.
60. It is also to be noted that though the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines allows usage of semi- mechanised and mechanised mining, it ought to be permitted only depending upon the location, thickness of sand, deposition and nature of land, which requires detailed examination for each site. Such an examination is possible only if a detailed Sand Replenishment Study and Environmental Impact Assessment Study are undertaken and is subject to public hearing to ensure transparency. In the instant case, when considering the amendment, SEAC/SEIAA before permitting semi-mechanized mining ought to have sought a detailed EIA study and consider the Environmental Clearance under "B1" Category which alone would have fulfilled the conditions of the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016. Under "B2" category neither an EIA study nor a public hearing is envisaged, as a result only manual mining is permitted. This aspect was completely ignored by SEAC and SEIAA and they were too eager to grant the amendment sought by fast tracking the proposal and bypassing well established procedures of scrutiny and analysis of all relevant documents.
61. So far as the instant cases are concerned, there are violation of Environmental Clearance conditions as "B2" category as they cannot be permitted to use any machine be it mechanised or semi-mechanised. Mandatorily, it has to be done only manually. We are at a loss to understand as to how the SEIAA has amended the Environmental Clearance given earlier without adverting to its own guidelines for "B2" categories. No doubt there is no specific challenge to the Environmental Clearance granted but amendment given by SEIAA without adverting to its own guidelines cannot be taken advantage of by the project proponent. In this regard, we regret to state that the authority who is the rule maker has deliberately omitted to follow the same detrimental to environment."
35) In Appendix: Table (5) of the SSMMG-2016 regarding the common method and practice of sand mining in the State of Tamil Nadu is stated as follows:
"Manual mining is carried out in certain quarries. In most of the sand quarries, two poclains are used by the PWD."Page 13 of 25
36) In the suggestions/recommendations from the States/Union of Territories for environmentally sustainable sand mining, the State of Tamil Nadu has given its suggestions, which are as follows:
"1. Excess sand deposits identified in the flood plains and in-stream areas only to be mined in order to safeguard and maintain ground water table.
2. Sand mining operation has to be carried out between 6 am to 7 pm.
3. Mining operation should be carried out in a systematic manner without affecting environment and ecology of the area."
37) Even the suggestions, as given by the State of Tamil Nadu, does not mention about the usage of machinery, but specifies that the mining operation to be carried out without affecting the environment and ecology of the area. Therefore, by any stretch of imagination, the 'B2' Category cannot be allowed to do mechanized mining. The sustainable sand mining does provide for 'B1' Category, where machinery can be deployed. However, the mining plan has to be given by the competent authority and the sand replenishment, geomorphology and hydrology studies have to be undertaken. Additionally, the local monitoring for replenishment at specific mining sites, monitoring of the entire reach through estuary will provide a cumulative response of the system to the sand and gravel extractions. So, avoidance of the study on the impact of sand mining would only result in deterioration or lead to ecological degradation. When, admittedly, the private parties are not allowed to do the sand mining and it is only the State Government that is allowed to do the sand mining, it would be appropriate for the Public Works Department to do the EIA Study, then obtain the Environmental Clearance under 'B1' category for sand mining by subjecting it to a public hearing. Even government conducted sand mining is not categorically exempted from obtaining Environmental Clearance. The State also should comply with the EIA Notification based procedure unless a specific statutory exemption applies. Thus, the 'monopoly' status of the State does not by itself exempt such mining from Environmental Clearance or EIA related requirements.
Page 14 of 2538) In Appeal No.80 of 2022 (SZ), where the challenge is to the Environmental Clearance issued under 'B2' Category with the opencast method by mechanized means poclains/excavators and tippers, the SEAC - Tamil Nadu has failed in its recommendation to address the issue of sustainable sand mining practices, as prescribed under the SSMMG-2016. While restricting the mining plan period to six months and the quantity not to exceed 4,99,550 Cu.M. and with the ultimate depth of 1 Meter below the bed level, the SEAC has not stated why it has recommended the mechanized means by using poclains. When the SSMMG-2016 specifically prescribes that the usage of semi- mechanized or mechanized method depends on the location, thickness of sand, deposition, agricultural land/riverbed, the same does not find a mention in the SEAC's recommendation and the SEIAA - Tamil Nadu also has failed to address the said issue. The State Government cannot lawfully bypass the Environmental Clearance process. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a valid DSR and replenishment study-based appraisal are mandatory pre-requisites for granting Environmental Clearance and the Environmental Clearances issued without them are treated as procedurally defective. SSMMG-2016 also specifically states that the manual mining method shall be preferred over any other method. Hence, the SEAC - Tamil Nadu has not provided any reason for recommending or permitting the use of machinery in deviation from the manual mining method in the amended Environmental Clearance dated 31.01.2023, after deleting Condition No.68. The Project Proponent being the Government and when it is doing mining in an area of less than 5 Hectares, only to secure Environmental Clearance under 'B2' Category to escape the rigours of the scrutiny, which negates the very objective of the EIA Notification and the Principle of Public Trust Doctrine and the Principle of Sustainable Development, obtained the Environmental Clearance under 'B2' Category. On that very ground, the impugned Environmental Clearance ought to be set aside.
39) In the reply statement by the Public Works Department/2nd Respondent in O.A. No.77 of 2023 (SZ) referred to the various orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Page 15 of 25 High Court to demonstrate how the development of law evolved regarding the 'B2' Category. The Government of Tamil Nadu constituted a High-Level Committee pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No.985 of 2000 dated 26.07.2002, to study the river and riverbeds in the State with reference to the impact of sand quarrying. In the process, taking cognizance of indiscriminate quarrying in the river systems, exploitation of natural resources and the illicit and haphazard sand mining which had led to degradation of groundwater quality, sea water intrusion, etc., the Government of Tamil Nadu took effective steps to curb the same by bring out an amendment to the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, by introducing 'Rule 38A', whereby all the existing leases for quarrying sand in Government lands and permissions granted in Ryotwari lands are ceased to operate with effect from 02.10.2003 and right to quarry the sand in the state only vest with the State Government through the Public Works Department and the Water Resources Department.
40) On 27.01.1994, under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Central Government (MoEF&CC) issued the EIA Notification, 1994, which mandated that all new projects/activities, including expansion/modernization of the existing industries, shall not be undertaken unless they are accorded Environmental Clearance by the Central Government. The said notification became the subject matter of M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India & Ors. Pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a circular was issued by the MoEF&CC on 12.02.2004 regarding the procedure for obtaining the Environmental Clearance, which was modified again on 28.10.2004 and subsequently, the MoEF&CC issued a Notification dated 14.09.2006 superseding all the earlier notifications issued in this regard. The said EIA Notification, 2006, were classified into two categories, namely 'A' and 'B' Categories. As per which, the 'A' Category projects will obtain Environmental Clearance from the MoEF&CC and for the 'B' Category projects, the Environmental Clearance will be issued by the SEIAA.
Page 16 of 2541) In the meanwhile, so far as the sand mining in Thamirabarani and other rivers in the State of Tamil Nadu are concerned, in M. Periyasamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. [W.P. (MD) No.11182 of 2010] dated 02.12.2010, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras had directed that no machinery should be used in quarrying. The said case did not deal with the issue of mining activity without Environmental Clearance or categorization of 'B1' and 'B2'. Subsequently, in the review application, the judgment was reviewed to state that the minimum use of poclains i.e. not more than two in each of the quarry site be used.
42) To be noted is that the said judgment was only to curb the rampant mining activities happening then and not about the categorization. Therefore, the judicial intent was to focus on crisis management and to regularise the supply chain and have a regulatory control mechanism immediately, rather than approaching it from a scientific perspective. It was with the said intention that the Hon'ble High Court had permitted the usage of machinery at the specific instance to ensure the continuity of the public works. In other words, the above-said judgment did not consider the ecological impact nor the usage of two poclains were based on any technical study. Further, the said order did not specify the number of machines that can be deployed in terms of the extent of the lease area. This allowed the smaller area leases to engage in deeper extraction. The said loophole led to cluster mining.
43) In Cauvery Neervala Aathara Pathukappau Sangam Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu [W.P. (MD) No.8111 of 2012] dated 03.08.2012, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras directed the State to obtain Environmental Clearance and directed the quarries that were in operation for more than five years to be stopped. In the meanwhile, the SEIAA - Tamil Nadu decided in its meeting held on 28.08.2012 to follow the procedure of the SEIAA
- Andhra Pradesh to formulate similar guidelines for mining projects as an interim arrangement and started issuing Environmental Clearances under 'B2' Category. Since the SEIAA - Tamil Nadu did not have the powers, there were challenges by way of appeals. In the meanwhile, on 24.12.2013, the MoEF&CC Page 17 of 25 issued O.M., classifying the projects into 'B1' and 'B2'. The river sand mining projects between 5 and 25 Hectares categorized as 'B2' and provided that mining was done manually. While so, the appeals were disposed of by this Tribunal, on 24.02.2014, directing the sand quarries to run on the ad hoc guidelines of the SEIAA for a period of six months and to submit a proposal for Environmental Clearance based on the new guidelines issued by the MoEF&CC on 24.12.2013.
44) The said order was also challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras at Madurai Bench in Kollidam Aaru Pathukappu Nala Sangam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2014 (5) CTC 397, which stayed the operation of the Tribunal's judgment. Upon challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, appeals were directed to be disposed of within a month. On 06.08.2014, the Hon'ble High Court in the final judgment held that the O.M. dated 24.12.2013, permitted only manual mining and that the SEIAA lacked inherent jurisdiction for such classification as 'B2' and the Environmental Clearances granted were illegal. The 2nd Respondent (PWD) did not challenge the said order.
45) After, the Himmat Singh Shekhawat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [O.A. No.123 of 2014 (PB)] dated 13.01.2015, that quashed the portion of the O.M. dated 24.12.2013, which stipulated that no clearance would be granted for less than 5 Hectares. On 15.03.2016, in consultation with all the States, including the State of Tamil Nadu, the MoEF&CC had issued the SSMMG-2016. The said guidelines explicitly recommend manual mining to preserve the river health.
46) The contention of the learned Additional Solicitor General and the Advocate General, State of Tamil Nadu, that the said SSMMG-2016 issued by the MoEF&CC has superseded the O.M. dated 24.12.2013 is incorrect, as the SSMMG-2016 is only a supplement and does not supplant the O.M. dated 24.12.2013. The said O.M. dated 24.12.2013 is referred to in the SSMMG-2016, and nowhere does it state that the O.M. has been superseded or has become inoperative. The SSMMG-2016 also indicates that, depending upon factors such as location, thickness of sand, deposition, and whether the area is agricultural land or riverbed, Page 18 of 25 the method of mining may be manual, semi-mechanized, or mechanized; however, the manual method of mining is to be preferred over any other method. The guidelines do not specifically state whether mechanized mining is applicable to 'B2' category projects, but merely recommend that the manual method be preferred over the mechanized method. In fact, the applicant has also mentioned that he has not objected to the usage of machinery but only has stated that it can be used in the 'B1' category, as the EIA Study and Public Hearing are being done.
47) It is important to note that the MoEF&CC has issued the SSMMG-2016 and Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020. The 2020 Guidelines does not replace the 2016 Guidelines and the 2016 Guidelines does not supersede the O.M. dated 24.12.2013. In fact, they only supplement and complement each other.
48) The National Green Tribunal has repeatedly emphasised that allowing riverbed mining without a scientific DSR and sand replenishment study entails serious ecological risk. Even a regulated extraction can lead to lowering and widening of the riverbed, bank erosion, disruption of flow patterns and loss of aquatic habitats. Therefore, it is imperative that Environmental Clearances must be strictly conditioned on the availability and quantity of such studies. The guidelines act as operational and monitoring framework that supplements the legal requirement of the EIA Notification. The newer guidelines are preferred when they are more stringent than the MoEF&CC's Office Memorandums.
49) In fact, the 2016 and 2020 Guidelines were issued to supplement the EIA Notification, 2006, particularly to fill the gaps in environmental management of minor minerals. In other words, the EIA Notification mandates prior Environmental Clearance while the guidelines define how the clearance is obtained and monitored. They work in tandem. To be noted is that the Office Memorandums are issued by the MoEF&CC to clarify or amend the procedures while guidelines offer a comprehensive framework.
Page 19 of 2550) From the above detailed discussions, it is clear that sand is a minor mineral and must be treated as a replenishment resource. The guidelines mandate the permissible volume of extraction to be capped at the annual replenishment rate of the river stretch. Thus, the use of the concept of annual replenishment protects long-term channel stability as well as the aquatic and riparian habitat by extracting volume sustainable by watershed processes. In other words, manual mining generally extracts sand at a pace that allows for natural regeneration. On the contrary, the use of poclains or JCB extracts the sediments that were accumulated over the decades within a matter of days, thereby leaving the river beyond replenishment or exceeding the replenishment capacity. In this context, the 'B1' category appraisal becomes important, as it includes the replenishment study, other than which there is no scientific data to assess the sustainable mining.
51) In this context, sand extraction requires a District Survey Report (DSR) that identifies aggradation areas suitable for mining while prohibiting operations in erosion zones. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in 2025 SCC Online SC 1069, State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. v. Gaurav Kumar & Ors., has mandated the submission of replenishment data for the grant of Environmental Clearances. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below:
"20. Conclusion: Having considered the regulatory regime introduced from time to time, increasing the width as well as the depth of scrutiny before granting an environmental clearance for sand mining, we are of the opinion that there is a mandatory requirement of preparation of a DSR. The DSR shall form the basis for application of environmental clearance. It shall also be the basis for preparation of reports and also appraisal of the projects. Another important facet of DSR is that it shall be prepared for all the districts and the draft is to be placed in the public domain. There is a requirement for keeping a copy of DSR in Collectorate. It must also be posted on the district's website for 21 days. After comments are received, they shall be considered and if found correct, they will be incorporated in the final report. The final DSR will then be finalized within 6 months by the DEIAA. The lifetime of the report is five years. After five years the existing DSR will not be tenable and a new DSR will have to be prepared and finalized. The purpose and object of prescribing a lifetime of five years for subsistence of a DSR is for the reason that the position of ecology and the environment is rapidly changing and the position that exists five years back, may not subsist for later days. It is true that it might have changed even before the expiry of five years but a reasonable estimate, to work as a benchmark is a policy consideration. As a precautionary principle, it is not only legal and valid but is also mandatory. It must be enforced strictly and with all vigor."Page 20 of 25
52) The 2020 Guidelines place special emphasis on the necessity of conducting a replenishment study. The recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2025 INSC 1025 Union Territory of J & K (previously State of Jammu & Kashmir) & Anr. vs. Raja Muzaffar Bhat & Ors., Civil Appeal No.8055 of 2022 & batch, mandates the requirement of such a replenishment study.
"29. From the foregoing analysis, it is apparent that in light of Guidelines, 2016 and the Guidelines, 2020, the absence of a replenishment study renders a DSR fundamentally defective. These guidelines categorically require that any assessment of mineable mineral quantity must be premised on scientific estimation of replenishment rates, failing which the DSR lacks the foundational data necessary to determine sustainable extraction limits.
30. Over the past two decades, environmental statutory and regulatory law in India has undergone significant evolution, particularly in response to the challenges posed by unregulated and unsustainable sand mining. Recognizing the adverse ecological impacts of such activities, successive legal and policy frameworks have progressively tightened the requirements for environmental compliance. In order to appreciate the present controversy, it was necessary to retrace the legal trajectory. Recently, this Court has discussed, in detail, the legal regime surrounding the preparation, nature, scope and importance of DSR in Gaurav Kumar (supra). However, the focal point for present discussion is the value that must be appended to replenishment study before EC is granted to mining operations.
31. Demand for construction-grade sand is growing at a tremendous rate and it is said that the world is expected to run out of this resource by 2050. Construction-grade sand, can be found in aquatic environments, such as rivers and is a provisioning ecosystem service. Even under controlled circumstances, the practice of extracting sand from the riverbed and banks impacts the environment. In the physical environment, the primary effects are riverbed widening and lowering. In the biological environment, the overarching effect is a reduced biodiversity and stretches from the aquatic and shoreline flora and fauna to the whole floodplain area. Due to easy access, river sand and gravel have been used extensively in construction projects. Depending on the mining operation method as well as morphologic and hydraulic characteristics of the river, sand mining may cause bed and bank erosion or other negative consequences for the river eco-system. It is, therefore, necessary to conduct appropriate studies, including that of replenishment to explore sustainable and cost-effective methods for river mining.
32. Without a proper study of the existing position of the riverbed and its sustainability for further sand mining, grant of environmental clearances would be detrimental for the ecology. It has therefore been held that a detailed study leading to a preparation of the replenishment report is an integral part of the DSR. If the DSR becomes the foundation for consideration of an application for environmental clearance, then it is compelling to ensure replenishment studies are undertaken in advance and the report forms an integral part of the DSR.
33. In view of the existing legal regime that mandates preparation of replenishment report in a scientific manner and such a report forming an integral part of the District Survey Report, we hold that a District Survey Report without a proper replenishment study is equally untenable."Page 21 of 25
53) In the light of the above, DSR with replenishment study is mandatory in the process of EIA and issuance of Environmental Clearance.
54) In the State of Tamil Nadu, the Water Resources Department assesses annual deposition based on rainfall, catchment geology and river profiles. Until replenishment studies confirm viability, no mining activity should be permitted. The physical impacts of illegal sand mining include the widening and deepening of riverbeds, which increases sand vulnerability. In the absence of sufficient sand to retain monsoon water, it flows rapidly into the sea. The consequences include severe erosion and more critically, groundwater depletion. Additionally, seawater intrusion degrades soil quality, resulting in reduced agricultural productivity.
55) From an ecological perspective, illegal mining disrupts habitats, reduces biodiversity, and adversely affects flora and fauna. When agriculture suffers due to water scarcity, it impacts food security and related activities. Communities dependent on healthy river ecosystems also face risks to their livelihoods.
56) The legal sand mining has to comply with the prescribed extraction limits, which is through the Environmental Clearance granted by the SEIAA, as per the prescribed provisions of the EIA Notification, 2006 and its subsequent amendments, on the basis of the approved mining plan. The Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 and Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020, are the appropriate regulatory regime for sustainable sand mining and adoption of environmental-friendly management practices. The sand mining rules have also laid down the procedure subsequently for making the District Survey Report (DSR) for sand mining and the DSR shall form the basis for the application for Environmental Clearance, preparation of reports and appraisal of the projects. Though the aerial survey and use of remote sensing and GI applications, etc. are mentioned in the SSMMG-2016, it is the EIA Study, which will do the replenishment study, which would be a scientific data to determine the quantity.
Page 22 of 2557) In the above context of sand mining, "SEGMENTATION" has emerged as a practice of dividing a single large mining project into several smaller lease areas to deliberately bypass rigorous environmental regulations. Segmentation constitutes a regulatory loophole that was subject to judicial scrutiny in the Deepak Kumar case, wherein it was held that such segmentation ignores the cumulative environmental impact.
58) Effective river replenishment, in fact, requires a holistic study of a long river stretch, preferably covering at least one district. Segmentation makes it difficult to accurately calculate the Annual Replenishment Rate. When the replenishment study is incorporated as part of the District Survey Report (DSR), segmentation can be avoided. Moreover, it is easier for authorities to monitor a larger river stretch than fragmented sections. Even if the cluster guidelines are followed, the inclusion of a replenishment study as part of the DSR makes the preparation of the EIA or EMP easier.
59) In O.A. No.77 of 2023 (SZ), the mining area is 16.18.0 Hectares and has conveniently evaded the 'B1' status by obtaining the 'B2' categorization, despite using mechanized mining. In Appeal No.80 of 2022 (SZ), the extent is 4.95.5 Hectares, which is marginally less than the regulatory threshold. In the event if the leases are within 500 meters of each other, the cluster method has to be applied, which requires a cumulative environmental impact assessment study, as stipulated in 'B1' Category. Therefore, the standalone 'B2' Category is different from the cluster.
60) In view of the above detailed discussions, it is evident that the original Environmental Clearance, which is impugned in Appeal No.80 of 2022 (SZ), was issued on 10.09.2022 and was subsequently amended on 31.01.2023. The original clearance was valid for a period of six months from 10.09.2022. The amendment dated 31.01.2023 pertained only to the type of mining and did not alter the period of validity. Therefore, the validity of the Environmental Clearance expired on 10.03.2023.
Page 23 of 2561) In Original Application No.77 of 2023 (SZ), the Environmental Clearance was initially granted on 10.08.2016 for a period of two years and was later extended by order dated 01.02.2023.
62) In both matters [Original Application and Appeal], the projects were classified under the 'B2' category and admittedly, no EIA study was conducted. Further, in both cases, the validity of the Environmental Clearances was extended.
63) In Original Application No.77 of 2023 (SZ), the Environmental Clearance initially permitted the use of only two poclains but was subsequently amended to allow the use of five poclains. As already held, in view of the O.M. dated 24.12.2013, which has been upheld by this Tribunal, river sand mining under the 'B2' category must be carried out only manually. Since no EIA study was conducted in either case, it is deemed that the Project Proponent initially intended to undertake manual mining but later sought amendments to carry out mechanical mining for convenience. Therefore, the admitted use of poclains and consequent mechanical mining, in the absence of an Environmental Clearance under the 'B1' category, amounts to illegal mining. Accordingly, the entire period of mining carried out by the Project Proponent is illegal and the Project Proponent is liable to pay environmental compensation for the violations, to be assessed by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB).
64) The impugned Environmental Clearance dated 10.08.2016 in Original Application No.77 of 2023 (SZ), as extended on 01.02.2023 under the 'B2' category, is in violation of the conditions stipulated in the O.M. dated 24.12.2013 and is therefore liable to be set aside. Similarly, the Environmental Clearance dated 10.09.2022, impugned in Appeal No. 80 of 2022 (SZ), though issued under the 'B2' category, was later amended to permit the use of poclains, thereby rendering the clearance invalid under the 'B2' category. Consequently, the mining carried out pursuant to the same is illegal.
Page 24 of 25 65) In the result,
(I) The impugned Environmental Clearance dated
10.08.2016 in Original Application No.77 of 2023 (SZ), as extended on 01.02.2023 and the impugned Environmental Clearance issued on 10.09.2022 in Appeal No.80 of 2022 (SZ) are declared illegal.
(II) Consequently, the Project Proponent is liable to pay environmental compensation, to be assessed by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB).
(III) The CPCB is directed to assess the environmental damage and levy appropriate compensation within a period of three months from the date of this judgment, in accordance with law.
66) With the above directions, the Original Application No.77 of 2023 (SZ) and Appeal No.80 of 2022 (SZ) are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM Sd/-
Dr. Prashant Gargava, EM Internet - Yes/No All India NGT Reporter - Yes/No O.A. No.77/2023 (SZ) & Appeal No.80/2022 (SZ) 27th March, 2026. Mn.
Note:
The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the CPCB for compliance.Page 25 of 25