National Green Tribunal
Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan vs Seiaa on 5 February, 2026
Item Nos.2.1 to 2.26 (Pune Bench)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE
[THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)]
APPEAL NO.01 OF 2026 (WZ)
Abhishek Vikas Gondane .....Appellant
Versus
SEIAA & Ors. ....Respondents
WITH
APPEAL NO.02 OF 2026 (WZ)
Abhishek Vikas Gondane .....Appellant
Versus
SEIAA & Ors. ....Respondents
WITH
APPEAL NO.03 OF 2026 (WZ)
Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan .....Appellant
Versus
SEIAA & Ors. ....Respondents
WITH
APPEAL NO.04 OF 2026 (WZ)
Abhishek Vikas Gondane .....Appellant
Versus
SEIAA & Ors. ....Respondents
WITH
APPEAL NO.05 OF 2026 (WZ)
Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan .....Appellant
Versus
SEIAA & Ors. ....Respondents
WITH
Page 1 of 13
APPEAL NO.06 OF 2026 (WZ)
Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan .....Appellant
Versus
SEIAA & Ors. ....Respondents
WITH
APPEAL NO.07 OF 2026 (WZ)
Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan .....Appellant
Versus
SEIAA & Ors. ....Respondents
WITH
APPEAL NO.08 OF 2026 (WZ)
Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan .....Appellant
Versus
SEIAA & Ors. ....Respondents
WITH
APPEAL NO.09 OF 2026 (WZ)
Abhishek Vikas Gondane .....Appellant
Versus
SEIAA & Ors. ....Respondents
WITH
APPEAL NO.10 OF 2026 (WZ)
Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan .....Appellant
Versus
SEIAA & Ors. ....Respondents
WITH
APPEAL NO.11 OF 2026 (WZ)
Page 2 of 13
Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan .....Appellant
Versus
SEIAA & Ors. ....Respondents
WITH
APPEAL NO.12 OF 2026 (WZ)
Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan .....Appellant
Versus
SEIAA & Ors. ....Respondents
WITH
APPEAL NO.13 OF 2026 (WZ)
Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan .....Appellant
Versus
SEIAA & Ors. ....Respondents
WITH
APPEAL NO.14 OF 2026 (WZ)
Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan .....Appellant
Versus
SEIAA & Ors. ....Respondents
WITH
APPEAL NO.15 OF 2026 (WZ)
Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan .....Appellant
Versus
SEIAA & Ors. ....Respondents
WITH
APPEAL NO.16 OF 2026 (WZ)
Abhishek Vikas Gondane .....Appellant
Versus
Page 3 of 13
SEIAA & Ors. ....Respondents
WITH
APPEAL NO.17 OF 2026 (WZ)
Sanjay Kushabrao Rehpade .....Appellant
Versus
SEIAA & Ors. ....Respondents
WITH
APPEAL NO.18 OF 2026 (WZ)
Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan .....Appellant
Versus
SEIAA & Ors. ....Respondents
WITH
APPEAL NO.19 OF 2026 (WZ)
Sanjay Kushabrao Rehpade .....Appellant
Versus
SEIAA & Ors. ....Respondents
WITH
APPEAL NO.20 OF 2026 (WZ)
Abhishek Vikas Gondane .....Appellant
Versus
SEIAA & Ors. ....Respondents
WITH
APPEAL NO.21 OF 2026 (WZ)
Abhishek Vikas Gondane .....Appellant
Versus
SEIAA & Ors. ....Respondents
Page 4 of 13
WITH
APPEAL NO.22 OF 2026 (WZ)
Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan .....Appellant
Versus
SEIAA & Ors. ....Respondents
WITH
APPEAL NO.23 OF 2026 (WZ)
Abhishek Vikas Gondane .....Appellant
Versus
SEIAA & Ors. ....Respondents
WITH
APPEAL NO.24 OF 2026 (WZ)
Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan .....Appellant
Versus
SEIAA & Ors. ....Respondents
WITH
APPEAL NO.25 OF 2026 (WZ)
Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan .....Appellant
Versus
SEIAA & Ors. ....Respondents
WITH
APPEAL NO.30 OF 2026 (WZ)
Abhishek Vikas Gondane .....Appellant
Versus
SEIAA & Ors. ....Respondents
Date of hearing: 05.02.2026
Page 5 of 13
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. SUJIT KUMAR BAJPAYEE, EXPERT MEMBER
Appellant : Mr. Sangramsingh R. Bhonsle,, Advocate along-with
Mr. Nrupal Dingankar, Ms. Pallavi Kakade, Ms. Pushkara
Bhonsle, Mr. Sanmitra Pol, Mr. Naman Sherstra and
Ms. Sneha Bhonsle, Advocates
Respondents : Mr. Aniruddha Kulkarni, Advocate for R-1/SEIAA &
6/MPCB
Mr. Nitin P. Deshpande, Advocate for R 2 & 3
ORDER
1. The present appeals have been filed by the appellants seeking quashing of the following Environmental Clearances granted by Respondent No.1- SEIAA for undertaking sand mining at the site in question:-
"
Item Nos. Appeal No. Date of EC
1 01/2026 16.12.2025
2 02/2026 16.12.2025
3 03/2026 16.12.2025
4 04/2026 16.12.2025
5 05/2026 10.12.2026
6 06/2026 12.12.2026
7 07/2026 16.12.2025
8 08/2026 11.12.2025
9 09/2026 12.12.2026
10 10/2026 12.12.2026
11 11/2026 12.12.2026
12 12/2026 12.12.2026
13 13/2026 12.12.2026
14 14/2026 12.12.2026
15 15/2026 12.12.2026
16 16/2026 12.12.2026
17 17/2026 12.12.2026
18 18/2026 11.12.2025
19 19/2026 11.12.2025
20 20/2026 12.12.2026
21 21/2026 12.12.2026
22 22/2026 16.12.2025
23 23/2026 16.12.2025
24 24/2026 10.12.2026
Page 6 of 13
25 25/2026 12.12.2026
26 30/2026 12.12.2026
2. These appeals have been filed on the grounds that the Replenishment Study, which forms a part of the District Survey Report, in terms of the 2020 Guidelines, is defective, as the same is not being done in consonance with the Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining- 2020, which provides as under:-
"5.1 Generic Structure of Replenishment Study:
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."
3. According to the above guidelines, four surveys were required to be conducted for the first year, for which specific time period was also provided. But in the case in hand, the surveys, which are said to have been conducted, details of which are given at page nos.382 to 387 of the paper book, the same do not indicate as to when these surveys were conducted, as they show only the year i.e. from 2015-16 up to 2025-26. As per the MoEF&CC's Notification dated 15.01.2016, the District Survey Report in terms of the Notification of the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change dated 15.01.2016, as well as 25.07.2018 ought to form the basis Page 7 of 13 for application of Environment Clearance, preparation of reports and appraisal of projects. As per the said Notifications, the District Survey Report ought to be updated once every 5 years.
4. It is further submitted that in the present case, admittedly, the District Survey Report has been prepared by Respondent No.3- The District Mining Officer, Bhandara in the year 2025-2026. Therefore, the same shall be valid up-to 2030-2031. However, in terms of Clause 5.1 of the 2020 Guidelines, since the District Survey Report has been recently updated by Respondent No.3 in the year 2025-2026, the Replenishment Study would require four surveys. However, on perusing of the Replenishment Study at Chapter No. 8, viz. Replenishment Calculation of Sand Ghat of the District Survey Report prepared by the Respondent No. 3, the same does not disclose any details pertaining to the four surveys undertaken by Respondent No.3. The four surveys, which are mandatorily required for the Replenishment Study, are not forming a part of the Replenishment Study, render the same defective, which in turn, renders the District Survey Report as defective.
5. It is further submitted that no Mining Plan has been submitted by Respondent No.3 in Proposal for grant of Environment Clearance. The Notification dated 15.01.2016, issued by Respondent No.4, in Appendix- XI provides for the Procedure for Environmental Clearance for Mining of Minor Minerals. Further, the 'Schematic Presentation of Requirements on Environmental Clearance of Minor Minerals including cluster situation' provides for the specific requirements that ought to be fulfilled by any proposal for grant of Environment Clearance for various Category of Projects. For a project in the 'Category B2' having an area of 0 to 5 Ha., the proposal for grant of Environment Clearance ought to contain a copy of Approved Mine Plan along-with other documents. But in the case in hand, Page 8 of 13 Respondent No.3 has only submitted a Letter dated 27.11.2025, which is annexed at page nos.505 to 511 of the paper book, issued by the Directorate of Geology and Mining, Government of Maharashtra, approving the Mining Plans for a total of 112 sand ghats, including the said sand ghat. But Respondent No.3 has not produced a copy of the Approved Mining Plan in its application for grant of Environment Clearance. Therefore, the Impugned Environment Clearance, being contrary to the Notification dated 15.01.2016, ought to be quashed and set aside.
6. It is further submitted that no Pre-Feasibility Report has been annexed in Proposal for grant of Environment Clearance. Clause 6 of the Notification dated 15.01.2016 mandates that a Project Proponent shall furnish a Pre-Feasibility Report when making an application for grant of Environment Clearance for a Category B2 Project. Therefore, since the submission of a Pre-Feasibility Report is a statutory mandate, the absence of a Pre-Feasibility Report in the present case renders the application for grant of Environment Clearance fundamentally defective. On perusal of the PARIVESH Portal of Respondent No.4, for the purposes of grant of the impugned Environment Clearance, it is evident that no Pre-Feasibility Report has been uploaded by Respondent No.3 on the portal of the Respondent No.4. However, even in the absence of the Pre-Feasibility Report, the SEAC-1 in its 339th Meeting has proceeded to recommend the grant of the Impugned Environment Clearance. Such recommendation is contrary to the provisions of Clause 6 of the Notification dated 15.01.2016 issued by the Respondent No. 4, which categorically mandates a copy of a Pre-Feasibility Report, in addition to the other documents as specified. Hence, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside.
7. It is further submitted that no recommendation has been made by the Sub-Divisional Committee for proposing the said sand ghat for Page 9 of 13 Environment Clearance. The Notification dated 15.01.2016, in Appendix- X titled as "Procedure for Preparation of District Survey Report" provides that a Sub-Divisional Committee, comprising of a 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 Environment Clearance has been applied for and make recommendation on the suitability of the site for mining or prohibition thereof. But in the present case, this requirement of the Notification dated 15.01.2016 has not been complied with. Respondent No.5 vide its Notification dated 08.04.2025, in Part Two has constituted a Technical Sub-Committee, a Taluka Sand Mining Monitoring Committee and a District Level Sand Mining Monitoring Committee. In the proposal made by Respondent No. 3 for the grant of the Impugned Environment Clearance, Respondent No. 3 has relied on the alleged recommendations of the Technical Sub-Committee constituted, in terms of the Notification dated 08.04.2025. However, in terms of the Notification dated 15.01.2016 as well as 25.07.2018, the Respondent No. 4 has constituted a Sub-Divisional Committee, which is under an obligation to visit the site, and then recommend the suitability of the site for the project. The Respondent No. 3, on the basis of the Notification of the Respondent No. 5 dated 08.04.2025 has merely relied upon the recommendations of the Technical Sub- Committee, without complying and relying on the recommendations of the Sub-Divisional Committee, in terms of the Notification dated 15.01.2016 as well as 25.07.2018. The Notification dated 08.04.2025, being a State Notification, at best can only assist and add to the Notifications dated 15.01.2016 and 25.07.2018 issued by the Respondent No.4. The Notification dated 08.04.2025 of the Respondent No.5- The State of Maharashtra through the Chief Secretary, in no way, can run contrary or Page 10 of 13 omit any procedure established, in terms of the Notification dated 15.01.2016 and 25.07.2018. Hence, the present appeals have been filed.
8. We may mention here that the main challenge in the present appeals appears to be to the District Survey Report (DSR), which is said to be defective because of the improper replenishment study being conducted. We fail to understand as to why the DSR was not assailed at the appropriate stage when the same was put in public domain inviting objections against the same by the appellants herein.
9. In regard to the above, when we enquired from learned counsel for the appellants, he has drawn our attention to the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in Union Territory of J&K (Previously State of Jammu & Kashmir) & Anr. vs. Raja Muzaffar Bhat & Ors. [(2025) SCC OnLine SC 1789], wherein he has drawn our attention to following paragraphs:-
"3. It is, therefore, compelling to hold that a DSR is valid and tenable only when a proper replenishment study is conducted.............................................................................. ...............................................................................................
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.
Page 11 of 13 ............................................................................................. .............................................................................................
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........................"
10. Having relied upon the above citation, it is urged by learned counsel for the appellants that the District Survey Report (DSR) requires proper study to be conducted and if the Replenishment Study is found to be defective, as in the case in hand, it is said that four surveys were not conducted, and the same should be held to be not appropriate Replenishment Study. Consequently, the DSR should also be treated to be defective one, hence it is said that the basis of assailing the impugned EC is the defective District Survey Report (DSR).
11. In view of above submissions, we admit these appeals.
12. Registry is directed to issue Notice to the Respondents, returnable within 02(two) weeks.
13. Since learned counsel for Respondent No.1- SEIAA & Respondent No.6- MPCB; and learned counsel for Respondent No.2- The District Collector, Bhandara and Respondent No.3- The District Mining Officer, Bhandara accept notice on behalf of these Respondents respectively, notices are waived against them.
14. Appellants are directed to take necessary steps for service to the Respondents by both ways (Dasti as well as by Registered Post) and also on available e-mail/WhatsApp., and submit service affidavit within one week.
Page 12 of 13
15. Appellants are also directed to supply copy of the appeals and relevant documents to the Respondents within a week.
16. Respondents are directed to submit their reply affidavits within 02(two) weeks through e-filing and also circulate the same to the appellants and also the other Respondents by available e-mail.
17. Rejoinder, if any, is directed to be submitted within one week thereafter.
18. Learned counsel for the appellants has pressed for interim stay to be passed in the appeals in hand. But we are of the view that we will consider the prayer for stay only after hearing the other side.
19. Put up these matters for further consideration on 13.03.2026.
Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee, EM February 05, 2026 APPEAL NO.01 OF 2026 (WZ) along-with the other Appeals AM Page 13 of 13