The National Green Tribunal (NGT), New Delhi, has ruled that the excavation of sand from a riverbed (excluding manual excavation) is an industrial activity that causes ecological disturbances and pollution, and therefore, it is mandatory for project proponents to obtain a Consent to Establish (CTE) and Consent to Operate (CTO) from the concerned State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.
The NGT reasoned that even in the absence of a specific categorization by the CPCB or MoEF & CC, river sand mining cannot be treated as a non-polluting ‘White’ category industry and thus falls under the consent regime. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the conditions stipulated in an Environmental Clearance (EC), such as the requirement to obtain “all necessary statutory clearances”, inherently include the need for a CTE/CTO before commencing mining operations. A failure to obtain such consent constitutes a violation of the EC itself.
The regulatory authorities like the Department of Mining and SPCBs are under a strict obligation to enforce environmental laws consistently and cannot absolve violators through their own confusion or contradictory actions, added the Tribunal.
The NGT held that while the UPPCB was estopped from imposing Environmental Compensation on Respondent No. 2 for the lack of a CTO due to its own contradictory stance, this did not absolve the proponent of other violations. The Tribunal directed the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh, the Director of Geology & Mining, and the UPPCB to establish and enforce a robust mechanism ensuring that no river sand mining occurs without a valid CTE/CTO, and to make all lease and consent information publicly available on their websites.
The NGT also directed the Respondent No. 2 to remedy the deficiencies in CSR activities and to undertake compensatory afforestation for failing to develop a green belt, with verification by the District Magistrate and the Divisional Forest Officer, respectively. The District Magistrate of Kanpur Nagar was directed to pass a fresh order regarding the penalty for illegal mining against Respondent No. 2, as previously mandated by the High Court.
Finally, the Tribunal issued a stern warning to the Director of Geology & Mining and the Member Secretary of UPPCB that future non-compliance with its orders would lead to prosecution under the NGT Act, 2010.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi (Judicial Member) and Dr. Afroz Ahmad (Expert Member) observed that there was “utter confusion leading to contradictory practices” in Uttar Pradesh regarding the enforcement of environmental norms for riverbed sand mining, particularly the mandatory requirement of obtaining Consent to Establish (CTE) and Consent to Operate (CTO) from the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB).
The Bench noted that the Director of Geology & Mining and the UPPCB took contradictory stands, with the UPPCB arguing that a CTO was not necessary while simultaneously imposing Environmental Compensation (EC) on Respondent No. 2 for operating without one. The Bench strongly refuted the submission by the Director, Geology & Mining, that river sand mining does not cause pollution, stating that such a stand is “factually and scientifically wrong” and that the activity is universally acknowledged to cause ecological degradation, disturb river morphology, and generate air pollution.
The Bench made a significant observation that while the allegation of a “bridge” was not substantiated, the construction of an “approach road was found at the mining lease site in the main stream area of River, which obstruct the flow of the River”, a misconduct deemed to have a far more serious adverse environmental impact. The Bench also highlighted the serious flaw in communication and enforcement, where copies of the EC and mining lease were not properly transmitted to the relevant regional PCB office, thereby preventing effective monitoring. This was described as a clear-cut dereliction of duties by the concerned authorities.
Briefly, the applicant filed an application under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, alleging illegal sand mining in the Kanpur and Unnao regions, which caused significant air and water pollution. The primary allegations were against Respondent No. 2, who was accused of conducting mining outside the permitted coordinates, building an illegal bridge/dam that divided the Ganga river into two streams, and operating without a valid Environmental Clearance (EC) or in non-compliance with its conditions.
In response to the application, the Tribunal constituted a Joint Committee, which found that while Respondent No. 2 had an EC, there was significant non-compliance. The committee’s report highlighted that the proponent had not submitted mandatory monitoring reports, failed to conduct Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) activities, did not develop a green belt, and, most critically, had constructed an approach road in the main stream of the river, which obstructed its flow.
The Respondent No. 2 denied building a bridge and claimed the approach road was within his lease area, constructed with permission from the Gram Pradhan. The case history also revealed that Respondent No. 2’s mining operations had been stopped and restarted multiple times due to various legal proceedings concerning illegal mining and other violations, with penalties imposed by the District Magistrate.
Appearances:
NA, for the Applicant
Senior Advocate Raj Panjwani, as Amicus Curiae
Advocates Somesh Chandra Jha, Pushpila Bisht, Saurav Balwani, Pradeep Misra, and Mukesh Verma, for the Respondents
