Supreme Court: Valid & Subsisting District Survey Report Alone Can Be Basis For Application For Grant Of Environmental Clearance
The Supreme Court remarked that the unregulated sandmining disrupts riverine ecosystems, alters natural flow patterns, and leads to erosion and habitat loss.
Justice P.S. Narasimha, Justice Manoj Misra, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that a valid and subsisting District Survey Report (DSR) alone can be the basis for an application for grant of Environmental Clearance (EC).
The Court held thus while upholding the law and the regulations governing sand mining, demanding zero tolerance for unauthorized activities.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra observed, “A District Survey Report is a document of seminal importance as it enables informed decision making. … A valid and a subsisting DSR alone can be the basis for an application for grant of EC. A draft DSR is untenable for grant of an EC.”
The Bench remarked that the unregulated sandmining disrupts riverine ecosystems, alters natural flow patterns, and leads to erosion and habitat loss. It added that aquatic biodiversity suffers as spawning grounds are destroyed and water quality deteriorates.
ASG Aishwarya Bhati, Senior Advocates Ranjit Kumar, S.P. Singh, AORs Vishnu Shankar Jain, and Vanshdeep Dalmia appeared for the Appellants while Ajit Sharma appeared for the Respondents.
Facts of the Case
The District Magistrate, Saharanpur issued a notice inviting e-tenders in 2023 for sand gravel, boulders, etc. available in the riverbed in Saharanpur District under the U.P. Sub Mineral (Remedy) Rules, 2021. Questioning the legality and validity of the e-auction notice, the Respondent i.e., a resident of Haryana, approached the National Green Tribunal (NGT) by filing an application invoking Sections 14 and 18 of the NGT Act and contending that the e-auction notice is illegal as there was no DSR as on the concerned date. The NGT constituted a Joint Committee comprising of Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), State Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) and District Magistrate, to collect relevant information and submit a factual report. The Joint Committee submitted its report indicating that pursuant to the e-auction notice, Letters of Interest (LOIs) were issued with respect to 14 sites for river bed mining.
Accordingly, the NGT impleaded the parties holding LOIs as party Respondents to the original application. Pending further proceedings before the NGT, the State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) considered the draft DSR and accorded its approval and then, the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) granted its approval to the fresh DSR in its 814th meeting. However, in view of the fact that the last subsisting DSR issued in 2017 expired after five years, i.e. by 2022 and that only a draft DSR was subsisting when the impugned e-auction notice was issued, the NGT quashed the auction on the ground that it is in violation of the legal mandate under the 2006 EIA Notification, as amended in 2006, 2018 and also the Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020 and decision of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Pawan Kumar (2022). Questioning the legality and validity of the NGT’s Judgment, the Appeals were filed before the Apex Court.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, said, “The destabilisation of riverbanks increases flooding, risking human life and animal habitat alike. Moreover, the illicit sand trade often operates under the shadow of organised crime, undermining the rule of law and weakening governance structures. Therefore, absolute standards with get tough policies, strict enforcement and quick accountability are compelling for effective regulatory control.”
The Court noted that the auction was conducted in the absence of a valid, final, and a subsisting DSR and that a Draft DSR is not tenable.
“A draft DSR can never be the basis for a recommendation by the District Level Expert Appraisal Committee (DEAC) and for the District Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA) for B2 category projects pertaining to mining of minor minerals lease area less than or equal to five hectares to grant environment clearance”, it added.
Sandmining and its impact on Environment
The Court observed that the need for development, and the concerns to preserve ecology stands at crossroads when it comes to the issue of sand mining.
“The urgent need is to raise awareness that while sand is a crucial resource for economic and industrial development, it also plays a vital role in climate resilience and preserving healthy ecosystems”, it further emphasised.
The Court was of the view that while a complete ban on sand mining would certainly restore ecology and preserve environment, we all know that such a measure is impractical.
“Way ahead is sustainable development with effective regulation. While development may be necessity for societal progress, it must be pursued with a balanced approach that prioritizes environmental conservation. It is imperative for regulatory authorities to design an effective and an efficient regulatory regime and implement it by maintaining absolute standards and strict enforcement”, it also emphasised.
Reasoning
The Court was of the opinion that there is a mandatory requirement of preparation of a DSR and the same shall form the basis for application of environmental clearance.
“It shall also be the basis for preparation of reports and also appraisal of the projects. Another important facet of DSR is that it shall be prepared for all the districts and the draft is to be placed in the public domain. There is a requirement for keeping a copy of DSR in Collectorate. It must also be posted on the district’s website for 21 days”, it further said.
The Court remarked that the position of ecology and the environment is rapidly changing and the position that exists five years back, may not subsist for later days.
“It is true that it might have changed even before the expiry of five years but a reasonable estimate, to work as a benchmark is a policy consideration. May be a precautionary principle, it is not only legal and valid but is also mandatory. It must be enforced strictly and with all vigor”, it observed.
Conclusion
The Court, therefore, concluding the following points –
• Preparation of a DSR as per the procedure prescribed for its preparation under Appendix X, read with para 7(iii)(a), is required to be followed meticulously.
• Preparation of reports and appraisal of projects by DEIAA and DEAC shall be on the basis of a valid and a subsisting DSR.
• DEIAA and DEAC are recognized as the authorities fastened with the statutory duty of preparing the DSR every five years and this duty compels them to have a comprehensive and a real time perspective of the environment position of the district including its eco sensitivity and other fragilities.
The Court held that the e-auction notice is illegal and contrary to law.
Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the Appeals and upheld the decision of the NGT.
Cause Title- State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. v. Gaurav Kumar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 650)
Appearance:
Appellants: ASG Aishwarya Bhati, Senior Advocates Ranjit Kumar, S.P. Singh, AORs Vishnu Shankar Jain, Vanshdeep Dalmia, Revathy Raghavan, Advocates Kavya Roy Choudhury, B.N. Thakur, Ashish Pratap Singh, and Rohit Gupta.
Respondents: AORs Ajit Sharma, Pradeep Misra, Tejaswi Kumar Pradhan, Advocates Kanchan Kumar, Yuvrajsinh C Solanki, and Lareb Habib Ansari.
