Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

08. That the aspect that mechanized mining was not permissible, was not considered by the EAC which also did not consider as to whether so much quantity of sand could be mined, mainly using small escalation policy during the mining period.

55. The N.G.T concluded that the Expert Appraisal Committee as well as the MOEF and CC had not even considered their own Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016; the directions issued by the NGT in similar nature of sand mining leases, regarding the responsibility of the authorities to conduct district survey of the sand available, the rate of depletion and replenishment of sand in that area so as to ascertain the quantity available for mining and how much quantity could be permitted for mining in such areas, before permitting a particular quantity of sand to be mined from the mining area. The N.G.T observed that the expert body, is an expert body intended to protect the environment, which ought to have but did not properly consider the various aspects and recommended accepting the Environmental Management Plan submitted by the Project Proponent without properly examining the reports of various District Collectors. The N.G.T concluded that under the circumstances a detailed study had to be conducted by the Project Proponent, which had to appraise the EAC as well as the MOEF and CC, before ascertaining for allowing such type of mining of huge quantity.

70. The next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 are not applicable, deserves rejection. The submission was that those guidelines relate to the sand mining from the river and since the E.C granted to the petitioner is for sand mining not from the river those Guidelines, had no application.

71. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the objectives of the Guidelines to emphasise that it relates to the sand mining from the river. He also referred to the effect of sand river mining for the same purpose.

72. We are not convinced. A perusal of the Guidelines, 2016 clearly show that they apply to the sand mining from the river and also from other sand sources. The Guidelines have been framed with the objective to ensure Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 and environment friendly management tracks, in order to restore and maintain the ecology of river and other sand sources. A perusal of the „objectives‟, „the effect of sand and gravel mining‟ does not show that these guidelines of 2016 are for the sand mining from the river only. We need not reproduce those guidelines as from perusal it is evident that they are not confined to the sand mining from the river but, as a whole to ensure control of the un-control sand mining and with an objective to protect the environment and the right of the population to live in clean and safe surroundings. Violation of the principles of natural justice:

(iv) The N.G.T rightly took the cognizance of various aspects in discharge of its statutory function. Its power and jurisdiction while deciding a lis cannot be confined only to the grounds raised in the appeal before it.

(v) Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 are applicable to the sand mining from the river as also from the other sources. It is not confined only to the mining of sand from the river only.

(vi) The E.C granted, even prior to 2021 notification has to be in conformity with the then existing rules, regulations, notification and the guidelines. Any EC issued in violation, cannot claim immunity from interference merely because the grant was prior to 2021 notificaotion.