Case Note & Summary
The appeals arose from a challenge to environmental clearance granted for sand mining in three blocks of Shaliganga Nallah in Jammu and Kashmir. The project proponent submitted three proposals, which were initially rejected by the J&K UT Expert Appraisal Committee in its 81st meeting dated 03.01.2022 on grounds of over-exploitation and a District Survey Report not formulated as per guidelines. Subsequently, the Geology and Mining Department issued a Fit for Mining Certificate on 05.02.2022, and the project proponent submitted a second proposal. In its 87th meeting on 02.03.2022, the J&K UT EAC recommended grant of environmental clearance while reiterating that the DSR was not as per guidelines. The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority accepted the recommendation and granted environmental clearance on 19.04.2022, restricting mining depth to one meter due to non-availability of replenishment data in the DSR. A person interested in environment filed an appeal before the National Green Tribunal, challenging the environmental clearance on grounds including previous rejection grounds not considered, violation of Rule 4(iv) of Jammu and Kashmir Minor Mineral Concession, Storage, Transportation of Minerals and Prevention of Illegal Mining Rules, 2016, DSR not prepared in line with guidelines, and violation of EC conditions. The National Green Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the environmental clearance dated 19.04.2022, finding violation of environmental norms. The Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir filed the present civil appeals. The Supreme Court examined the legal and regulatory regime governing environmental clearance for sand mining, including the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, EIA Notifications of 1994, 2006, and 2016, and the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 and Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020. The Court reiterated that a valid and subsisting District Survey Report is mandatory for grant of environmental clearance for sand mining. The purpose of a DSR is to scientifically locate mining areas after calculating annual rate of replenishment. The Court compared replenishment study to forest conservation assessment of tree growth rate before permitting timber harvesting. The Sand Mining Guidelines 2020 emphasize that replenishment study is required to nullify adverse impacts such as alteration of channel geometry, bed elevation, flow velocity, sediment transport, and disturbance to in-stream biota. The Court held that a DSR is valid and tenable only when a proper replenishment study is conducted. The Court also referred to Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana, which deprecated auction notices without scientific studies and required environmental clearance based on replenishment study. The final operative order on the appeals is not included in the provided text, but the Court's analysis strongly supports the mandatory nature of replenishment study and the invalidity of environmental clearances based on deficient DSRs.
Headnote
A) Environmental Law - District Survey Report - Mandatory Replenishment Study - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2016, Para 7(iii), Appendix X; Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016; Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020 - The Court held that a District Survey Report is valid and tenable only when a proper replenishment study is conducted, as the purpose of preparing a DSR is to scientifically locate places for sand mining after calculating annual rate of replenishment to avoid degrading rivers' natural balance. Any DSR without replenishment data is untenable in law. (Paras 1-3) B) Environmental Law - Environmental Clearance - Prior Clearance Mandatory - Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 1994, Schedule I, Item 20; Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006, Para 2 - The EIA Notification 1994 made prior environmental clearance mandatory for specified categories including mining. The 2006 Notification classified projects into Category A and B with central and state level authorities respectively. No mining activity, whether new, expanded or modernised, can proceed without rigorous environmental scrutiny and express prior clearance. (Paras 12-14) C) Mining Regulation - Sand Mining - Replenishment Study Necessity - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Section 23C; Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020 - A replenishment study is required to nullify adverse impacts of excessive sand extraction, such as changes in channel geometry, bed elevation, flow velocity, sediment transport, and disturbance to riparian habitats. Excavation should not exceed replenishment for a given stretch. (Paras 2-3) D) Environmental Clearance - Deficiency in District Survey Report - Non-availability of Replenishment Data - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2016 - In the present case, the J&K UT Expert Appraisal Committee noted that the DSR was not formulated as per guidelines and lacked replenishment data. The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority granted environmental clearance with depth restriction of one meter due to non-availability of replenishment data. The National Green Tribunal set aside the environmental clearance. The Supreme Court reiterated that a valid DSR with proper replenishment study is mandatory. (Paras 4-9, 1-3) E) Judicial Review - Environmental Norms - Precautionary Approach - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 - In Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court deprecated issuance of auction notices without scientific studies and held that no mining activity, however minor, could be permitted without environmental clearance based on a proper replenishment study and sustainable extraction limits. (Para 15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a District Survey Report prepared without a proper replenishment study can be considered valid and tenable under the EIA Notification 2016 and Sand Mining Guidelines; whether environmental clearance for sand mining can be granted in the absence of replenishment data; whether the National Green Tribunal correctly set aside the environmental clearance granted by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that a District Survey Report is valid and tenable only when a proper replenishment study is conducted, as mandated under the EIA Notification 2016 and Sand Mining Guidelines. The final operative order on the appeals is not detailed in the provided text.
Law Points
- A District Survey Report under EIA Notification 2016 is valid only when a proper replenishment study is conducted
- valid and subsisting District Survey Report is mandatory for grant of environmental clearance for sand mining
- replenishment study is necessary to scientifically locate mining areas and prevent adverse impacts on riverine ecology
- environmental clearance cannot be granted based on a draft District Survey Report
- no mining activity can proceed without prior environmental clearance based on scientific study and sustainable extraction limits
