Item No.08 Court No.

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL

PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

Original Application No.188/2023

(IA No. 92/2023, IA No. 91/2023 & IA No. 76/2023)

Gaurav Kumar Applicant

Versus

State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Respondent(s)

Date of hearing: 07.05.2024

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON’BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER

Applicant: Mr. Ajit Sharma & Mr. Kanchan Kumar, Advs. for Applicant

Respondent: Mr. Pradeep Misra & Mr. Daleep Dhyani, Advs. for UPPCB (Through VC)
Ms. Priyanka Swami, Adv. for the State of UP & SEIAA, UP
Ms. Richa Kapoor & Ms. Atika Singh, Advs. for MoEF & CC
Mr. Vanshdeep Dalmia, Mr. Shubham Karnwal & Ms. Anisha Jain, Advs.
for R - 6 to 17

ORDER

1. In this Original Application, applicant has questioned the auction

notice dated 13.02.2023 on the ground that DSR for Saharanpur District

has not been prepared and without there being any District Survey

Report (DSR), auction notice dated 13.02.2023 for auction of various

areas for river bed sand mining in District Saharanpur, UP has been

issued.

2. Plea of the applicant is that old DSR for District Saharanpur was

prepared in 2017 which lapsed after five years in 2022 and thereafter,

there was no fresh DSR prepared. Hence, auction notices cannot be

sustained

1
3. Tribunal on 08.11.2023 had impleaded twelve affected project

proponents and directed issuance of notice to them.

4. Reply filed by respondent no.3-SEIAA dated 04.05.2024 clearly

reflects that joint meeting of SEAC-1 and SEAC-2 was scheduled on

03.05.2024 and minutes of the joint meeting are under preparation. This

is also reflected in annexure-5 filed along with that report.

5. Reply on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 4 dated 04.05.2024

mentions that after following all the procedures the SEAC has considered

the DSR of Saharanpur District and sent for SEIAA's approval which is

fixed for 3rd May, 2024.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for SEIAA on instructions has informed

that though in the joint committee meeting of SEAC-1and SEAC-2 on

03.05.2024 fresh DSR has been approved but it is yet to be approved by

SEIAA, UP.

7. From the above response and stand of the concerned authorities, it

is clear that after the earlier DSR had expired in the year 2022, fresh DSR

for District Saharanpur has not been approved by SEIAA till now.

8. Law relating to validity of any auction notice for auctioning the

mining site without preparation of DSR has already been settled by

Tribunal in the matter of Ajit Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. in

OA No.38/2022 by order dated 17.10.2022 wherein Tribunal has held as

under:-

“45.The main questions raised in this petition are as follows:-

i. Question No. 1 : Requirement of DSR and its finality.

Answer: The Sustainable Sand Mining Management
Guideline, 2016 & 2020 provides for the preparation of DSR
and MoEF has 97 issued necessary directions. It is settled

2
 Law that District Survey Report for Sand Mining shall be
prepared before the auction/eauction/grant of mining lease by
the Mining Department or department dealing with the mining
activities in the respective States. DSR is to be approved at the
level of SEIAA with the help of SEAC. The DSR becomes final
on the date when it is approved by the SEIAA. With regard to
the DSR relating to the district Raisen it was approved on
23.05.2022. Thus, the valid DSR/approved DSR came into
existence on 23.05.2022 district Raisen, the question is replied
accordingly.
ii. Question no. 2: Sanctity of NIT in absence of DSR or DSR
duly approved by SEIAA.
Answer: In view of the discussion made above and in view of
Prabhat Mohan Pandey case (Supra) and the direction issued
in the Pawan Kumar Case, the action of NIT in absence of
valid DSR is in violation of Sand Mining Guidelines issued in
2016 & 2020, it becomes final only after the approval of the
SEIAA. Any NIT before the date of approval of DSR by SEIAA
is in contravention of the Rules, Guidelines and the directions
issued by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. The question is replied
accordingly.
iii. Question no. 3: Continuance of mining operation, in absence
of valid environment clearance or after expiry of the term.
Answer: Any mining activities on the basis of environmental
clearance which was expired w.e.f. 31.03.2021 & 31.03.2022
ceased to be in accordance with law and the mining activities
and EC granted in violation of category is also against the
provisions of law and against the Sustainable Send Mining
Rules, 2020.”

9. Tribunal in that matter had held as under:-

“47. In view of the above facts, the summary of the conclusions and
directions are as follows :-
i. The DSR in the district Raisen was finalized/approved by the
MPSEIAA on 23.05.2022. Any action taken on the basis of NIT
issued prior to 23.05.2022 including (26.11.2021) is irregular,
void, having no effect and, in violation of guidelines and
stands cancelled. The respondents may initiate exercise as

3
 fresh on the basis of approved DSR i.e. dated 23.05.2022 in
the district of Raisen.
ii. The environment clearance whose terms has expired either on
31.03.2021 & 31.03.2022 stands canceled and Madhya
Pradesh State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority is
directed to cancel the remaining matters, where the matter is
under scrutinization before the authorities concerned and take
appropriate decision within 15 days. Till the Final decision is
taken by the appropriate authority/ MPSEIAA, no mining
activities are permitted in the concerned districts under
question where the EC has been expired on the basis of
expired ECs.
iii. We direct the Madhya Pradesh State Mining Corporation and
the MPSEIAA to rectify the EC in accordance with law and in
light of the judgment and orders passed by this Tribunal in
Prabhat Mohan Pandey vs. State of MP & Ors. (Supra).
iv. Issue of electronic traffic passes by the MPSMC portal from the
mines whose EC has expired is illegal, irregular and in
contravention of Sand Management Guidelines and the
respondents are directed to take necessary actions to control
the illegal mining in accordance with law”

10. At this stage, Learned Counsel appearing for respondent-project

proponent has sought time to file reply. Though, notice was issued by the

Tribunal on 08.11.2023 yet till now reply has not been filed.

11. On the instances of Counsel for project proponent, original

application is adjourned, giving one last opportunity to the project

proponents to file their reply.

12. We take note of the fact that in the connected matter listed today

i.e OA No. 98/2024 relating to District Pilibhit, same issue was involved

and when the legal position came to the knowledge to the District

Magistrate, he had withdrawn the auction notice and had taken the stand

before the Tribunal that fresh auction notice will be issued only after

4
preparation of DSR and its approval by SEIAA. Today, we have disposed

of the said original application by recording the stand of District

Magistrate, Pilibhit.

13. In the above circumstances, today we were inclined to dispose of

the original application but taking the technical plea an adjournment has

been sought by respondent. Hence, in order to ensure full compliance of

Principles of Natural Justice, we grant four weeks time to

respondent/private project proponents to file reply.

14. In the circumstances mentioned above, we modify earlier Interim

order dated 08.11.2023 and restrain the official respondents from taking

any further action in furtherance to the impugned auction notice dated

13.02.2023 in favour of any of the respondents-project proponents.

15. List on 20.08.2024.

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

Sudhir Agarwal, JM

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

May 07, 2024
Original Application No.188/2023
(IA No. 92/2023, IA No. 91/2023 & IA No. 76/2023)
JG.