Patna High Court
Maruti Fuels StationversusThe Union of India
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
A fresh replenishment study is mandatory before any mining can proceed, and the respondents are restrained from taking coercive action against the petitioner until such study is completed.
Summary
The petitioner, Maruti Fuels Station, won the e‑auction for Aurangabad Sone Sand Block No.8 but alleged that extensive sand extraction had already depleted the resource and no replenishment study had been conducted. The petitioner sought a direction to halt any coercive action and to compel the authorities to carry out a fresh replenishment study before mining could proceed. The respondents argued that the environmental clearance was lawfully granted, that the tender terms required the bidder to accept the sand availability, and that any challenge to the clearance should be filed before the National Green Tribunal. The Court examined the statutory framework, the need for a replenishment study under the 2020 Enforcement & Monitoring Guidelines, and recent Supreme Court precedents emphasizing the necessity of such studies for sand mining. Concluding that the authorities had failed to conduct a requisite replenishment assessment, the Court directed a fresh study and restrained the respondents from taking coercive steps against the petitioner pending its completion. The writ petition was therefore allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the respondent authorities must conduct a fresh replenishment study before permitting sand mining in the contested block.
- Whether the petitioner can be restrained from coercive action pending the replenishment study.
- Whether the environmental clearance issued without a replenishment study is valid.
- Whether the matter falls within the jurisdiction of the High Court writ jurisdiction or should be approached before the National Green Tribunal.
- Whether the tender conditions and the petitioner’s acceptance of the bid bind him despite changed mineral potential.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- sand mining
- environmental clearance
- replenishment study
- mineral lease
- public hearing
- sustainable mining
- writ petition
- National Green Tribunal
- tender conditions
- illegal mining
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5097 of 2024
======================================================
Maruti Fuels Station a Proprietorship Firm (Proprietor Sivaganesh. N, son of
P. Nasraju, 3-28/4, Main Road, S. Annavaram, Tuni, East Godavari, Andhra
Pradesh), having its place of business at Mruthi Weigh Bridge Premises,
Bhimavaram, Bypass Road Tadepalligudem, District-West Godavari, Andhra
Pradesh-534101, through its Authorized Signatory, Mazharul Hasan, aged
about 46 years (Male), son of Mojibul Hasan, Khsra-264, Sikrauri, Near
Unique High School, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh-226101.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Ministry of Environment, Forest and
Climate Change, Government of India, Indira Paryawaran Bhawan, Jorbagh
Road, New Delhi-110003.
2. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Mines, Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate cum Collector, Aurangabad.
5. The State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, through its
Member Secretary, 2nd Floor, BELTRON, Baldev Bhawan Road, Shastri
Nagar, Patna-800023.
6. The Bihar State Pollution Control Board, Parivesh Bhawan, Patlputra
Industrial Area, P.O. Sadakat Ashram, Patna-800010, through its Member
Secretary.
7. The Mining Development Officer, Aurangabad Aurangabad.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, Advocate
Mr. Avinash Shekhar, Advocate
For the UOI : Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Ambastha, S.C.-26
Mr. Santosh Kumar Mishra, A.C. to S.C.-26
For the Mines Deptt. : Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Spl. P.P.
Ms. Kalpana, Advocate
For the SEIAA : Mr. Kumar Ravish, Advocate
Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate
For the BSPCB : Mr. Shivendra Kishore, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Prisu Snehil, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
Patna High Court CWJC No.5097 of 2024 dt.19-03-2026
2/27
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 19-03-2026
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has
prayed for the following reliefs:-
i. For a direction to the respondent
authorities to consider the site survey
report dated 08.12.2023 before
proceeding further, as mining over the
leased area will be directly in conflict
with the statutory provisions, in absence
of any replenishment.
ii. For a direction to the respondent
authorities and in particular MoEFCC
to take up the present case with regard
lenishment.
iii. For a direction to the respondent
authorities and in particular Department
of Mines & Geology, not to take any
coercive step against the petitioner for
not proceeding further, till final
adjudication of the present writ petition.
iv. To grant any other relief or reliefs for
which the petitioner may be found
entitled to in the facts and circumstances
of the case.”
2. During the pendency of this case, the
petitioner has filed Interlocutory Application No.1 of 2024
bringing on record the letter issued by the Collector-cum-
District Magistrate, Aurangabad dated 13.03.2024, by which,
Patna High Court CWJC No.5097 of 2024 dt.19-03-2026
3/27
according to the petitioner, he was threatened for legal
consequences if CTE (Consent to Establish) and CTO (Consent
to Operate) is not procured by him in order to operate the sand
ghat.
3. Thereafter, Interlocutory Application No.02
of 2025 has been filed for amending the prayer portion of the
writ petition and prayer has been made for quashing the memo
dated 08.09.2025 issued by the respondent-Director, Mines,
whereby the representations dated 14.07.2025 and 26.08.2026
filed by the petitioner have been rejected. The aforesaid
interlocutory application has been allowed by this Court vide
order dated 18.11.2025 and the aforesaid additional prayer has
been made part of the main writ petition.
4. The State of Bihar floated a tender for
Aurangabad Son Sand Block No.8 and in the aforesaid tender
the petitioner participated and became the highest bidder after
quoting Rs.61,43,55,300/-. Thereafter, vide letter dated
24.11.2022, the Mining Development Officer, Aurangabad
issued in-principle acceptance letter and the petitioner was
directed to deposit an amount of Rs.8,68,11,075/- to fulfill the
requirement of security deposit, being 25% of the highest bid
amount. Thereafter, mining plan was approved and the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5097 of 2024 dt.19-03-2026
4/27
petitioner deposited draft of Rs.3,00,000/- along with pre-
feasibility report to the Member Secretary, State Environment
Impact Assessment Authority (for short “SEIAA”) and
requested for issuance of the Terms of Reference (ToR).
Subsequent thereto, the petitioner vide letter dated 12.04.2023
deposited the requisite fee of Rs.1,50,000/- in favour of the
Member Secretary, Bihar State Pollution Control Board towards
the expenses for public hearing to be conducted by the Bihar
State Pollution Control Board and thereafter the public hearing
was conducted on 02.06.2023.
5. At the time of public hearing, the petitioner
visited the local of Aurangabad Son sand block no.8 and
observed that massive excavation was already made to the
aforesaid sand ghat and consequently, requested the respondent
no.7- Mining Development Officer, Aurangabad to provide the
informant with regard to the excavation, however, a reply was
issued from the office of the Mining Development Officer
accepting that from 01.10.2022 to 31.03.2023 about 2,37,490
Metric Tonnes of sand was dispatched. Therefore, it is the case
of the petitioner that the aforesaid letter dated 04.07.2023
clearly shows that even after issuance of tender, mining of sand
from the sand ghat allotted to the petitioner continued and in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5097 of 2024 dt.19-03-2026
5/27
meeting dated 22.09.2023, the State Level Expert Appraisal
Committee (SEAC), under Agenda Item No.01 had observed as
under :-
“The Project Proponent along with their
environmental consultant M/s. Rian Enviro Pvt.
Limited. made a presentation on the key
parameters and salient features of the project.
The Project Proponent informed the
Committee that enough replenishment of sand
has not happened after closure of mining by
the previous lease holder. In such a situation,
the project proponent expressed its disinterest in
obtaining environmental clearance for
operating the sand ghat in the present
condition. Therefore, the committee decided to
recommend to the SEIAA to refer the matter to
the Department of Mines and Geology, Govt.
of Bihar for the comments”.
6. Thereafter, it is the case of the petitioner that
he had requested the SEAC to grant the environmental
clearance only after assessment of replenishment of the sand
ghat is carried out. Further, vide letter dated 23.12.2023 the
petitioner handed over a soft copy of drone videography
showing the current status of the sand ghat. Despite not
conducting the fresh replenishment study, the respondent
authorities issued the environmental clearance in favour of the
petitioner on 30.01.2024. After issuance of environmental
Patna High Court CWJC No.5097 of 2024 dt.19-03-2026
6/27
clearance, the petitioner made a representation dated 03.02.2024
to the District Mining Officer, bringing to his notice all the
relevant facts but no action has been taken in this regard and the
District Magistrate vide letter dated 13.03.2024 threatened the
petitioner of legal consequences if he fails to obtain CTE/CTO
and commence the mining work, which is brought on record by
way of interlocutory application.
7. According to the petitioner, pursuant to the
direction of this Court vide order dated 18.03.2025, he had filed
a representation before the respondent no.3, who vide his order
dated 08.09.2025 rejected the same.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner while participating in the tender process
floated for sand block No.8 on 01.11.2022 had merely accepted
the existing position as on the date of the tender, however, the
respondent authorities between October, 2022 and March, 2023
had admittedly excavated 2,37,490 M.T. of sand equivalent to
Rs.23.24 crores from the same sand ghat for which the tender
was floated. Therefore, it is submitted that there is no dispute
with regard to the fact that mineral potential, as existing on the
date of tender, as also on the date of issuance of in-principle
sanction order, was substantially reduced for which the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5097 of 2024 dt.19-03-2026
7/27
petitioner cannot be prejudiced and no estoppel can operate
against him behind his back.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that after issuance of in-principle sanction order, when
mining was carried out by the contractors employed by the
Bihar State Mining Corporation, the respondent authorities were
duty bound to carry out fresh replenishment study in terms of
the Enforcement & Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining,
2020 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate
Change. Adverting to Clause-5 of the aforesaid Guidelines, it
has been submitted that replenishment study and mineral
potential is ascertained only after a detailed replenishment study
is conducted, as excavation has to be limited to estimated
replenishment, with consideration of other regulatory
provisions.
10. It is the submission of learned counsel for
the petitioner that in Clause 5.2.4 titled ‘Replenishment study
shall have the details of’ of the aforesaid Guidelines, it has
specifically been mentioned that replenishment study having
detailed comparison of both pre-Monsoon and post-Monsoon
elevation data should mandatory be attached.
11. The next submission of learned counsel for
Patna High Court CWJC No.5097 of 2024 dt.19-03-2026
8/27
the petitioner is that since the Department of Mines had
accepted that that mining was carried out till March, 2023,
although illegal mining continued even thereafter, it was
imperative on the part of the respondent authorities to get the
replenishment study carried out pre-Monsoon, 2023 and post-
Monsoon, 2023 and only then mineral potential could have been
assessed, however, the said exercise has not been carried out in
the present case and therefore, the petitioner cannot be forced to
accept the terms and operate Sand Block-08 Aurangabad only
on assumption that sand must have been replenished.
12. It has been submitted by learned counsel for
the petitioner that the Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in the
case of Union Territory of J&K & Anr. vs. Raja Muzzaffar
Bhat & Ors. reported as 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1789, has held
that replenishment report is mandatory and even DSR without
such report is void.
13. Adverting to Annexure-13 and 13/A of the
writ petition, which is the letter dated 03.02.2024 written by the
petitioner to the District Mining Officer, Aurangabad annexing
the Site Survey report dated 08.12.2023, it has been argued by
learned counsel for the petitioner that the Site Survey conducted
by the petitioner and its report dated 08.12.2023 clearly reveal
Patna High Court CWJC No.5097 of 2024 dt.19-03-2026
9/27
that there was no replenishment and there were 59 pits already
mined out having depth of about 3 to 5 meters and the sand was
available only in approximately 25% of the total mining lease
area. It is the submission of the petitioner that the aforesaid
report has not been controverted by the respondent authorities
and now they are taking shelter of the clauses of the tender,
which are not relevant for the present purpose. It has also been
argued that the clauses of the tender only refer to verification of
the mining lease area prior to participation in the bid, the
Department having accepted the royalty from third parties
against mining from the said area cannot be permitted to take
advantage of its own wrong. It is the further submission of
learned counsel for the petitioner that most of the area allotted
to the petitioner is devoid of sand and having a thick cover of
vegetative soil and agriculture is being practiced. The mining
area has been stabilized and no sign of sand replenishment is
envisaged.
14. It has further been argued that there is no
replenishment study carried out by the respondent authorities
for pre & post - Monsoon, 2023, whereas E.C. has been issued
on 30.01.2024 (Annexure-P/12) and even the specific
conditions of the environmental clearance stipulates that
Patna High Court CWJC No.5097 of 2024 dt.19-03-2026
10/27
excavation of mineral must be commensurate to the
replenishment.
15. He has drawn the attention of this Court to
Clause 21 of the Specific Condition of E.C. which reads as
under:-
"Project proponent shall submit annual
replenishment report certified by an authorized
agency. In case the replenishment is lower than
the approved rate of production, then the
mining activity / production levels shall be
decreased / stopped accordingly till the
replenishment is completed."
16. It is the submission of learned counsel for
the petitioner that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors. (Civil Appeal
Nos. 3661-3662 of 2020) reported as (2022) 2 SCC 348, had
permitted for the time being, the State Government to carry out
mining activities through Bihar State Mining Corporation, for
which, it may employ the services of the contractors and
therefore, in view of the aforesaid, it is the respondent
authorities who are the project proponent and therefore, they
ought to have submitted the replenishment report, but the same
was not submitted since there was no replenishment of sand in
Block No.08, Aurangabad. As such, it is argued that it would be
Patna High Court CWJC No.5097 of 2024 dt.19-03-2026
11/27
unfair on the part of the respondents to withhold the money of
the petitioner and coerce him to conduct mining, knowing fully
well the reduced mineral potential.
17. It is submitted by the petitioner that earlier
in this proceeding, the respondents have accepted the factum of
changed scenario and a coordinate Bench of this Court vide
order dated 18.03.2025 directed the petitioner to represent its
case before the Director, Mines and make an application under
Rule 29-A(1)(d) of Rules, 2019, i.e. meant for submission of
mining plan and the said representation was rejected on the
ground that no revised mining plan was submitted by the
petitioner ignoring Rule 17(4), which mandates that mining
plan has to be submitted within a period of three months from
the date on which communication regarding grant of mineral
concession is received, or such other period as may be
decided/allowed by the Department for submission of approved
mining plan. As such, without permission being granted by the
Department, the petitioner could not have submitted a revised
mining plan. However, recently a drone survey was carried out
in May, 2025 (Annexure- P/15), which clearly suggests that
there has been no replenishment of sand.
18. It is the next submission of learned counsel
Patna High Court CWJC No.5097 of 2024 dt.19-03-2026
12/27
for the petitioner that even there is clear embargo on mining
sand beyond a depth of 03 meters as per Rule 30 of the Rules,
2019, however, adverting to both the drone survey reports of
2023 and 2025, which has already been brought to the notice of
the respondents, in which it has clearly been indicated that there
are more than 35 mined out pits with depth of more than 3
meters, already existing and the same is not being
acknowledged by the respondents. The petitioner is also
apprehensive of the fact that once agreement is executed and the
petitioner commences mining operation, allegation can be
leveled and agreement can be terminated under Rule 30. As
such, until and unless existing situation of mining lease area is
specifically admitted by the respondent authorities, the
petitioner cannot be forced to operate the sand ghat on two
grounds, firstly the reduced mineral potential and secondly
already mined out pits by illegal miners which are more than 3
meters in depth. The Department having altered the position and
received royalty from third party for the lease area, should
either carry out the entire exercise afresh or should refund the
security deposit of the petitioner and reconsider the geo
coordinates of the mining lease area itself.
19. In this case, a counter affidavit has been
Patna High Court CWJC No.5097 of 2024 dt.19-03-2026
13/27
filed by the respondent no.5- SEIAA wherein it has been stated
that the role of the SEIAA is to consider and grant
environmental clearance as per the scheduled mentioned in the
EIA notification as amended from time to time. In present case,
the environmental clearance has been granted to the petitioner
upon due assessment as per the EIA notification.
20. In the counter affidavit filed by the
respondent nos. 1 to 4 and 7, it has been stated that though it has
been admitted by them that they have given temporary lease to
some private persons for carrying out mining into the said area
for which the tender notice was published but the said
temporary lease were granted in terms of the orders passed by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pawan Kumar
(supra). It has also been stated that after conducing the fresh
DSRs in terms of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
fresh e-auction was conducted for the sand ghat, in which the
petitioner participated in the tender and became the highest
bidder for Aurangabad Sone Sand Block No.8. The respondents
have emphasized Clause-42(xix) of the Tender Document,
wherein it it has been provided that before participating in the
tender, the bidders should, at their own level, consider among
other things, the availability of sand in the Balughat area but, no
Patna High Court CWJC No.5097 of 2024 dt.19-03-2026
14/27
objection or claim of any kind shall be entertained after the
auction process. In view of the aforesaid clause of the Tender
Document, the petitioner being fully satisfied about the
availability of sand and other factors made the bid in the e-
auction to the tune of Rs. 61,43,55,300/- against the minimum
reserve amount of Rs. 26,71,11,000/- and now the claim of the
petitioner cannot be entertained.
21. Further, it has been stated that the estimated
mineral quantity for the purpose of grant of lease is provided in
the notice inviting tender, which is based on a scientific
estimate i.e. the DSR prepared in terms of the SSMG 2016 and
EMGSM 2020. Therefore, there is no issue in the quantity and
availability of mineable sand in the instant sand ghat and the
entire issue is being created with the sole motive to reduce the
royalty amount to be paid by the petitioner.
22. It is further submitted that even if some
amount of sand excavated by the contractor appointed by the
BSMCL, under the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is
deducted from the total sand reserve of the Aurangabad Sone-08
sand ghat, even then more than 60% of reserve is still available
in the said sand ghat and petitioner is only allowed to mine 60%
of the total sand reserve as per the EMGSM 2020.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5097 of 2024 dt.19-03-2026
15/27
23. It has also been stated in the counter
affidavit that the Department of Mines and Geology, Bihar has
conducted the survey through the Central Mine Planning and
Design Institute Ltd. (CMPDIL), Ranchi regarding the
replenishment study of the Sone river within the Aurangabad
District, which shows that the total availability of sand in the
Sone River of Aurangabad is 97%. The said replenishment
study of Sone river reveals that there is sufficient sand available
after every monsoon. Further, the e-auction for settlement of
sand ghat in question was for the 5 years from date execution of
lease deed and the petitioner is well aware of the fact that
mineable reserve shown in tender document is only for the first
year of settlement and the sand is regularly replenished after
monsoon and therefore, there will be sufficient quantity of sand
in the subsequent years.
24. Lastly, it has been stated in the counter
affidavit that there is no provision in the Bihar Minerals
(Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and
Storage) Rules, 2019 for compensation or refund or for
reducing the royalty amount on any of the grounds mentioned
by the petitioner. Further, the petitioner after accepting the
terms of the tenders had submitted his bid and in terms of
Patna High Court CWJC No.5097 of 2024 dt.19-03-2026
16/27
Clause 22(v) of the tender document, if the successful bidder
fails to obtain the statutory clearance, the Collector shall forfeit
the security deposit.
25. Learned counsel for the answering
respondents submits that in the present writ petition the
petitioner has made allegation that there is no replenishment in
Aurangabad Sone Sand Block No.08 based on a private drone
survey report dated 06.12.2023, which has no statutory
recognition and was never accepted by any authority. He further
submits that despite the specific direction of this Court vide
order dated 17.06.2025 to the petitioner to file an application,
the petitioner has not filed any such application and a
completely false and frivolous statement has been made by him
before this Court that it has already filed a representation before
the answering respondent and as soon as the said order of this
Court came to the notice of the respondent authorities, the
Assistant Director made a communication to the petitioner vide
memo no.4080 dated 25.03.2025 informing that the petitioner
has not filed any application/representation before the
respondent authority and further directed that if such application
has been filed then proof of such filing may be provided or else
such representation may be filed at the earliest so that the matter
Patna High Court CWJC No.5097 of 2024 dt.19-03-2026
17/27
may be disposed of in light of the order of this Court. Therefore,
it is the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that
the petitioner has not filed any representation pursuant to the
direction of this Court and it has made statement of filing of
representation only with a view to harass and humiliate to the
respondent authorities.
26. It has also been submitted that the petitioner
has already undergone the entire statutory processes i.e. DSR,
Mining Plan approval, ToR, Public hearing and thereafter, it has
been granted environmental clearance on 30.01.2024 and now it
is not open to the petitioner to claim that no replenishment
study was done over the sand ghat.
27. The respondents, in reply to the
interlocutory application no.02 of 2025 filed by the petitioner
challenging the order dated 08.09.2025, has made the following
statements:-
“7. That at the outset, it is pertinent to state that the
order contained in Memo No.4994A dated
08.09.2025 issued by the Respondent Director,
Mines is a speaking and reasoned order which
has been passed in compliance of Principles of
Natural Justice, taking into consideration all
the submissions made by the Petitioner in his
representations dated 14.07.2025 and
26.08.2025 as well as the submissions made by
Patna High Court CWJC No.5097 of 2024 dt.19-03-2026
18/27
the Learned Counsel of Petitioner before the
Respondent authority.
8. That it is humbly stated that the Petitioner in his
representations dated 14.07.2025 and
26.08.2025 had asserted the following points
for consideration:-
I. The mine lease area, spanning 98.93
hectares, has limited sand availability
with only 25% of the area containing
sand as of December 2023 and no
significant replenishment observed by
May 2025.
II. Approximately 42.5 hectares of the lease
area is currently utilized for agricultural
purposes, supporting the livelihood of
the local community.
III. A total of 19.1 hectares has already been
mined out, indicating substantial prior
extraction.
iv. The surveys confirm no sand
replenishment has occurred over the past
two years, rendering further mining
activities unsustainable both
environmentally and financially.
9. That it is humbly stated that the impugned order
has been passed by the Respondent Director,
Mines on the following grounds:-
i. The representations dated 14.07.2025
and 26.08.2025 was filed in the light of
the order dated 18.03.2025 wherein the
Hon'ble Court directed to file an
application/representation under Rule
Patna High Court CWJC No.5097 of 2024 dt.19-03-2026
19/27
29A(1) (d), however, the representations
do not contain any reference to Rule
29A(1)(d) nor any request has been
made for approval of revised Mining
plan.
ii. During the course of hearing on
02.09.2025, when the Respondent asked
the Petitioner to submit revised mining
plan in the light of the Hon'ble Court's
order, the Petitioner refused to submit
the said revised mining plan.
iii. The total mineable quantity of sand has
been fixed as 17,80,740 cubic meter
which is evident by District Survey
Report, EC issued by SEIAA, Bihar, LOI
issued by Mineral Development Officer,
Aurangabad vide letter no.- 2072, dated-
24.11.2022 as well as the tender
document.
iv. Clause 42(xii) of the Tender document
provides that the State shall not be liable
to compensate in case of hindrance
arising in excavation due to
unavailability of sand, disputes of
boundary etc.
V. Clause 42(xii) of the Tender document
provides that the settlee shall not be
entitled to any claim in case problem
arises in production/transportation of
sand due to unavailability of mineral
resources, obstacle in approach path,
boundary dispute etc.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5097 of 2024 dt.19-03-2026
20/27
vi. Clause 42(xix) of the Tender document
provides that the bidder before entering
into the bidding process shall inspect
and satisfy himself with regard to
availability of sand, transportation path
etc.
vii. The Clause 5(iv) of Lol given by the
MDO, Aurangabad as contained in letter
no.2072 dated 24.11.2022 provides a
condition for permissible quantity for
mining which has also been accepted by
the Petitioner. The said clause provides
that the quantity of sand as permitted
under Mining Plan, Environmental
Clearance, Water (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air
(Prevention and Control of Pollution)
Act, 1981 (whichever is lesser) shall be
permitted to be excavated. In case of
decrease in permitted mining quantity,
the settlement amount shall not be
decreased.
viii. As the Petitioner did not submit any
proposal for revised mining plan,
therefore, the mining quantity as
provided under Clause 5(iv) of Lol shall
not be considered.
10. That it is submitted that based on the grounds
as stated herein above, the representations
submitted by the Petitioner has been rejected by
the Respondent Director, Mines by virtue of the
impugned order.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.5097 of 2024 dt.19-03-2026
21/27
28. It has been submitted by the respondents that
in the present case the core issue regarding conducting of
replenishment study or not is a highly technical and factual
matter requiring an expert assessment, which cannot come
under writ jurisdiction. In support of this submission, he has
relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of ABL International vs. ECGC reported as (2004) 3 SCC
553 wherein it has been held that where determination of
disputed questions of fact is necessary, particularly involving
technical evaluation, writ jurisdiction is not the remedy.
29. It is the next submission of learned counsel
for the respondents that the petitioner has already been granted
an environmental clearance on 30.01.2024 and under section 16
of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, any challenge to
environmental clearance must be filed before the National
Green Tribunal. In support of this submission, he has relied
upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of Bihar vs. Jain Plastics reported as AIR 2002 SC 206.
30. It is submitted that the petitioner has
voluntarily participated in the tender process accepting the
tender conditions and thereafter obtained mining plan and terms
of references and whereafter public hearing was done and
Patna High Court CWJC No.5097 of 2024 dt.19-03-2026
22/27
ultimately the environmental clearance was issued, now he
cannot take the ground that no replenishment study was done
for the sand ghat. In support of this submission, he has relied
upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Rajasthan SIDS vs. Diamond &Gem reported as (2013) 5 SCC
470, wherein it has been held that a party who has voluntarily
accepted the contractual terms cannot approbate and reprobate.
31. The next submission of learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the respondents have followed all the
statutory steps for verifying the sand availability on the sand
ghat and no authority has ever accepted the petitioner’s private
survey report, inasmuch as, the pits existed due to illegal mining
and not due to lack of replenishment and moreover, the
petitioner has not produced any scientific or statutory material
to substantiate its clam.
32. So far as the submission of learned counsel
for the petitioner that the SEAC has accepted the petitioners
plea in the meeting, it has categorically been submitted that the
observations of the SEAC did not accept the contention of the
petitioner as it merely sought comments from the Mining
Department. Since EC was granted by the competent authority,
the issue become conclusively decided and cannot be reopened
Patna High Court CWJC No.5097 of 2024 dt.19-03-2026
23/27
at this stage.
33. I have considered the submissions of the
parties and perused the materials available on record.
34. In the present case, the availability of sand
in the Aurangabad Block No.8 sand ghat, settled in favour of
the highest bidder i.e. petitioner, by way of e-auction, was put to
question on the ground that short term mining permits were
issued to third parties, which according to the petitioner,
resulted in severe depletion in availability of sand. During the
course of obtaining environmental clearance, the petitioner
came to know the state of depletion of sand in the aforesaid
sand ghat. The petitioner brought the fact that enough
replenishment of sand has not happened after closure of mining
by the previous lease holder, to the SEAC, which decided to
recommend to the SEIAA to refer the matter to the Department
of Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar for the comments.
Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner took upon himself and
conducted a drone survey to further ascertain the extent of
depletion and availability of sand in the aforesaid sand ghat.
35. On the other hand the contention is rebutted
by the answering respondents by stating that the river in
question is a living river having continuous and sufficient
Patna High Court CWJC No.5097 of 2024 dt.19-03-2026
24/27
annual replenishment and therefore, a post bid reassessment is
impressible.
36. It is settled law that the mining activities
cannot be permitted beyond the annual replenishment rate since
that would endanger the environment and if the geological
processes that naturally replenish the availability of sand cannot
match the rate at which the mining occurs then over the period
of time aggressive and continued mining activity would result
in long term environmental damage. Therefore, sustainable
development is sine qua non to strike a balance between
developmental activities and the conservation of environment.
37. Recently, this Court in the case of Manjeet
Chawla vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported as 2026 SCC
OnLine Pat 535 has already held that replenishment study is
sine qua non for sand mining projects.
38. It is settled law that mining over river beds
cannot be permitted contrary to the replenishment rate of sand
and that a replenishment study must be undertaken by the State
before auctioning the sand ghats since the replenishment study
forms the very basis on which the quantity of permissible
mining is determined and subsequently the environmental
clearance is granted. This Court has noted that under Clause-5
Patna High Court CWJC No.5097 of 2024 dt.19-03-2026
25/27
of the Enforcement & Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining,
2020 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate
Change, the need for replenishment study is paramount in order
to nullify the adverse impact arising due to excessive and
aggressive sand extraction. Thus, the replenishment study is not
merely to ascertain the permissible quantity of sand for
extraction but also is necessary to minimize the adverse impact
therefrom and strike a balance between sand extraction / mining
and preservation of riparian habitat.
39. It is equally settled that the State holds all
natural resources including the minerals as a trustee of the
public and must deal with them in a manner consistent with the
nature of such a trust.
40. In the present case, the State ought to have
considered a fresh replenishment study in order to ascertain the
availability of sand in the Aurangabad Sone Sand Block No.8
and the true prevailing replenishment rates before proceeding
with the auction. The mere averment by the respondent
authorities that river Sone being a living river and
replenishment being a natural course without substantiating
scientific basis for arriving at such a conclusion is insufficient.
It is true that the respondents cannot rely upon the drone survey
Patna High Court CWJC No.5097 of 2024 dt.19-03-2026
26/27
conducted by the petitioner but they cannot escape from the
duty cast upon them to act in the best interest of the natural
resources and to prevent aggressive mining of sand in the sand
ghat and hamper the ecosystem.
41. What is clearly crystallized is that the annual
extractable quantity must be less than the annual replenishment
rate in order to align strictly with sustainable mining practices.
42. For the foregoing reasons, in order to strike
a fair balance and keeping in view the sustainable mining
practice, this Court deems it appropriate in the interest of justice
to direct for concerned respondent authorities to conduct a fresh
replenishment study for the Aurangabad Sone Sand Block No.8
by a competent authority / institution to ascertain the present
and true quantity of sand available in the sand ghat and its
replenishment rate in the sand ghat, which has been allotted to
the petitioner. Till such replenishment report is submitted, the
respondents are restrained from taking any coercive action
against the petitioner.
43. After the replenishment study is conducted,
the parties shall take all necessary steps expeditiously to
commence the process of mining in order to prevent any further
loss to the State.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5097 of 2024 dt.19-03-2026
27/27
44. With the aforesaid observations and
directions, this writ petition is allowed and disposed of to the
above extent.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
pawan/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE 22.12.2025
Uploading Date 24.03.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…