Holding

A District Survey Report lacking a proper replenishment study is untenable, rendering any environmental clearance based on it invalid; consequently, the NGT's decision is upheld.

Summary

The Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and the National Highways Authority sought to overturn a National Green Tribunal (NGT) order that set aside environmental clearances (EC) granted for sand and gravel mining for a highway project. The Supreme Court examined whether an EC could be validly issued when the District Survey Report (DSR) lacked a replenishment study, as mandated by the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines 2016 and the Enforcement & Monitoring Guidelines 2020. It held that a DSR without a proper replenishment study is fundamentally defective, making any EC based on it invalid. The Court also rejected the argument that limiting mining depth could compensate for the missing study, upheld the NGT’s decision, and dismissed the appeals. Additional issues concerning alleged violations of J&K mineral rules and use of heavy machinery were left to the appropriate authorities.

Issues considered

Whether environmental clearance can be granted in the absence of a District Survey Report prepared in accordance with the 2016 and 2020 sand‑mining guidelines, i.e., without a replenishment study.
Whether the restriction on mining depth and production limits can substitute for the lack of a replenishment study.
Whether the NGT's order setting aside the EC is liable to be interfered with.
Whether the project proponent violated the Jammu & Kashmir Minor Mineral Concession, Storage, Transportation of Minerals and Prevention of Illegal Mining Rules, 2016.
Whether the use of heavy machinery contravenes condition 53 of the EC.

Legislation cited

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Accepting the recommendations of the EAC, the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) granted Environmental Clearance (EC) to the project proponent on 19.04.2022. Aggrieved by the issuance of EC interested in environment, respondent no.1 filed an appeal before the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which was allowed. Whether the decision of NGT requires any interference. Headnotes† Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 –

Subjects

environmental clearancesand miningdistrict survey reportreplenishment studysustainable sand mining guidelinesNational Green TribunalEIA notificationmineral regulationJammu & Kashmir mineral rulesheavy machinery violation

Judgment

[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2056 : 2025 INSC 1025

Union Territory of J & K
(Previously State of Jammu & Kashmir) & Anr.
v.
Raja Muzaffar Bhat & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 8055 of 2022)
22 August 2025
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and
Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Accepting the recommendations of the EAC, the State Environment
Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) granted Environmental
Clearance (EC) to the project proponent on 19.04.2022. Aggrieved
by the issuance of EC dated 19.04.2022, person interested in
environment, respondent no.1 filed an appeal before the National
Green Tribunal (NGT), which was allowed. Whether the decision
of NGT requires any interference.

Headnotes†
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – Sustainable Sand
Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 – Enforcement and
Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020 – Environment
Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 – Environment Impact
Assessment Notification, 2016 – The National Highway
Authority of India awarded a contract to the project proponent
for construction of a 4-lane bypass/ring road around Srinagar
City – Four mineral blocks were reserved for the project
proponent to excavate, develop and utilise the mineral – The
project proponent applied for environment clearances (EC) for
extraction of sand and gravel in the 3 blocks – J&K Expert
Appraisal Committee (J&K EIAA) by its order dated 02.03.2022
granted the environmental clearance, however, it specifically
recorded that the District Survey Report is not formulated as
per guidelines and therefore it needs revision for including
the replenishment data – Following, SEIAA granted EC to the
project proponent on 19.04.2022 – Aggrieved by issuance of
EC, respondnet no.1 filed appeal before the NGT – NGT allowed
the appeal and held that the EC was granted despite the DSR
not being prepared in line with the guidelines – Challenge to:
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2057

Union Territory of J & K (Previously State of Jammu & Kashmir) & Anr.
v. Raja Muzaffar Bhat & Ors.

Held: The purpose and objective of preparing such District
Survey Report (DSR) is to scientifically locate the place for
sand mining after calculation of annual rate of replenishment
for allowing mining in the area – The replenishment report is an
integral part of the DSR – 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 – 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 – A
District Survey Report without a proper replenishment study is
untenable – On facts, J&K EIAA compromised with regulatory
integrity by granting the environment clearances (EC) on the basis
of a DSR without a replenishment report – The compromise sought
to be achieved by permitting the project proponent to go ahead with
a “restricted mining depth of maximum 1 meter and bulk density
of 2.0 for production of the mineral and supplying it to maximum
production of 34800 mt in view of non-availability of replenishment
data” is unacceptable – Thus, the decision of the NGT is upheld.
[Paras 1, 29, 32, 33, 37, 39]

Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 –
Guiding principle:
Held: The 2016 guidelines are based on the principle that
unregulated sand mining is unsustainable and must be controlled –
Compliance with existing and future laws is mandatory rather than
optional – Leaseholders should be allowed to self-regulate, provided
they demonstrate adherence to legal requirements – However,
if self-regulation proves ineffective, stricter enforcement and
monitoring will be necessary, with penalties imposed in accordance
with the law – Additionally, environmental protection and public
well-being must be prioritized, ensuring that natural resources are
utilized responsibly to contribute positively and sustainably to the
economy – The prime objective of the said Guidelines is to ensure
that sand mining is done in an environmentally sustainable and
socially responsible manner. [Para 24]
2058 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 –
Preparation of District Survey Report – Relevance and Scope:
Held: As per the 2016 Guidelines, the preparation of DSR is
essential for (i) identification of areas of aggradation/deposition
where mining can be allowed, (ii) calculation of annual rate of
replenishment, (iii) identifying ways of scientific and systematic
mining, (iv) implementing safeguards in place to ensure the mining
carried out is sustainable – The scope of the DSR should include
detailed information for each district, covering rivers, streams, and
other sand sources, along with the availability of sand, gravel,
and aggregate resources – It must also provide data on existing
mining leases for these materials – Additionally, the classification
of mining areas should distinguish between sections of rivers,
streams, and other sources that are suitable for sand and aggregate
extraction and those where such activities are strictly prohibited – It
is further provided that such survey document shall be prepared
in the district based on direct and indirect benefits of mining and
identification of the potential threats to the river/stream beds in
the district. [Para 26]

Case Law Cited
State of UP v. Gaurav Kumar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1069;
Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana [2012] 4 SCR 819 : (2012) 4
SCC 629 – referred to.
Satendra Pandey v. MoEFCC, 2018 SCC OnLine NGT 2388 –
referred to.

Books & Periodicals Cited
E.S. Rentier, L.H. Cammeraat, The Environmental Impacts of
River Sand Mining, Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 838,
Part I, 2022; Hamed Haghnazar, et al - Evaluation of infilling and
replenishment of river sand mining pits, Environmental Earth
Sciences, Vol. 79 (14), 2020 – referred to.

List of Acts
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957; Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; Air (Prevention
and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981; Environment (Protection)
Act, 1986; Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines,
2016; Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining,
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2059

Union Territory of J & K (Previously State of Jammu & Kashmir) & Anr.
v. Raja Muzaffar Bhat & Ors.

2020; Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 1994;
Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006; Environment
Impact Assessment Notification, 2016; Transportation of Minerals
and Prevention of Illegal Mining Rules, 2016.

List of Keywords
Environmental clearance; Mining; Sand; District Survey Report;
Environmentally sustainable; Socially responsible manner;
Replenishment data; Environmental protection; Replenishment
report is an integral part of the DSR; Rate of replenishment.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8055 of 2022
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.09.2022 of the National
Green Tribunal at New Delhi in AN No. 24 of 2022
With
Civil Appeal No. 68 of 2023 and Civil Appeal No. 11027 of 2025

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
Narender Hooda, Sr. Adv., Dr. Surender Singh Hooda, Ms. Pallvi
Hooda, Shiv Bhatnagar, Yuvraj Nandal, Ms. Kavya Manuja, Ms.
Kavya Manuja, Ms. Tannu, Utsav Singh Bains, Akash Yadav, Yusuf,
G.M. Kawoosa, Pashupathi Nath Razdan.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Sr. Adv., Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, Ms. Sanjana
Grace Thomas, Ms. Itisha Awasthi, Ms. Sadhana Madhavan, Ms.
Kavana Rao, D.P. Singh, Ms. Tara Elizabeth Kurien.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Contents*

1. Introduction of the issue: ...................................................... 2
2. Factual Background: ............................................................ 4

* Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment.
2060 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

3. The Legal and Regulatory Regime: ..................................... 6
4. The Environment (Protection) Act: ....................................... 7
5. EIA Notifications 1994: ......................................................... 7
6. The Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006: ...... 8
7. Decision of this Court in Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana: .... 9
8. Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2016: ............ 12
A. Establishment of District Level Environment Impact
Assessment Authority (DEIAA) & District Expert
Appraisal Committee (DEAC) under Para 3A: ............ 14
B. New category called Category B2 for sandmining in
districts was introduced through para 4(iv): ................ 14
C. Preparation of District Survey Report (DSR) Introduced
through Para 7(iii): ..................................... 14
D. Procedure for preparation of DSR introduced through
Appendix X: .................................................................. 15
E. Challenge to the Notification 2016 the direction of NGT
in Satendra Pandey’s case: ............................... 17
9. The Sand Mining Guidelines and the Focus on Replenishment
Study: .................................................................................... 18
A. Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines,
2016: ............................................................................ 19
B. Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining,
2020: ........................................................................... 22
10.Need for replenishment study: ............................................. 25
11. Application of law to the facts of the present case .............. 27

1. Introduction of the issue:
1. In State of UP v. Gaurav Kumar1, we have declared that a valid
and subsisting District Survey Report2 is mandatory for grant of

1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1069
2 Hereinafter, “DSR”.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2061

Union Territory of J & K (Previously State of Jammu & Kashmir) & Anr.
v. Raja Muzaffar Bhat & Ors.

environmental clearance3 for sand mining. We have also annulled
certain environmental clearances, even though recommended by
District Expert Appraisal Committee4 and granted by District Level
Environment Impact Assessment Authority5, on the basis that a ‘draft
DSR’ is untenable6 in law. In this appeal we take a step further. District
Survey Reports are prepared under para 7(iii) of EIA notification dated
15.01.20167 following the mandatory procedure laid down in Appendix
X read with Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 20168
and Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 20209.
The purpose and objective of preparing such District Survey Report
is to scientifically locate the place for sand mining after calculation of
annual rate of replenishment for allowing mining in the area.
2. Just as forest conservation requires assessment of tree growth
rate before permitting timber harvesting to ensure that felling of
trees does not exceed tree growth, a replenishment study enables
us to take an informed decision as to whether sand mining can be
permitted without degrading the rivers’ natural balance. Importance
of replenishment study is explained in the Sand Mining Guidelines
2020 as follows:
“The need for replenishment study for river bed sand is
required in order to nullify the adverse impacts arising
due to excessive sand extraction. Mining within or near
riverbed has a direct impact on the stream‘s physical
characteristics, such as channel geometry, bed elevation,
substratum composition and stability, in-stream roughness
of the bed, flow velocity, discharge capacity, sediment
transport capacity, turbidity, temperature etc. Alteration
or modification of the above attributes may cause an
impact on the ecological equilibrium of the riverine regime,
disturbance in channel configuration and flow-paths. This
may also cause an adverse impact on in-stream biota and

3 Hereinafter, “EC”.
4 Hereinafter, “DEAC”.
5 Hereinafter, “DEIAA”.
6 State of UP v. Gaurav Kumar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1069.
7 Issued under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
8 Hereinafter, Sand Mining Guidelines, 2016.
9 Hereinafter Sand Mining Guidelines, 2020.
2062 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

riparian habitats. It is assumed that the riparian habitat
disturbance is minimum if the replenishment is equal to
excavation for a given stretch. Therefore, to minimize the
adverse impact arising out of sand mining in a given river
stretch, it is imperative to have a study of replenishment
of material during the defined period.”10
3. It is, therefore, compelling to hold that a DSR is valid and tenable
only when a proper replenishment study is conducted.

2. Factual Background:
4. The facts germane to the issue, and necessary for disposal of
these appeals are as follows: The project proponent submitted three
proposals for undertaking mining activities in (i) Block 1, Driegam
Bridge Downstream, Shaliganga Nallah Bed Mining Project, (ii)
Block-2 Banderpora Upstream, Shaliganga Nallah Bed Mining
Project and (iii) Block 4, Panzam Bridge to Trumbi Bridge (Lalgam)
Downstream. The J&K UT Expert Appraisal Committee (“J&K UT EAC”
hereinafter) in its 81st meeting dated 03.01.2022 discussed the said
proposals and rejected the same, particularly on grounds that the
proposed area of extraction is already over-exploited and is depleted
due to heavy illegal mining. It also noted that the DSR prepared for
the concerned district was not formulated as per guidelines as the
same needs revision for including replenishment data.
5. In the meanwhile, the project proponent received ‘Fit for Mining
Certificate’ for Blocks 1, 2 and 4 from the Geology and Mining
Department on 05.02.2022.
6. Following certification of mining department, the project proponent
submitted its second proposal. Having considered the said proposal
in its 87th meeting on 02.03.2022, the J&K UT EAC recommended
the project for grant of EC. While recommending grant of EC, the
J&K UT EAC clearly recorded and reiterated that DSR is not being
formulated as per the guidelines.
7. Accepting the recommendations of the EAC, the State Environment
Impact Assessment Authority11 granted EC to the project proponent

10 Guidelines formulated under Section 23C of MMDR Act, 1957.
11 Hereinafter, “SEIAA”.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2063

Union Territory of J & K (Previously State of Jammu & Kashmir) & Anr.
v. Raja Muzaffar Bhat & Ors.

on 19.04.2022. While granting the EC, SEIAA restricted the depth
of mining to maximum of 1 meter in view of “non-availability of
replenishment data” in the DSR.
8. Challenge to the grant of EC: Aggrieved by the issuance of EC dated
19.04.2022, person interested in environment, respondent no. 1 filed
an appeal before the National Green Tribunal12 primarily impugning
the grant of EC on the grounds that;
“i. The Environmental Clearances dated 19.04.2022 were
granted without taking into account the grounds on which
the previous proposals of the project proponent were
rejected and continued to grant Environmental Clearances
without due consideration of the same;
ii. Violation of Rule 4(iv) of Jammu and Kashmir Minor
Mineral Concession, Storage, Transportation of Minerals
and Prevention of Illegal Mining Rules, 2016 which prohibits
any minor mineral concession being granted within a
distance of 25 meters of any embankment;
iii. The Environmental Clearances have been granted
despite the District Survey Report not being prepared in
line with the Guidelines, as noted by JKEAC;
iv. Violations of conditions of the Environmental Clearances
dated 19.04.2022 by the project proponent who undertook
certain activities strictly prohibited under the Environmental
Clearance.”
(emphasis supplied)

9. The Tribunal, vide the order impugned before us allowed the appeal
and set aside the EC dated 19.04.2022 finding it to be violative of
environmental norms. Thus, the present appeals.

3. The Legal and Regulatory Regime:
10. The significance of mining for economic development, particularly
in relation to industries involved in infrastructure development,
energy, cement etc has long been recognised. In exercise of its

12 Hereinafter, “Tribunal”.
2064 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

legislative competence, Parliament enacted the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act, 195713, for development and
regulation of mines and minerals in the country. This legislation is,
however, not concerned with safeguarding environmental interests.
For that purpose, we have the Water (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1981, and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, as well as policy
measures such as the National Mineral Policies of 2008 and 2019.

4. The Environment (Protection) Act:
11. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 is a comprehensive legislation
enacted with the object of protecting and improving the environment.
Under Sections 3 and 5 of the Act, the Central Government is
empowered to take all such measures as may be necessary for the
purpose of preventing, controlling and abating environmental pollution.

5. EIA Notifications 1994:
12. In exercise of the powers conferred under Sections 3 and 5, MoEF&CC
issued the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 199414,
which marked a significant shift in environmental governance by making
prior environmental clearance mandatory for specified categories of
industrial and development projects, including mining. The Notification
laid down a procedural framework for assessing the likely environmental
impact of proposed projects, mandating submission of detailed
information, public consultation, and mitigation plans. Schedule I to the
Notification listed 29 categories of projects requiring prior approval, with
Item 20 expressly covering mining activities. Thus, the legislative intent
was clear; no mining activity, whether new, expanded, or modernised
could proceed without rigorous environmental scrutiny and express
prior clearance from the competent authority.

6. The Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006:
13. The regulatory framework underwent further consolidation with
the issuance of the EIA Notification dated 14.09.200615. The

13 Hereinafter, “MMDR Act”.
14 Hereinafter, “1994 Notification”.
15 Hereinafter, “2006 Notification”.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2065

Union Territory of J & K (Previously State of Jammu & Kashmir) & Anr.
v. Raja Muzaffar Bhat & Ors.

2006 Notification introduced a more elaborate, decentralised, and
categorised approach to environmental appraisal. It classified
projects into Category A and Category B, based on their potential
environmental impact and scale, with Category A projects requiring
clearance at the Central level and Category B projects at the State
level, through the SEIAA. Para 2 of the 2006 Notification reads as
under;
2. Requirements of prior Environmental Clearance
(EC):- The following projects or activities shall require prior
environmental clearance from the concerned regulatory
authority, which shall hereinafter referred to be as the
Central Government in the Ministry of Environment and
Forests for matters falling under Category ‘A’ in the
Schedule and at State level the State Environment Impact
Assessment Authority (SEIAA) for matters falling under
Category ‘B’ in the said Schedule, before any construction
work, or preparation of land by the project management
except for securing the land, is started on the project or
activity:
(i) All new projects or activities listed in the Schedule to
this notification;
(ii) Expansion and modernization of existing projects or
activities listed in the Schedule to this notification with
addition of capacity beyond the limits specified for the
concerned sector, that is, projects or activities which cross
the threshold limits given in the Schedule, after expansion
or modernization;
(iii) Any change in product - mix in an existing manufacturing
unit included in Schedule beyond the specified range.
14. Para 5, 6 and 7 gives a detailed procedure for grant of prior EC.
Further, Para 8 talks about the final stage of grant or rejection of prior
EC. Para 9 deals with the tenure and validity of an EC while Para
10 provides for post grant monitoring. The Appendix III enumerates
the generic structure of an EIA application and its essentials. Over
the course of years, this EIA Notification, 2006 underwent various
amendments further strengthening the EC norms and laying down
of detailed procedure thereto.
2066 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

7. Decision of this Court in Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana:
15. While the statutory framework under the Environment (Protection)
Act, 1986 and the EIA Notification of 2006 laid down the procedural
architecture for environmental clearance, judicial intervention became
necessary to address persisting regulatory lapses, particularly in the
context of sand mining. A seminal instance of such intervention is
found in Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana16, wherein the Supreme
Court examined the legality of mining leases granted in the State of
Haryana without prior environmental appraisal. This Court deprecated
the practice of issuing auction notices for minor mineral extraction
without first conducting scientific studies to assess the environmental
impact. Emphasising the need for a precautionary approach, the
Court underscored that no mining activity, however minor, could be
permitted without an environmental clearance based on a proper
replenishment study and sustainable extraction limits. This decision
reaffirmed the necessity of grounding regulatory approvals in scientific
analysis, and has since served as a judicial benchmark in ensuring
that mining activities are aligned with environmental safeguards.
This Court held as under:
“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

16 (2012) 4 SCC 629. Hereinafter, “Deepak Kumar”.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2067

Union Territory of J & K (Previously State of Jammu & Kashmir) & Anr.
v. Raja Muzaffar Bhat & Ors.

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 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
2068 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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)
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2069

Union Territory of J & K (Previously State of Jammu & Kashmir) & Anr.
v. Raja Muzaffar Bhat & Ors.

8. Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2016:
16. The observations made by this Court in Deepak Kumar (supra)
laid down the jurisprudential foundation for requiring scientific
scrutiny, particularly through District Survey Reports (DSRs) before
permitting sand mining even at the local level. Recognising the
ecological fragility of riverbeds and the unchecked nature of minor
mineral extraction, the Central Government, in response to the said
judgment, amended the EIA Notification of 2006 on 15.01.2016,
to introduce a distinct regulatory framework for riverbed and sand
mining. These amendments introduced specific procedures for
cluster-based assessments and made replenishment studies integral
to the clearance process. The preamble to the amended Notification
is instructive and enables us to understand the purpose, scope, and
statutory contours of the DSR, which now forms the central point of
scrutiny in the present case. The preamble is as follows:
“And whereas, in pursuance to the order of Hon’ble
Supreme Court dated the 27th February, 2012 in I.A. No.12-
13 of 2011 in Special Leave Petition (C) No.19628-19629
of 2009, in the matter of Deepak Kumar etc. Vs. State of
Haryana and Others etc., prior environmental clearance
has now become mandatory for mining of minor minerals
irrespective of the area of mining lease;
And whereas, as a result of the above said Order of
Hon’ble Supreme Court, the number of cases which are
now required to obtain prior environmental clearance has
increased substantially;
And whereas, the Hon’ble National Green Tribunal, vide
its order dated the 13th January, 2015 in the matter
regarding sand mining has directed for making a policy
on environmental clearance for mining leases in cluster
for minor minerals;
And whereas, the State Governments have represented
for streamlining the process of environmental clearance
for mining of minor mineral;
And whereas, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and
Climate Change in consultation with State Governments
has prepared Guidelines on Sustainable Sand Mining
2070 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

detailing the provisions on environmental clearance for
cluster, creation of District Environment Impact Assessment
Authority and proper monitoring of sand mining using
information technology and information technology enabled
services to track the mined out material from source to
destination;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) and clause (v) of sub-section (2) of section
3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with
clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of rule 5 of the Environment
(Protection) Rules, 1986, the Central Government hereby
makes the following amendments in the said notification,
namely:-
In the said notification,-
(a) in paragraph 2, after the words “in the said Schedule”,
the following words shall be inserted, namely:- “and at
District level, the District Environment Impact Assessment
Authority (DEIAA) for matters falling under Category ‘B2’
for mining of minor minerals in the said Schedule”;
(b) after paragraph 3, the following paragraph shall be
inserted…”

A. Establishment of District Level Environment Impact Assessment
Authority (DEIAA) & District Expert Appraisal Committee (DEAC)
under Para 3A:
17. As is evident from the above extracted portion of the preamble to
the EIA Notification 2016, two bodies namely, the DEIAA and DEAC
have been established by inserting Para 3A to the EIA Notification,
2006 for grant of EC to a newly introduced category (by amending
para 2), called category B2.

B. New category called Category B2 for sandmining in districts
was introduced through para 4(iv):
18. Paragraph 4 of the EIA notification 2006 relating to categorization
of projects and activities was also amended and category B2 falling
within the jurisdiction of the DEIAA, acting on the decision and
recommendation of DEAC is introduced.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2071

Union Territory of J & K (Previously State of Jammu & Kashmir) & Anr.
v. Raja Muzaffar Bhat & Ors.

C. Preparation of District Survey Report (DSR) Introduced through
Para 7(iii):
19. Para 7 of the EIA Notification 2006 is of utmost importance as it
relates to the process of EC for new projects which comprises of
four stages namely, screening, scoping, public consultation and
appraisal respectively. Para 7(ii) relates to process for expansion or
modernisation or change of project mix in existing projects. It is in
this paragraph relating to the process of EC in the EIA Notification
2006 that further amendment was made introducing sub-para (iii).
Introduction of para 7(iii) for the first time contemplated, preparation
of DSR for sand mining or river bed mining and mining of other minor
minerals. Para 7(iii) now reads as under;
“7. Stages in the Prior Environmental Clearance (EC)
Process for New Projects
(i) ….
(ii) …
(iii) Preparation of District Survey Report for Sand
Mining or River Bed Mining and Mining of other Minor
Minerals:
(a) The prescribed procedure for preparation of District
Survey Report for sand mining or river bed mining and
mining of other minor minerals is given in Appendix X.
(b)The prescribed procedure for environmental clearance
for mining of minor minerals including cluster situation is
given in Appendix XI.”

D. Procedure for preparation of DSR introduced through
Appendix X:
20. Procedure for preparation of the above referred DSR under para
7(iii) is laid down in great detail in Appendix X to the notification.
Appendix X, apart from laying down the detailed procedure, also
declares that the, “District Survey Report shall form the basis for
application for environmental clearance, preparation of reports and
appraisal of projects. The Report shall be updated once every five
years.” Appendix X is as follows;
2072 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

“PROCEDURE FOR PREPARATION OF DISTRICT
SURVEY REPORT
The main objective of the preparation of District Survey
Report (as per the Sustainable Sand Mining Guideline) is
to ensure the following:
Identification of areas of aggradations or deposition where
mining can be allowed; and identification of areas of erosion
and proximity to infrastructural structures and installations
where mining should be prohibited and calculation of annual
rate of replenishment and allowing time for replenishment
after mining in that area.
The report shall have the following structure:
1. Introduction
2. Overview of Mining Activity in the District
3. The List of Mining Leases in the District with location,
area and period of validity
4. Details of Royalty or Revenue received in last three years
5. Detail of Production of Sand or Bajari or minor mineral
in last three years
6. Process of Deposition of Sediments in the rivers of
the District
7. General Profile of the District
8. Land Utilization Pattern in the district: Forest, Agriculture,
Horticulture, Mining etc.
9. Physiography of the District
10. Rainfall: month-wise
11. Geology and Mineral Wealth
In addition to the above, the report shall contain the
following:
(a) District wise detail of river or stream and other sand
source.
(b) District wise availability of sand or gravel or aggregate
resources.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2073

Union Territory of J & K (Previously State of Jammu & Kashmir) & Anr.
v. Raja Muzaffar Bhat & Ors.

(c) District wise detail of existing mining leases of sand
and aggregates.
A survey shall be carried out by the DEIAA with the
assistance of Geology Department or Irrigation Department
or Forest Department or Public Works Department or
Ground Water Boards or Remote Sensing Department or
Mining Department etc. in the district.
Drainage system with description of main rivers
***
Methodology adopted for calculation of mineral potential
The mineral potential is calculated based on field
investigation and geology of the catchment area of the river
or streams. As per the site conditions and location, depth
of minable mineral is defined. The area for removal of the
mineral in a river or stream can be decided depending on
geo-morphology and other factors, it can be 50 % to 60 %
of the area of a particular river or stream. For example in
some hill States mineral constituents like boulders, river
born Bajri, sand up to a depth of one meter are considered
as resource mineral. Other constituents like clay and
silt are’ excluded as waste while calculating the mineral
potential of particular river or stream.
The District Survey Report shall be prepared for each
minor mineral in the district separately and its draft shall
be placed in the public domain by keeping its copy in
Collectorate and posting it on district’s website for twenty
one days. The comments received shall be considered
and if found fit, shall be incorporated in the final Report
to be finalised within six months by the DEIAA.
The District Survey Report shall form the basis for
application for environmental clearance, preparation of
reports and appraisal of projects. The Report shall be
updated once every five years.”
(emphasis supplied)
2074 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

21. The 2016 amendment also introduces Appendix XI in the context of
preparation of DSR for sandmining or river bed mining of other minor
minerals. The amendment also prescribes distinct procedure for EC
for mining of minor minerals including cluster situation.

E. Challenge to the Notification 2016 the direction of NGT in
Satendra Pandey’s case:
22. Environmental concerns were expressed that the amendments
brought about by the EIA notification 2016 did not translate into
action the mandate of this Court’s decision in Deepak Kumar (supra).
These concerns were considered by the NGT in Satendra Pandey v.
MoEFCC17 wherein the following directions were issued.
“22. For all these reasons, we direct that the procedure
laid down in the impugned Notification be brought in
consonance and in accord with the directions passed in
the case of Deepak Kumar (supra) by (i) providing for EIA,
EMP and therefore, Public Consultation for all areas from
5 to 25 ha falling under Category B-2 at par with Category
B-1 by SEAC/SIEAA as well as for cluster situation
wherever it is not provided; (ii) Form-1M be made more
comprehensive for areas of 0 to 5 ha by dispensing with
the requirement for Public Consultation to be evaluated
by SEAC for recommendation of grant EC by SEIAA
instead of DEAC/DEIAA; (iii) if a cluster or an individual
lease size exceeds 5 ha the EIA/EMP be made applicable
in the process of grant of prior environmental clearance;
(iv) EIA and/or EMP be prepared for the entire cluster in
terms of recommendation 5 (supra) of the Guidelines for
the purpose of recommendations 6, 7 and 8 thereof; (v)
revise the procedure to also incorporate procedure with
respect to annual rate of replenishment and time frame
for replenishment after mining closure in an area; (vi) the
MoEF & CC to prepare guidelines for calculation of the
cost of restitution of damage caused to mined-out areas
along with the Net Present Value of Ecological Services
forgone because of illegal or unscientific mining.”

17 2018 SCC OnLine NGT 2388
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2075

Union Territory of J & K (Previously State of Jammu & Kashmir) & Anr.
v. Raja Muzaffar Bhat & Ors.

9. The Sand Mining Guidelines and the Focus on Replenishment
Study:
23. At this juncture, reference must be made to the Sustainable Sand
Mining Management Guidelines 2016 and Enforcement and Monitoring
Guidelines for Sand Mining 2020. They constitute binding directives
for regulatory authorities, and their due observance is indispensable
for safeguarding ecology and public interest.

A. Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016:
24. The 2016 guidelines are based on the principle that unregulated
sand mining is unsustainable and must be controlled. Compliance
with existing and future laws is mandatory rather than optional.
Leaseholders should be allowed to self-regulate, provided they
demonstrate adherence to legal requirements. However, if self-
regulation proves ineffective, stricter enforcement and monitoring will
be necessary, with penalties imposed in accordance with the law.
Additionally, environmental protection and public well-being must be
prioritized, ensuring that natural resources are utilized responsibly
to contribute positively and sustainably to the economy. The prime
objective of the said Guidelines is to ensure that sand mining is done
in an environmentally sustainable and socially responsible manner.
The purpose and object of the guidelines is declared as under:
“Sustainable Development is built on three pillars -
environmental, social and economic. Sustainable
development cannot be achieved if the environment is
protected but poverty is prevalent in a significant part
of the population. Similarly, sustainable development
cannot be achieved through inappropriate economic
growth, if it undermines the environment in which people
and businesses exists. These Guideliness support that
fundamental concept, promoting environmental protection,
limiting negative physiological, hydrological and social
impacts under pinning sustainable economic growth.
Sand and gravel have long been used as aggregate for
construction of roads and building. Today, the demand
for these materials continues to rise. In India, the main
sources of sand are river flood plain, coastal sand, paleo
channel sand, and sand from agricultural fields.
2076 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

River sand mining is a common practice as habitation
concentrates along the rivers and the mining locations
are preferred near the markets or along the transportation
route, for reducing the transportation cost. River sand
mining can damage private and public properties as well
as aquatic habitats. Excessive removal of sand may
significantly distort the natural equilibrium of a stream
channel.
Removing sediment from the active channel bed in river
interrupt the continuity of sediment transport through the
river system, disrupting the sediment mass balance in the
river downstream and induces channel adjustments (usually
incision) extending considerable distances (commonly one
kilometer or more) beyond the extraction site.
The magnitude of the impact basically depends on the
magnitudes of the extraction relative to bed load sediment
supply and transport through the reach. Implementation of
the principles and processes outlined in this Guidelines will
limit the negative externalities of sand and gravel mining.”
25. Explaining the method and manner by which sustainable sand and
gravel mining are to be undertaken, the guidelines provide that:
The broad principle on which any sustainable sand mining
Guidelines / policy can be based is that river/ natural
resources must be utilized for the benefit of the present and
future generation, so river resources should be prudently
managed and developed. The preparation of District Survey
Report is an important initial step.
The Processes under the Guidelines:
(a) Identification of areas of aggradation / deposition
where mining can be allowed; and identification of areas
of erosion and proximity to infrastructural structures and
installations where mining should be prohibited. Use of
satellite imagery for identifying areas of sand deposit and
quantity be done.
(b) Calculation of annual rate of replenishment and allowing
time for replenishment after mining in area.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2077

Union Territory of J & K (Previously State of Jammu & Kashmir) & Anr.
v. Raja Muzaffar Bhat & Ors.

(c) Identifying ways of scientific and systematic mining.
(d) Identifying measures for protection of environment
and ecology.
(e) Determining measures for protection of bank erosion.
(f) A bench mark (BM) with respect to mean sea level
(MSL) should be made essential to in mining channel
reaches (MCR). Below which no mining shall be allowed.
(g) Identifying steps for conservation of mineral.
(h) Permanent gauging facilities (for discharge and
sediment both) should be made compulsory for the sites
having excessive mining in consultation with Central Water
Commission or any competent State Agency.
(i) Implementing safeguards for checking illegal and
indiscrete mining.
Following the above processes, to begin with it is important
to prepare a survey document mapping the status of sand
sources in a district. This survey should be conducted
and report be prepared for each district. Though it is an
acceptable fact that rivers cut across districts and States
and every river is an ecosystem in itself. But, keeping in
view the fact that the district is the most established unit
of administration at which this kind of survey, planning and
monitoring can be ensured effectively, it is proposed that
every district will prepare this document taking the river
stretch in that district as an ecological unit and inventorising
other sources of sand in the district.
(emphasis supplied)

26. As per the 2016 Guidelines, the preparation of DSR is essential for
(i) identification of areas of aggradation/deposition where mining
can be allowed, (ii) calculation of annual rate of replenishment, (iii)
identifying ways of scientific and systematic mining, (iv) implementing
safeguards in place to ensure the mining carried out is sustainable.
The scope of the DSR should include detailed information for each
district, covering rivers, streams, and other sand sources, along with
the availability of sand, gravel, and aggregate resources. It must also
2078 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

provide data on existing mining leases for these materials. Additionally,
the classification of mining areas should distinguish between sections
of rivers, streams, and other sources that are suitable for sand and
aggregate extraction and those where such activities are strictly
prohibited. It is further provided that such survey document shall
be prepared in the district based on direct and indirect benefits of
mining and identification of the potential threats to the river/stream
beds in the district.

B. Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020:
27. While the 2016 guidelines focus on management of sand mining in the
country, it was felt that there is a compelling need to provide guidelines
for effective enforcement and also prescribe regulatory method for
monitoring. With this objective, the Enforcement and Monitoring
Guidelines for Sand Mining 2020 were issued. In paragraph 4, the
2020 guidelines provide the method of identification of possible
sand mining source and preparation of the DSR and highlight that
“Preparation of District Survey Report is a very important step and
sustainable sand mining in any part of the country will depends on
the quality of District Survey Report.”
“4.1.1 Preparation of District Survey Report.
Sustainable Sand Mining Guidelines, 2016” issued by
MoEF&CC requires preparation of District Survey Report
(DSR), which is an important initial step before grant of
mining lease/LoI. The guidelines emphasize detailed
procedure to be followed for the purpose of identification
of areas of aggradation/ deposition where mining can
be allowed and identification of areas of erosion and
proximity to infrastructural structures and installation
where mining should be prohibited. Calculation of annual
rate of replenishment, allowing time for replenishment
after mining, identification of ways of scientific and
systematic mining; identifying measures for protection of
environment and ecology and determining measures for
protection of bank erosion, benchmark (BM) with respect
to mean Sea Level (MSL) should be made essential in
mining channel reaches (MCR) below which no mining
shall be allowed.”
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2079

Union Territory of J & K (Previously State of Jammu & Kashmir) & Anr.
v. Raja Muzaffar Bhat & Ors.

28. The 2020 Guidelines lay special emphasis on the necessity to
undertake replenishment study. It is provided thereunder that;
“5.0 REPLENISHMENT STUDY
The need for replenishment study for river bed sand is
required in order to nullify the adverse impacts arising
due to excessing sand extraction. Mining within or near
riverbed has a direct impact on the stream’s physical
characteristics, such as channel geometry, bed elevation,
substratum composition and stability, in-stream roughness
of the bed, flow velocity, discharge capacity, sediment
transport capacity, turbidity, temperature etc. Alteration
or modification of the above attributes may cause an
impact on the ecological equilibrium of the riverine regime,
disturbance in channel configuration and flow-paths. This
may also cause an adverse impact on in-stream biota and
riparian habitats. It is assumed that the riparian habitat
disturbance is minimum if the replenishment is equal to
excavation for a given stretch. Therefore, to minimize the
adverse impact arising out of sand mining in a given river
stretch, it is imperative to have a study of replenishment
of material during the defined period.
5.1 Generic Structure of Replenishment Study
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.
2080 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

The replenishment period may vary on nature of the
channel and season of deposition arising due to variation
in the flow. Such period and season may vary on the
geographical and precipitation characteristic of the region
and requires to be defined by the local agencies preferable
with the help of the Central Water Commission and Indian
Meteorological Department. The excavation will, therefore,
be limited to estimated replenishment estimated with
consideration of other regulatory provisions.
5.2. Methodology for Replenishment Study
5.2.1 Physical Survey of the field by the conventional
method
5.2.2 Use of UAV/Drone and other image data
processing techniques
5.2.3 Accuracy Assessment of Aerial Data
5.2.4 Replenishment study shall have the details of
• List of instruments
• List of software
• Establishment of Benchmark by putting No. of pillar
points and various Ground Control Points (GCP) at
the site.
• Ground Control Points (GCP) Collection: - Various
GCPs were observed by using DGPS for Permanent
Benchmarks and for control points.
• The summary of the elevation data from each
section’s profile based on the post-monsoon the
survey should have mentioned in the table form.
• The detail of post-monsoon survey data in the tabular
form shall be
• The detailed comparison of both pre-monsoon and
post-monsoon elevation data shall be attached
• Cross-sectional depiction of deposition and erosion
for each section in pre and post-deposition season
shall be given supported by relevant field study data
and plan.”
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2081

Union Territory of J & K (Previously State of Jammu & Kashmir) & Anr.
v. Raja Muzaffar Bhat & Ors.

10. Need for 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.18 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

18 E.S. Rentier, L.H. Cammeraat, The Environmental Impacts of River Sand Mining, Science of the Total
Environment, Vol. 838, Part I, 2022.
2082 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

studies, including that of replenishment to explore sustainable and
cost-effective methods for river mining.19
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.

11. Application of law to the facts of the present case.
34. We will now consider the facts of the present case in light of the
existing legal regime as applicable to sand mining. The Union Territory
of Jammu & Kashmir, Department of Geology and Mining is said to
have prepared the DSR of all the districts during the year 2017-18
as per the MoEF&CC notification. The National Highway Authority
of India awarded a contract to the project proponent on 30.03.2021
for construction of a 4-lane bypass/ring road around Srinagar City.
By its letter dated 07.05.2021, it directed the department to grant
permission for mining at the identified sites to the project proponent to
enable it to undertake the project. The Government also directed the
project proponent to apply for permission under Rule 91 of the J&K
Minor Mineral Concession, Storage, Transportation of Minerals and
Prevention of Illegal Mining Rules, 2016. The Government reserved the
four mineral blocks for the project proponent to excavate, develop and
utilise the mineral. The project proponent in turn applied for environment
clearances (EC) for extraction of sand and gravel in the 3 blocks.
35. The Jammu & Kashmir Expert Appraisal Committee by its order
dated 03.01.2022 initially rejected the proposal for environmental

19 Hamed Haghnazar, et al - Evaluation of infilling and replenishment of river sand mining pits, Environmental
Earth Sciences, Vol. 79 (14), 2020.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2083

Union Territory of J & K (Previously State of Jammu & Kashmir) & Anr.
v. Raja Muzaffar Bhat & Ors.

clearance (EC). However, when the project proponent received
fit for mining certificate from the department on 05.02.2022, the
project proponent re-applied for grant of environmental clearance
and the same was granted by J&K Expert Appraisal Committee by
its order dated 02.03.2022. The committee specifically recorded that
the District Survey Report is not formulated as per guidelines and
therefore it needs revision for including the replenishment data. In
our opinion, the J&K EAC committed a serious error in proceeding
further with the DSR once it realised that it is not formulated as per
the MoEF&CC Notification 2016 and 2016 and 2020 Sand Mining
Guidelines and also when the replenishment data is not complete.
Further, the half-hearted approach adopted by the J&K EAC is
evident from its final recommendation for grant of EC with validity
of only three years from the date of commencement of the mining
operations duly certified by the District Mineral Officer concerned
with intimation to the JKEIAA and JKPCB in view of non-availability
of replenishment data.
36. The J&K Environment Impact Assessment Authority granted the
environment clearance on 19.04.2022. The environment clearance
was made subject to the following conditions.
“The Environment clearance is subject to Revision of mining
plan in terms of Section 4.3(r) of Enforcement Monitoring
Guidelines for Sand Mining-2020, issued by Ministry of
Environment, Forests and Climate Change where-under
the area of removal of minerals shall not exceed 60% of
the mine lease area and any deviation or relaxation in
this regard shall be adequately supported by the scientific
report. Mining depth be restricted to max. 1m in aggregate
and bulk density of 2.0 be adopted for calculating mineral
production subject to maximum production of 34800MT, in
view non-availability of replenishment data in the DSRs.”
37. It is unfortunate that J&K EIAA compromised with regulatory integrity
by granting the environment clearances (EC) on the basis of a
DSR without a replenishment report. The compromise sought to
be achieved by permitting the project proponent to go ahead with
a “restricted mining depth of maximum 1 meter and bulk density
of 2.0 for production of the mineral and supplying it to maximum
production of 34800 mt in view of non-availability of replenishment
2084 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

data” is unacceptable. The illegality committed by the J&K EAC in
so recommending is accentuated with the J&K EIAA in granting EC.
This is how regulatory failure occurs.
38. We have already indicated that the respondent no.1 challenged
the grant of environment clearance before the NGT. By the order
impugned before us, the NGT allowed the appeal. We are in complete
agreement with the following findings of the NGT:
“159. Learned Counsel appearing for PP also argued that
mining activities only upto one meter depth was allowed
and it takes care of absence of DSR and replenishment
study but when questioned, could not show any provision
where under if mining for one meter depth is allowed,
in such a case requirement of preparation of DSR or
replenishment study can be dispensed with. In fact, under
EIA 2006 as amended by notifications dated 15.01.2016
and 25.07.2018, there is no exception in respect of
preparation of DSR and the same thing has been reiterated
in SSMG-2016 and EMGSM-2020.
160. Non-preparation of DSR as per guidelines and
absence of replenishment study is a fact which has not
been disputed before us by Learned Counsel appearing
for PP. Stand taken by respondent 1 and 4 in the written
reply submitted before us also does not show anything
otherwise.”
39. In view of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in upholding
the decision of the NGT and dismissing the civil appeals of the UT
of J&K, the NHAI and also that of the project proponent.
40. This takes us to issue no. 3, which relates to the allegation that
project proponent has violated the J&K Minor Mineral Concession,
Storage, Transportation of Minerals and Prevention of Illegal Mining
Rules, 2016. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that there is no
evidence of such violation. As there is no cross appeal, this issue
need not detain us any further.
41. Insofar as issues 4 and 5 are concerned, the allegation is that
the project proponent has used heavy machines like JCB etc. for
excavation. It is alleged by respondent no.1, a person interested in
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2085

Union Territory of J & K (Previously State of Jammu & Kashmir) & Anr.
v. Raja Muzaffar Bhat & Ors.

environment conservation, that the activity is in violation of condition
no. 53 of the EC. The condition is as follows:
“53. Mining shall be done manually minimally supported by
semi-mechanized methods. Heavy machinery like JCBs,
Excavators/L&T hydraulic excavators etc. should not be
allowed. Emphasis should be given to employment of
locally available labour force to address the socio-economic
concerns of the locals.”
42. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that there is in fact a violation
and therefore directed J&K Pollution Control Board to take appropriate
action. There is no need for us to interfere with this direction. The
J&K Pollution Control Board will take its decision after giving the
project proponent an opportunity of placing its case before it.
43. We are informed by Mr. Narender Hooda, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the project proponent that the project itself is
complete and as such there is no further requirement of environment
clearance. In this view of the matter, no further orders are necessary.
44. In view of the above, the appeals filed on behalf of the Union Territory
of J&K, NHAI and the project proponent are dismissed. The parties
shall bear their own costs.

Result of the case: Appeals dismissed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan