2021 INSC 0709
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3661­3662 OF 2020
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS        ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
PAWAN KUMAR AND OTHERS  ETC.         ...RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Per Court
1. The   present   appeals   challenge   the   judgment   and   order
dated   14 th
  October   2020,   passed   by   the   National   Green
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as
“the   Tribunal”)   in   O.A.   No.   40/2020/EZ   with   O.A.   No.
57/2020/EZ, thereby issuing the following directions:­
1

(i) “Having regard to the findings at (a), (b) and (c)
above, we direct the State to undertake further
exercise for preparation of a fresh DSR for the
Banka district. 
(ii) As   the   DEIAA   is   not   functioning   as   a
consequence of the decision of the Tribunal in
Satendra   Pandey   (supra),   the   DSR   shall   be
prepared through a consultant(s) accredited by
the   National   Accreditation   Board  of   Education
and   Training/Quality   Control   Council   of   India
in   terms   of   O.M.   of   MoEF   &   CC   dated
16.03.2010. 
(iii) The DSR so prepared shall be submitted to the
District   Magistrate   who   shall   verify   the   DSR
only  in respect of the relevant facts pertaining
to   the   physical   and   geographical   features   of
the   district   which   shall   be   distinct   from   the
scientific   findings   based   on   the   parameters
2

prescribed   in   the   SSMMG­   2016.   After   such
verification,   the   District   Magistrate   shall
forward   the   DSR   for   examination   and
evaluation   by   the   State   Expert   Appraisal
Committee (SEAC) having regarding to the fact
that   the   SEIAA   comprises   of
technical/scientific   experts.   The   SEAC   after
appraisal   of   the   report   shall   forward   it   to   the
SEIAA   for   consideration   and   approval   if   it
meets all scientific/technical requirements. 
(iv) While   preparing   the   DSR,   the   MoEF   &   CC
Accredited   Agency/Consultant   shall
scrupulously   follow   the   procedure   and   the
parameters laid down under the SSMMG­2016
and   EMGSM­2020   read   in   sync   with   each
other.”
3

2. The   appellant­State   of   Bihar   has   assailed   the   said
judgment   and   order   dated   14 th
  October   2020,   on   various
grounds.  
3. Shri   Atmaram   Nadkarni,   learned   Senior   Counsel
appearing   on   behalf   of   the   State   of   Bihar   submitted   that   the
Tribunal   has   grossly   erred   in   holding   that   unless   the   State
Expert Appraisal Committee (hereinafter referred to as “SEAC”)
and   the   State   Environment   Impact   Assessment   Authority
(hereinafter   referred   to   as   “SEIAA”)   grants   approval   to   the
District Survey Report (hereinafter referred to as “DSR”) for the
purpose of mining of sand, the same cannot be carried out.  He
submitted   that   the   Tribunal   has   further   held   that   the   very
invitation   of   the   tenders   without   preparing   the   DSR   in
accordance   with   the   judgment   of   the   Tribunal   in   the   case   of
Satendra   Pandey   v.   Ministry   of   Environment,   Forest   and
Climate Change and Another 1
  could not have been done.  He
submitted that after the tenders are invited in accordance with
the   DSR   prepared   by   the   District   Level   Committee,   the
1   O.A. No. 186 of 2016 (M.A. No. 350/2016)
4

successful bidder will be required to prepare a mining plan and
unless such a mining plan is approved by SEAC and SEIAA, the
Environmental   Clearance   would   not   be   granted   and   in   turn,
mining activities cannot be carried out.   He submitted that the
finding of the Tribunal is like putting the cart before the horse.
He further submitted that the Tribunal has also grossly erred in
holding   that   the   DSRs   prepared   by   the   State   were   without
following   the   requisite   procedure   and   without   considering   the
relevant  factors.     He submitted  that  not  only   the  procedure  as
prescribed   under   the   relevant   rules   and   regulations   was
complied   with,   but   the   voluminous   material   in   support   of   the
same   was   also   placed   on   record   before   the   Tribunal.   He
submitted   that   the   Tribunal   has   not   taken   into   consideration
the   said   material.   He   therefore   submitted   that   the   judgment
and   order   passed   by   the   Tribunal   dated   14 th
  October   2020,
needs   to   be   set   aside   and   the   State   needs   to   be   permitted   to
finalize the tenders received by it.
4. Shri   Nadkarni   further   submitted   that   on   account   of   the
orders   passed   by   the   Tribunal,   the   old   lessees   are   continuing
5

with   the   mining   activities   by   paying   a   meagre   amount   to   the
State   Government.    He   therefore  submitted  that  on   account   of
this, a huge loss would be caused to the public exchequer.   In
the   alternative,   he   submitted   that   the   State,   at   least,   needs   to
be permitted to undertake mining activities through Bihar State
Mining  Corporation   until  the   DSRs   are  finalized  in   accordance
with the judgment of the Tribunal.
5. Shri   P.S.   Patwalia,   learned   Senior   Counsel   appearing   on
behalf   of   the   original   applicant   vehemently   opposed   the
appeals.   He submitted that  the  Tribunal  has  rightly   held that
the   DSRs   are   not   prepared   in   accordance   with   the   relevant
rules   as   well   as   policy   guidelines.     He   submitted   that   it   is
apparently   clear   that   the   State   has   taken   into   consideration
only   financial   enrichment   without   considering   the
environmental aspects.
6. Though,   we   have   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   both   the
parties   at   length   on   merits,   we   find   that   it   will   be   appropriate
6

that the appeals are kept pending for further consideration and
till then, certain interim orders are passed.
7. It   cannot   be   in   dispute   that   though   the   developmental
activities   are   not   stalled,   the   environmental   issues   are   also
required   to   be   addressed.   A   balanced   approach   of   sustainable
development   ensuring   environmental   safeguards,   needs   to   be
resorted   to.     At   the   same   time,   it   also   cannot   be   ignored   that
when legal mining is banned, it gives rise to mushroom growth
of   illegal   mining,   resulting   into   clashes   between   sand   mafias,
criminalization   and   at   times,   loss   of   human   lives.     It   also
cannot   be   disputed   that   sand   is   required   for   construction   of
public   infrastructural   projects   as   well   as   public   and   private
construction activities.  A total ban on legal mining, apart from
giving rise to illegal mining, also causes huge loss to the public
exchequer. 
8. Taking  into  consideration  these aspects  of the  matter,  we
propose to issue certain interim directions.
7

9. The   Tribunal,   in   the   case   of   Satendra   Pandey   (supra),
has found that the notification dated 15 th
 January 2016, which
provided   Environmental   Clearance   to   be   given   by   the   District
Environment Impact Assessment Authority (hereinafter referred
to as the “DEIAA”) was not in consonance with the judgment of
this Court in the case of   Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana
and   Others 2
.     The   Tribunal   therefore   in   Satendra   Pandey
(supra),   had   directed   Ministry   of   Environment,   Forest   and
Climate   Change   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “MoEF   and   CC)   to
take steps to revise the procedure laid down in the notification
dated 15 th
  January 2016.   It is to be noted that MoEF and CC,
in   accordance   with   the   directions   of   the   Tribunal,   had   issued
Enforcement   and   Monitoring   Guidelines   for   Sand   Mining
(hereinafter   to   referred   to   as   “the   2020   guidelines”)   in   the
month   of   January   2020.     Chapter   4   of   the   2020   guidelines
deals   with   identification   of   possible   sand   mining   sources   and
preparation of DSR.   It will be relevant to refer to Clause 4.1.1
(a), (o) and (p) of the 2020 guidelines:­
2   (2012) 4 SCC 629
8

“4.1   Identification   of   possible   sand   mining
sources   and   preparation   of   District   Survey
Report (DSR) 
4.1.1 Preparation of District Survey Report.
a) District Survey Report for sand mining shall be
prepared   before   the   auction/e­auction/grant   of   the
mining   lease/Letter   of   Intent   (Loi)   by   Mining
department   or   department   dealing   the   mining
activity in respective states.
o) Potential site for mining having its impact on the
forest,   protected   area,   habitation,   bridges   etc,   shall
be   avoided.   For   this,   a   sub­divisional   committee
may be formed which after the site visit shall decide
its   suitability   for   mining.   The   list   of   mining   lease
after   the   recommendation   of   the   Committee   needs
to   be   defined   in   the   following   format   given   in   as
Annexure­II .   The   Sub­Divisional   Committee   after
the   site   visit   shall   make   a   recommendation   on   the
site for its suitability of mining and also records the
reason   for   selecting   the   mining   lease   in   the   Patta
land.   The   details   regarding   cluster   and   contiguous
cluster   needs   to   be   provided   as   in   Annexure­III .
The details of the transportation need to ~e provided
as in  Annexure IV . 
p)   Public   consultation ­The   Comments   of   the
various   stakeholders   may   be   sought   on   the   list   of
mining lease to be auctioned. The State Government
shall give an advertisement in the local and national
newspaper   for   seeking   comments   of   the   general
9

public   on   the   list   of   mining'   lease   included   in   the
DSR.   The   DSR   should   be   placed   in   the   public
domain   for   at   least   one   month   from   the   date   of
publication   of   the   advertisement   for   obtaining
comments   of   the   general   public.   The   comments   so
received   shall   be   placed   before   the   sub­divisional
committee   for   active   consideration.   The   final   list   of
sand mining areas [leases to be granted on riverbed
&   Patta   land/Khatedari   land,   de­siltation   location
(ponds/lakes/dams),   M­Sand   Plants   (alternate
source of sand)] after the public hearing needs to be
defined   in   the   final   DSR   in   the   format   as   per
Annexure­V .   The   details   regarding   cluster   and
contiguous   cluster   needs   to   be   provided   in
Annexure­VI . The details of the transportation need
to be provided in  Annexure­Vll.”
10. It   could   thus   be   seen   that   in   accordance   with   the   2020
guidelines,   the   DSR   is   required   to   be   prepared   before   the
auction/e­auction/grant of mining lease by Mining Department
or   Department   dealing   with   mining   activity   in   the   respective
States.   It is further provided that the potential site for mining
having  its  impact  on  the  forest,  protected  area,  habitation  and
bridges should be avoided. For this, a sub­divisional committee
is required to be formed which, after the site visit, is required to
decide   regarding   the   suitability   of   the   sites   for   mining.     The
10

sub­divisional   committee   is   further   required   to   record   its
reasons   for   selecting   the   mining   lease   in   the   patta   land.
Various   details   are   required   to   be   given   in   the   annexures
appended to the said policy.
11. It is further to be noted that Appendix­X of the notification
dated 15 th
 January 2016, issued by MoEF and CC also provides
for composition of the sub­divisional committee:­
“A   Sub­Divisional   Committee   comprising   of   Sub­
Divisional   Magistrate,   Officers   from   Irrigation
department,   State   Pollution   Control   Board   or
Committee,   Forest   department,   Geology   or   mining
officer   shall   visit   each   site   for   which   environmental
clearance   has   been   applied   for   and   make
recommendation   on   suitability   of   site   for   mining   or
prohibition thereof.”
12. It   is   to   be   noted   that   with   the   advent   of   modern
technology,   various   technological   gadgets   like   Drones   and
satellite   imaging   etc.   can   be   used   for   identification   of   the
potential   sites   and   preparation   of   the   DSR   and   also   to   check
misuse and unauthorized mining.  
11

13. We further  find  that  when  the  2020  guidelines as  well as
the   notification   issued   by   MoEF   and   CC   of   2016   itself   provide
for  constitution  of  sub­divisional  committees comprising   of the
officers of the State Government  from  various Departments for
identification   of   the   potential   sites   for   mining,   there   would   be
no   necessity   of   the   DSRs   being   prepared   through   private
consultants as directed by the Tribunal in the impugned order.
The   sub­divisional   committee   consists   of   various   officers   from
Revenue   Department,   Irrigation   Department,   State   Pollution
Control   Board,   Forest   Department   and   Geology   Mining
Department of the State Government.  They are better equipped
to   visit   the   sites   and   prepare   the   draft   DSR   for   the   concerned
district.     Apart   from   that,   preparation   of   DSR   through   private
consultants   would   also   unnecessarily   burden   the   public
exchequer.     We   are   therefore   of   the   view   that   the   direction   in
that regard issued by the Tribunal requires to be modified.  We
are   further   of   the   considered   view   that   until   the   DSRs   are
finalized   and   granted   approval   by   SEAC   and   SEIAA,   it   is
appropriate that certain necessary arrangements are permitted
12

so that the State can continue with legal mining activities.  This
apart   from   preventing   illegal   mining   activities,   would   also
ensure that the public exchequer is not deprived of its share in
legalized mining. 
14. We   therefore   find   it   appropriate   to   substitute   the
directions   issued   by   the   Tribunal   vide   judgment   and   order
dated 14 th
 October 2020, with the following directions:­
(i) The   exercise   of   preparation   of   DSR   for   the
purpose of mining in the State of Bihar in all the
districts   shall   be   undertaken   afresh.     The   draft
DSRs   shall   be   prepared   by   the   sub­divisional
committees   consisting   of   the   Sub­Divisional
Magistrate,   Officers   from   Irrigation   Department,
State   Pollution   Control   Board   or   Committee,
Forest   Department,   Geological   or   mining   officer.
The  same  shall  be  prepared  by  undertaking  site
visits and also by using modern technology. The
said   draft   DSRs   shall   be   prepared   within   a
13

period   of   6   weeks   from   the   date   of   this   order.
After   the   draft   DSRs   are   prepared,   the   District
Magistrate   of   the   concerned   District   shall
forward the same for examination and evaluation
by   the   SEAC.     The   same   shall   be   examined   by
the   SEAC   within   a   period   of   6   weeks   and   its
report   shall   be   forwarded   to   the   SEIAA   within
the   aforesaid   period  of   6  weeks  from   the  receipt
of   it.     The   SEIAA   will   thereafter   consider   the
grant   of   approval   to   such   DSRs   within   a   period
of 6 weeks from the receipt thereon;
(ii) Needless to state that while preparing DSRs and
the   appraisal   thereof   by   SEAC   and   SEIAA,   it
should be ensured that a strict adherence to the
procedure   and   parameters   laid   down   in   the
policy of January 2020 should be followed;
(iii) Until   further   orders,   we   permit   the   State
Government   to   carry   on   mining   activities
14

through   Bihar   State   Mining   Corporation   for
which   it   may   employ   the   services   of   the
contractors.   However,   while   doing   so,   the   State
Government   shall   ensure   that   all   environmental
concerns   are   taken   care   of   and   no   damage   is
caused to the environment.
15. List the matter after 20 weeks.
……....….......................J.
   [L. NAGESWARA RAO]
…....….......................J.
        [SANJIV KHANNA]
…….........................J.       
[B.R. GAVAI]
NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 10, 2021.
15