District Survey Report Without A Proper Replenishment Study Is Untenable: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that a District Survey Report (DSR) without a proper replenishment study is untenable.

The Court was deciding Civil Appeals filed by the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir (formerly State of J&K), challenging the Order of the National Green Tribunal (NGT).

The two-Judge Bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar observed, “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.”

The Bench said that 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.

Senior Advocate Narender Hooda appeared on behalf of the Appellants while Senior Advocate Anitha Shenoy appeared on behalf of the Respondents.

Factual Background

The project proponent submitted three proposals for undertaking mining activities. The J&K UT Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) in its 81st meeting in 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. In the meanwhile, the project proponent received ‘Fit for Mining Certificate’ for Blocks 1, 2 and 4 from the Geology and Mining Department. Following certification of mining department, the project proponent submitted its second proposal.

Having considered the said proposal, 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. Accepting the recommendations of the EAC, the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) granted EC to the project proponent. 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. Aggrieved by the issuance of EC, the Respondent filed an Appeal before the NGT. The same was allowed and the EC was set aside, finding it to be violative of environmental norms. Challenging this, the Appellants were before the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court after hearing the arguments from both sides, noted, “In State of UP v. Gaurav Kumar, we have declared that a valid and subsisting District Survey Report is mandatory for grant of environmental clearance for sand mining. … 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.”

The Court remarked that 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.

“It is, therefore, compelling to hold that a DSR is valid and tenable only when a proper replenishment study is conducted”, it held.

The Court said that due to easy access, river sand and gravel have been used extensively in construction projects and 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 studies, including that of replenishment to explore sustainable and cost-effective methods for river mining. … It has therefore been held that a detailed study leading to a preparation of the replenishment report is an integral part of the DSR”, it emphasised.

The Court was of the view that 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.

“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 data” is unacceptable”, it further observed.

Conclusion

The Court also remarked that the illegality committed by the J&K EAC in so recommending is accentuated with the J&K EIAA in granting EC and this is how regulatory failure occurs.

“… 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. … 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”, it added.

The Court refused to the interfere with the NGT’s direction and ordered that the J&K Pollution Control Board will take its decision after giving the project proponent an opportunity of placing its case before it.

“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”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the Appeals and upheld the NGT’s Order.

Cause Title- Union Territory of J& K (Previously State of Jammu & Kashmir) & Anr. v. Raja Muzaffar Bhat & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1025)

Appearance:

Appellants: Senior Advocate Narender Hooda, AORs Yusuf, Surender Singh Hooda, Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Advocates Utsav Singh Bains, Akash Yadav, Shiv Bhatnagar, Pallvi Hooda, Kavya Manuja, Tannu, Seema Sindhu, Gaurav, Yuvraj Nandal, and G. M. Kawoosa.

Respondents: Senior Advocate Anitha Shenoy, AOR Srishti Agnihotri, Advocates Itisha Awasthi, Sanjana Grace Thomas, Sadhana Madhavan, and Kavana Rao.

Click here to read/download the Judgment