REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

I.A. Nos.12-13 of 2011 IN  

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 19628-19629 OF 2009 Deepak Kumar etc.           ...Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and Others etc.                ...Respondents

WITH

SLP(C) Nos. 729-731/2011, 21833/2009, 12498- 499/2010, SLP(C) CC... 16157/2011 & CC 18235/2011

O R D E R  

K. S. Radhakrishnan, J.

I.A. Nos. 12-13 of 2011 are allowed.  SLP (C) Nos.12498-

12499 of 2010 be detagged and be listed after two weeks.

The Department of Mines and Geology, Government of  

Haryana issued an auction notice dated 3.6.2011 proposing  

to  auction the  extraction  of  minor  mineral  boulder,  gravel  

and sand quarries of an area not exceeding 4.5 hectares in  

each case in the District of Panchkula, auction notices dated  

8.8.2011 in the District of Panchkula, Ambala and Yamuna

Nagar  exceeding  5  hectares  and  above,  quarrying  minor  

mineral,  road  metal  and  masonary  stone  mines  in  the  

District  of  Bhiwani,  stone,  sand  mines  in  the  District  of  

Mohindergarh,  slate  stone mines in the District  of  Rewari,  

and also in the Districts of Kurukshetra, Karnal, Faridabad  

and Palwal, with certain restrictions for quarrying in the river  

beds  of  Yamuna,  Tangri,  Markanda,  Ghaggar,  Krishnavati  

River basin, Dohan River basin etc.   The validity of those  

auction notices is under challenge before us, apart from the  

complaint of illegal mining going on in the State of Rajasthan  

and Uttar Pradesh.

2. When the matter came up for hearing on 25.11.2011,  

we  passed  an  order  directing  the  CEC  to  make  a  local  

inspection with intimation to MoEF, State of U.P., Rajasthan  

and Haryana with regard to the alleged illegal mining going  

on in the States of Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and also with  

regard  to  the  areas  identified  for  mining  in  the  State  of  

Haryana and submit a report.    We also directed the CEC to  

examine  whether  there  has  been  an  attempt  to  flout  EIA  

Notification dated 14.9.2006 by breaking the homogeneous  

area  into  pieces  of  less  than  5  hectares.   CEC  was  also  

2

directed to examine whether the activities going on in that  

area have any adverse environmental impact.   

3. CEC,  in  response  to  our  order,  submitted  a  detailed  

report on 4.1.2012. However, the report is silent with regard  

to  the  disturbing  trend  of  serious  illegal  and  unrestricted  

upstream, in-stream and flood plain sand mining activities  

and the prevailing degree of degradation of the sites and the  

environment, especially on the river beds mentioned earlier.  

Report of CEC however states that the auction notice also  

refer to mining leases of less than 5 hectares and hence no  

environmental clearance need  be obtained as per the MoEF  

notification dated 14.9.2006.  No light is also thrown on the  

question whether there has been, in fact, an attempt to flout  

the  notification  dated  14.9.2006  by  breaking  the  

homogeneous area into pieces of less than 5 hectares and the  

possible environmental or ecological impact on quarrying of  

minor minerals.

4. Mr. Patwalia, learned senior counsel appearing for the  

petitioners, submitted that CEC report is silent about those  

aspects  and  also  whether  1  km.  distance  has  been  

3

maintained  between  the  mining  blocks  of  less  than  5  

hectares.  Learned counsel also submitted that mining areas  

earmarked are  at  the  foothills  of  fragile  Himalayan ranges  

known as Shivalik hills, which are spread over  the Districts  

of Panchkula, Ambala and Yamuna Nagar and the illegal and  

excessive  mining  has  caused  serious  environmental  

degradation  and  ecological  impact,  and  no  Environmental  

Impact Assessment has ever taken place in areas earmarked  

for mining especially on the river beds.  

  5.  Shri  Gopal  Subramaniam,  learned  senior  counsel  

appearing for the State of Haryana, submitted that the State  

has taken adequate and effective precautions to maintain 1  

km.  separation  between  mining  blocks  of  less  than  5  

hectares  each and that  the  auction notice  dated 3.6.2011  

itself has imposed strict restrictions on quarrying in the river  

beds so also the auction notice dated 8.8.2011.  Further, it  

was pointed out that the notification dated 14.9.2006 would  

not  apply  for  quarrying minor  minerals  from areas  of  less  

than  5  hectares  and  therefore,  no  environmental  impact  

assessment needs to be undertaken either at the instance of  

the State Government or the Project Proponent.

4

6. Shri Mohan Jain, learned Additional Solicitor General,  

appearing for the MoEF submitted that the grant or allotment  

of  mining  licence/lease  of  smaller  plots  of  less  than  five  

hectares should not be encouraged from the environmental  

point of view and that the applicability of EIA notification of  

2006, has to be seen in its letter and spirit so as to ensure  

environmental  safeguards  in  place  and  implemented  for  

sustainable  mining.   Learned  counsel  also  assured,  if  

environmental clearance is sought for covering a mining area  

of  less  than  five  hectares,  the  same  shall  be  immediately  

attended  to  and  necessary  clearance  would  be  granted  in  

accordance with law.

7. We  have  no  materials  before  us  to  come  to  the  

conclusion that the removal of minor mineral boulder, gravel,  

sand  quarries  etc.  covered  by  the  auction  notices  dated  

3.6.2011 and 8.8.2011,  in  the  places  notified  therein  and  

also  in  the  river  beds  of  Yamuna,  Ghaggar,  Tangri,  

Markanda,  Krishnavati  river  basin,  Dohan river  basin  etc.  

would not cause environmental degradation or threat to the  

biodiversity,  destroy  riverine  vegetation,  cause  erosion,  

5

pollute water sources etc.  Sand mining on either side of the  

rivers,  upstream  and  in-stream,  is  one  of  the  causes  for  

environmental  degradation  and  also  a  threat  to  the  

biodiversity.   Over  the  years,  India’s  rivers  and  Riparian  

ecology  have  been  badly  affected  by  the  alarming  rate  of  

unrestricted  sand  mining  which  damage  the  ecosystem of  

rivers  and  the  safety  of  bridges,  weakening  of  river  beds,  

destruction  of  natural  habitats  of  organisms  living  on  the  

river beds, affects fish breeding and migration, spells disaster  

for the conservation of many bird species, increases saline  

water in the rivers etc.   Extraction of alluvial material from  

within  or  near  a  streambed  has  a  direct  impact  on  the  

stream’s  physical  habitat  characteristics.  These  

characteristics include bed elevation, substrate composition  

and stability, in-stream roughness elements, depth, velocity,  

turbidity,  sediment  transport,  stream  discharge  and  

temperature.  Altering these habitat characteristics can have  

deleterious  impacts  on  both  in-stream  biota  and  the  

associated riparian habitat.   The demand for sand continues  

to increase day by day as building and construction of new  

infrastructures and expansion of existing ones is continuous  

6

thereby placing immense pressure on the supply of the sand  

resource and hence mining activities are going on legally and  

illegally  without any restrictions.   Lack of  proper planning  

and  sand  management  cause  disturbance  of  marine  

ecosystem  and  also  upset  the  ability  of  natural  marine  

processes to replenish the sand.    

8. We are expressing our deep concern since we are faced  

with a situation where the  auction notices dated 3.6.2011  

and 8.8.2011 have permitted quarrying mining and removal  

of sand from in-stream and upstream of several rivers, which  

may  have  serious  environmental  impact  on  ephemeral,  

seasonal  and  perennial  rivers  and  river  beds  and  sand  

extraction  may  have  an  adverse  effect  on  bio-diversity  as  

well.   Further  it  may  also  lead  to  bed  degradation  and  

sedimentation  having  a  negative  effect  on the  aquatic  life.  

Rivers mentioned in the auction notices are on the foothills of  

the  fragile  Shivalik  hills.   Shivalik  hills  are  the  source  of  

rivers like Ghaggar, Tangri, Markanda etc.  River Ghaggar is  

a  seasonal  river  which  rises  up  in  the  outer  Himalayas  

between  Yamuna  and  Satluj  and  enters  Haryana  near  

Pinjore,  District  Panchkula,  which passes  through Ambala  

7

and  Hissar  and  reaches  Bikaner  in  Rajasthan.   River  

Markanda is also a seasonal river like Ghaggar, which also  

originates from the lower Shivalik hills and enters Haryana  

near Ambala.  During monsoon, this stream swells up into a  

raging torrent, notorious for its devastating power, as also,  

river Yamuna.  

9. We find that it is without conducting any study on the  

possible environmental impact on/in the river beds and else-  

where the auction notices have been issued.  We are of the  

considered  view  that  when  we  are  faced  with  a  situation  

where extraction of alluvial  material  within or near a river  

bed  has  an  impact  on  the  rivers  physical  habitat  

characteristics, like river stability, flood risk, environmental  

degradation, loss of habitat, decline in biodiversity, it is not  

an answer to say that the extraction is in blocks of less than  

5 hectares, separated by 1 kilometre, because their collective  

impact may be significant, hence the necessity of a proper  

environmental  assessment plan.  Possibly  this may be the  

reason that in the affidavit filed by the MoEF on 23.11.2011  

along with the annexure-2  report,  the  following stand has  

been taken:

8

“The Ministry is of the opinion that where  the  mining  area  is  homogenous,  physically  proximate end on identifiable piece of land of 5  ha or more, it should not be broken into smaller  sizes to circumvent the EIA Notification, 2006 as  the EIA Notification, 2006 is not applicable to the  mining projects having lease area of less than 5  ha.  The Report of Committee on Minor Minerals,  under the Chairmanship of the Secretary (E&F)  with  representatives  of  various  state  Governments as members including the State of  Haryana  and  Rajasthan  recommended  a  minimum lease size of 5 ha for minor minerals  for  undertaking scientific mining for the purpose  of  integrating  and  addressing  environmental  concerns.  Only in cases of isolated discontinued  mineral deposits in less than 5 ha, such mining  leases  may  be  considered  keeping  in  view  the  mineral conservation.”

Situations referred to earlier  prevail not only in the State of  

Haryana but also in the neighbouring and other States of the  

country as well  and those issues had come up for serious  

deliberations  before  the  Government  of  India,  on  various  

occasions.     

10. Government  of  India  was  receiving  various  reports  

regarding the adverse impacts on riverbeds and groundwater  

due  to  quarrying/mining  of  minerals.    The  Mines  and  

Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act 1957 empowers the  

State  Governments  to  make  rules  in  respect  of  minor  

9

minerals. It was noticed that proposals for mining of major  

minerals typically undergo environment impact assessment  

and environmental  clearance  procedure,  but  due  attention  

has not  been given  to  environmental  aspects  of  mining  of  

minor  minerals.   Environmental  Impact  Assessment  

Notification  of  1994 did  not  apply  to  the  mining  of  minor  

minerals, noticing that minor minerals were brought under  

the  ambit  of  the  Environmental  Impact  Assessment  

Notification of  2006 and as per the said notification mining  

of minerals with a lease area of 5 hectares and above require  

prior environmental clearance.  MoEF’s attention was drawn  

to several instances across the country regarding damage to  

lakes,  riverbeds  and  groundwater  leading  to  drying  up  of  

water  beds  and  causing  water  scarcity  on  account  of  

quarry/mining  leases  and  mineral  concessions  granted  

under  the  Mineral  Concession  Rules  framed  by  the  State  

Governments  under  Section 15 of  the  Mines and Minerals  

(Development and Regulation) Act 1957.   MoEF noticed that  

less attention was given on environmental aspects of mining  

of  minor  minerals  since  the  area  was  small,  but  it  was  

noticed that the collective impact in a particular area over a  

10

period of time might be significant.    Taking note of those  

aspects,  MoEF  constituted  a  Core  Group  under  the  

Chairmanship  of  the  Secretary  (E&F)  to  look  into  the  

environmental  aspects  associated  with  mining  of  minor  

minerals,  vide  its  order  dated 24.03.2009.    The terms of  

reference to the Group were as under:

(i) To consider the environmental aspects of mining  of  minor  minerals  (quarrying  as  well  as  river  beds  mining)  for  their  integration  into  the  mining process.

(ii) Specific  safeguard  measures  required  to  minimize the  likely  adverse impacts  of  mining  on environment with specific reference to impact  on water bodies as well as groundwater so as to  ensure sustainable mining.

(iii) To  evolve  model  guidelines  so  as  to  address  mining as well as environmental concerns in a  balanced  manner  for  their  adoption  and  implementation  by  all  the  mineral  producing  States.

The Group held its first meeting on 7.7.2009 and discussed  

the impact that may be caused by quarrying/mining of minor  

minerals  on riverbeds and ground waters.   It  was noticed  

that individual mines of minor minerals being small in size  

may  have  insignificant  impact,  however,  their  collective  

impacts,  taking  into  consideration  various  mines  on  a  

regional scale, is significantly adverse.   It was, therefore, felt  

11

necessary  to  consider  various  aspects  since  appropriate  

guidelines have to be issued on the basis of the report of the  

Committee.   The  issues  which  were  brought  up  for  

consideration were; (i)  the need to re-look the definition of  

minor mineral,  (ii)  minimum size  of  lease for  adopting eco  

friendly scientific  mining practices,  (iii)  period of  lease,  (iv)  

cluster of mine approach for addressing and implementing  

EMP in case of small mines, (v) depth of mining to minimize  

adverse  impact  on  hydrological  regime,  (vi)  requirement  of  

mine plan for minor minerals, similar to major minerals, and  

(vii)  reclamation  of  mined  out  area,  post  mine  land  use,  

progressive mine closure plan etc.

11. Comments and inputs from various States and Experts  

were also invited so as to prepare a report for consideration  

of the MoEF.  Based on the discussion held and subsequent  

inputs received, a draft report was prepared and circulated to  

all  members  for  their  further  inputs.   Report  was  further  

discussed  on  29.1.2010  for  its  finalization.  The  

observations/comments  made  during  the  meeting  were  

incorporated in the report and it was again circulated to all  

members for  their  consideration.   The report  so circulated  

12

was  ultimately  finalized.  The  decision  taken  by  the  MoEF  

affects generally the mining of minor minerals including the  

riverbed  mining  throughout  the  country.   For  an  easy  

reference, we may extract the issues and recommendations  

made by the MoEF, which are as follows:

“4.0 ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Definition of Minor Mineral:

The term minor mineral is defined in  clause (e) of Section 3 of MMDR Act, 1957 as  “minor mineral means building stones, gravel,  ordinary clay, ordinary sand other than sand  used  for  prescribed  purposes  and  any  other  material which the Central Government may,  by Notification in the Gazette of India declare  to  be  a  minor  mineral”.   The  term ‘ordinary  sand’  used  in  clause  (e)  of  Section  3  of  the  MMDR Act, 1957 has been further clarified in  rule 70 of the MCR, 1960 as “sand shall not be  treated as minor mineral when used for any of  the following purposes namely: (i) purposes of  refractory  and  manufacture  of  ceramic,  (ii)  metallurgical  purposes,  (iii)  optical  purposes,  (iv) purposes of stowing in coal mines, (v) for  manufacture  of  silvicrete  cement,  (vi)  manufacture  of  sodium  silicate  and  (vii)  manufacture of pottery and glass.

Additionally,  the  Central  Government  has  declared  the  following  minerals  as  minor  minerals:  (i)  boulder,  (ii)  shingle, (iii)  chalcedony pebbles used for ball  mill purposes only, (iv) limeshell, kankar and  limestone  used  in  kilns  for  manufacture  of  lime used as building material, (v) murrum, (vi)  brick-earth, (vii) fuller’s earth, (viii) bentonite,  

13

(ix)  road  metal,  (x)  reh-matti,  (xi)  slate  and  shale  when  used  for  building  material,  (xii)  marble, (xiii) stone used for making household  utensils,  (xiv)  quartzite  and  sandstone  when  used  for  purposes  of  building  or  for  making  road  metal  and  household  utensils,  (xv)  saltpeter  and  (xvi)  ordinary  earth  (used  or  filling or levelling purposes in construction or  embankments, roads, railways building).

It  may  thus  be  observed  that  minerals have been classified into major and  minor minerals based on their end use rather  than  level  of  production,  level  of  mechanization, export and import etc.   There  do  exist  some minor  mineral  mines  of  silica  sand  and  limestone  where  the  scale  of  mechanization and level of production is much  higher than those of industrial mineral mines.  Further,  in  terms  of  the  economic  cost  and  revenue, it has been estimated that the total  value of minor minerals constitutes about 10%  of  the  total  value  of  mineral  production  whereas  the  value  of  non  metallic  minerals  comprises  only  3%.   It  is,  therefore,  evident  that the operation of mines of minor minerals  need  to  be  subject  to  some  regulatory  parameters as that of mines of major minerals.  

Further, unlike India there does not  exist any such system based on end usage in  other  countries  for  classifying  minerals  into  major and minor categories.  Thus, there is a  need  to  re-look  at  the  definition  of  “minor”  minerals per se.

It  is,  therefore,  recommended  that  Ministry  of  Mines  along  with  Indian  Bureau of Mines,  in consultation with the  State  Governments  may  re-examine  the  classification  of  minerals  into  major  and  minor  categories  so  that  the  regulatory  

14

aspects  and  environment  mitigation  measures  are  appropriately  integrated  for  ensuring sustainable and scientific  mining  with least impacts on environment.

4.2 Size of the Mine Lease:

Area for grant of mine lease varies from  State to State.  Maximum area which can be  held under one or more mine lease is 2590 ha  or  25.90  sq.miles  in  Jammu  &  Kashmir.  Rajasthan prescribed a minimum limit of 1 ha  for  a  lease.   Maximum  area  prescribed  for  permit is 50x50 m.  In most of the States area  of permit is not specified in the rules.   It has  recently been observed by Punjab and Haryana  High Court in its order dated 15.5.2009 that  State  Government  are  apparently  granting  short term permits by dividing the mining area  into small zones in effect avoids environmental  norms.

There is, thus a need to bring uniformity  in the  extent of  area  to be granted for  mine  lease so as to ensure that eco friendly scientific  mining  practices  can  be  adopted.   It  is  recommended  that  the  minimum  size  of  mine  lease  should  be  5  ha.   Further,  preparation of comprehensive mine plan for  contiguous stretches of mineral deposits by  the respective State Governments may also  be  encouraged.   This  may  suitably  be  incorporated  in  the  Mineral  Concession  Rules, 1960 by Ministry of Mines.

4.3 Period of Mine Lease:

The period of lease varies from State  to  State  depending  on  type  of  concessions,  minerals and its end use.   The minimum lease  period  is  one  year  and  maximum  30  years.  Minerals like granite where huge investments  

15

are required, a period of 20 years is generally  given with the provisions of renewal.  Permits  are generally granting for short periods which  vary from one month to a maximum one year.  In States like Haryana, minor mineral  leases  are  auctioned  for  a  particular  time  period.  Mining  is  considered  to  be  capital  intensive  industry  and  considerable  time  is  lost  for  developing the mine before it attains the status  of  fully  developed mine.  If  the  tenure  of  the  mine  lease  is  short,  it  would  encourage  the  lessee  to  concentrate  more  on  rapid  exploitation  of  mineral  without  really  undertaking  adequate  measures  for  reclamation  and  rehabilitation  of  mined  out  area,  posing  thereby  a  serious  threat  to  the  environment  and  health  of  the  workers  and  public at large.

There is thus, a need to bring uniformity  in  the  period  of  lease.   It  is  recommended  that  a  minimum  period  of  mine  lease  should  be  5  years,  so  that  eco  friendly  scientific and sustainable mining practices  are  adopted.   However,  under  exceptional  circumstances  arising  due  to  judicial  interventions,  short  term mining  leases  /  contracts  could  be  granted  to  the  State  Agencies to meet the situation arising there  from.

4.4 Cluster  of  Mine  Approach  for  Small  Sized Mines:

Considering the nature of occurrence  of  minor  mineral,  economic  condition  of  the  lessee and the likely difficulties to be faced by  Regulatory  Authorities  in  monitoring  the  environmental impacts and implementation of  necessary  mitigation  measures,  it  may  be  desirable to adopt cluster approach in case  of  smaller  mine  leases  being  operated  

16

presently.  Further, these clusters need be  provided with processing/crusher zones for  forward  integration  and  minimizing  excessive  pressure  on  road  infrastructure.  The respective  State Governments / Mine  Owners  Associations  may  facilitate  implementation  of  Environment  Management Plans in such cluster of mines.  

4.5 Requirement  of  Mine  Plan  for  Minor  Minerals:

At  present,  most  of  the  State  Governments have not made it mandatory for  preparation of mining plan in respect of minor  minerals.  In some States  like  Rajasthan,  eco  friendly mining plans are prepared, which are  approved  by  the  State  Mining  Department.  The  eco  friendly  mining  plans  so  prepared,  though conceptually welcome, are observed to  be  deficient  and  need  to  be  made  comprehensive in a manner as is being done  for  major  minerals.   Besides,  the  aspects  of  reclamation  and  rehabilitation  of  mined  out  areas,  progressive  mine  closure  plan,  as  in  vogue for major minerals could be introduced  for minor minerals as well.

It  is  recommended that  provision for  preparation and approval  of mine plan,  as  in  the  case  of  major  minerals  may  appropriately  be  provided  in  the  Rules  governing the mining of minor minerals by  the respective State Governments.   These  should specifically include the provision for  reclamation and rehabilitation of mined out  area,  progressive  mine  closure  plan  and  post mine land use.

17

4.6 Creation  of  Separate  Corpus  for  Reclamation / Rehabilitation of Mines  of Minor Minerals:

Mining of minor minerals, in our country,  is  by  and  large  unorganized  sector  and  is  practiced  in  haphazard  and  unscientific  manner.  At times, the size of the leasehold is  also  too  small  to  address  the  issue  of  reclamation and rehabilitation of  mined outs  areas.   It  may,  therefore,  be  desirable  that  before  the  concept  of  mine  closure  plan  for  minor  minerals  is  adopted,  the  existing  abandoned  mines  may  be  reclaimed  and  rehabilitated with the involvement of the State  Government.  There is thus, a need to create  a separate corpus, which may be utilized for  reclamation and rehabilitation of mined out  areas.   The respective State Governments  may  work  out  a  suitable  mechanism  for  creation  of  such  corpus  on  the  ‘polluter  pays’ principle.  An organizational structure  may also need to be created for undertaking  and monitoring these activities.

4.7 Depth of Mining:

Mining  of  minerals,  whether  major  or  minor  have  a  direct  bearing  on  the  hydrological  regime  of  the  area.  Besides,  affecting the availability of water as a resource,  it  also  affects  the  quality  of  water  through  direct  run  of  going  into  the  surface  water  bodies  and  infiltration  /  leaching  into  groundwater.   Further,  groundwater  withdrawal, dewatering of water from mine pit  and  diversion  of  surface  water  may  cause  surface and sub surface hydrologic systems to  dry up.  An ideal situation would require that  quarrying should be restricted to unsaturated  zone only above the phreatic water table and  should not intersect the groundwater table at  

18

any point of time.  However, from the point of  view  of  mineral  conservation,  it  may  not  be  desirable  to  impose  blanket  ban  on  mining  operation below groundwater table.

It  is,  therefore,  recommended  that  detailed  hydro-geological  report  should  be  prepared in respect of any mining operation  for minor minerals to be undertaken below  groundwater table.  Based on the findings of  the study so undertaken and the comments  /  recommendations  of  Central  Ground  Water  Authority  /  State  Ground  Water  Board,  a  decision  regarding  restriction  on  depth  of  mining  for  any  area  should  be  taken on case to case basis.

4.8 Uniform  Minor  Mineral  Concession  Rules:

The economic value of the minor minerals  excavated  in  the  country  is  estimated  to  contribute to about 9% of the total value of the  minerals  whereas  the  non  metallic  minerals  contribute to about 2.8%.  Keeping in view the  large extent of mining of minor minerals and  its significant potential to adversely affect the  environment, it is  recommended that Model  Mineral Concession rules may be framed for  minor  minerals  as  well  and  the  minor  minerals  may  be  subjected  to  a  simpler  regulatory  regime,  which  is,  however,  similar to major minerals regime.  

4.9  River Bed Mining:

4.9.1Environment  damage  being  caused  by  unregulated river bed mining of sand, bazari  and  boulders  is  attracting  considerable  attention including in the courts. The following  

19

recommendations  are  therefore  made  for  the  river bed mining.

(a)In  the  case of  mining  leases  for  riverbed  sand  mining,  specific  river  stretches  should  be  identified  and  mining  permits/lease  should  be  granted  stretch wise, so that the requisite  safeguard  measures  are  duly  implemented  and  are  effectively  monitored  by  the  respective  Regulatory Authorities.  

(b)The  depth  of  mining  may  be  restricted  to  3m/water  level,  whichever is less.

(c) For  carrying  out  mining  in  proximity  to  any  bridge  and/or  embankment,  appropriate  safety  zone  should  be  worked  out  on  case  to  case  basis,  taking  into  account  the  structural  parameters,  locational  aspects,  flow  rate  etc.  and  no  mining  should be carried out in the safety  zone so worked out.   

5.0     Conclusion:

Mining  of  minor  minerals,  though  individually,  because  of  smaller  size  of  mine  leases  is  perceived  to  have  lesser  impact  as  compared  to  mining  of  major  minerals.  

20

However, the activity as a whole is seen to have  significant adverse impacts on environment.  It  is, therefore, necessary that the mining of minor  minerals  is  subjected  to  simpler  but  strict  regulatory regime and carried out only under an  approved  framework  of  mining  plan,  which  should  provide  for  reclamation  and  rehabilitation of the mined out areas. Further,  while granting mining leases by the respective  State  Governments  “location of  any eco-fragile  zone(s) within the impact zone of the proposed  mining  area,  the  linked  Rules/Notifications  governing  such  zones  and  the  judicial  pronouncements,  if  any,  need  be  duly  noted.  The Union Ministry of Mines along with Indian  Bureau  of  Mines  and  respective  State  Governments should therefore make necessary  provisions in this regard under the Mines and  Minerals  (Development  and  Regulation)  Act,  1957,  Mineral  Concession  Rules,  1960  and  adopt  model  guidelines  to  be  followed  by  all  States. “     (emphasis supplied)

The report clearly indicates that operation of mines of minor  

minerals  needs  to  be  subjected  to  strict  regulatory  

parameters as that of mines of major minerals.  It was also  

felt necessary to have a re-look to the definition of “minor”  

minerals  per  se.  The  necessity  of  the  preparation  of  

“comprehensive  mines  plan”  for  contiguous  stretches  of  

mineral  deposits by the respective State Governments may  

also be encouraged and the same be suitably incorporated in  

the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 by the Ministry of Mines.  

Further,  it  was  also  recommended  that  States,  Union  

21

Territories  would  see  that  mining  of  minor  minerals  is  

subjected to simpler but strict regulatory regime and carried  

out only under an approved framework of mining plan, which  

should provide for  reclamation and rehabilitation of mined  

out  areas.   Mining  Plan  should  take  note  of  the  level  of  

production, level of mechanisation, type of machinery used in  

the  mining  of  minor  minerals,  quantity  of  diesel  

consumption, number of trees uprooted, export and import of  

mining minerals, environmental impact, restoration of flora  

and host of other matters referred to in 2010 rules. A proper  

framework  has  also  to  be  evolved  on cluster  of  mining  of  

minor  mineral  for  which  there  must  be  a  Regional  

Environmental  Management  Plan.   Another  important  

decision taken was that while granting of mining leases by  

the respective State Governments, location of any eco-fragile  

zone(s) within the impact zone of the proposed mining area,  

the linked Rules/Notifications governing such zones and the  

judicial pronouncements, if any, need to be duly noted.

12. The Minister for (E & F) wrote DO letter dated 1st June,  

2010 to all the Chief Ministers of the States to examine the  

report and to issue necessary instructions for incorporating  

22

the  recommendations  made  in  the  report  in  the  Mineral  

Concession Rules for mining of minor minerals under Section  

15 of Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act,  

1957.  Following are the key recommendations re-iterated  in  

the letter:

      “(1) Minimum size of mine lease should be 5 ha. (2) Minimum period of mine lease should be 5 years. (3) A cluster  approach to mines should be taken in  

case of smaller mines leases operating currently. (4) Mine plans should be made mandatory for minor  

minerals as well. (5) A  separate  corpus  should  be  created  for  

reclamation and rehabilitation of mined out areas. (6) Hydro-geological  reports  should  be  prepared  for  

mining proposed below groundwater table. (7) For  river  bed  mining,  leases  should  be  granted  

stretch wise, depth may be restricted to 3m/water  level, whichever is less, and safety zones should be  worked out.

(8) The present  classification of  minerals  into  major  and  minor  categories  should  be  re-examined  by  the  Ministry  of  Mines  in  consultation  with  the  States.”

13.  The  Ministry  of  Mines,  Govt.  of  India  sent  a  

communication  No.296/7/2000/MRC  dated  16.05.2011  

called  “Environmental  aspects  of  quarrying  and  of  minor  

minerals – Evolving of Model Guidelines” along with a draft  

model guidelines calling for inputs before 30. 06. 2011.  Draft  

rules called Minor Minerals Conservation and Development  

23

Rules, 2010 were also put on the website.  Further, it may be  

noted  Section  15(1A)(i)  of  the  Act  specifies  the  manner  in  

which rehabilitation of  flora and other  vegetation,  such as  

trees,  shrubs  and  the  like  destroyed  by  reasons  of  any  

quarrying or mining operations shall be made in the same  

area  or  in  any  other  area  once  selected  by  the  State  

Government, whether by way of reimbursement of the cost of  

rehabilitation  or  otherwise  by  the  persons  holding  the  

quarrying or mining lease.

14.    We are of the view that all State Governments / Union  

Territories have to give due weight to the above mentioned  

recommendations  of  the  MoEF  which  are  made  in  

consultation  with  all  the  State  Governments  and  Union  

Territories.  Model Rules of 2010 issued by the Ministry of  

Mines are very vital from the environmental, ecological and  

bio-diversity  point  of  view  and  therefore  the  State  

Governments have to frame proper rules in accordance with  

the  recommendations,  under  Section  15 of  the  Mines  and  

Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

15.    Quarrying of  river sand, it  is  true,  is  an important  

economic activity in the country with river sand forming a  

24

crucial raw material for the infrastructural development and  

for the construction industry but excessive in-stream sand  

and  gravel  mining  causes  the  degradation  of  rivers.    In-

stream mining lowers the stream bottom of rivers which may  

lead to bank erosion.  Depletion of sand in the streambed  

and along coastal areas causes the deepening of rivers which  

may result in destruction of aquatic and riparian habitats as  

well.   Extraction of alluvial material as already mentioned  

from within or near a streambed has a direct impact on the  

stream’s physical habitat characteristics.

16.   We are of the considered view that it is highly necessary  

to have an effective framework of mining plan which will take  

care of all environmental issues and also evolve a long term  

rational  and sustainable  use of  natural  resource base and  

also the bio-assessment protocol.   Sand mining, it  may be  

noted, may have an adverse effect on bio-diversity as loss of  

habitat  caused by  sand mining  will  effect  various  species,  

flora and fauna and it may also destabilize the soil structure  

of river banks and often leaves isolated islands.   We find  

that,  taking  note  of  those  technical,  scientific  and  

environmental matters, MoEF, Government of India, issued  

25

various  recommendations  in  March  2010  followed  by  the  

Model Rules, 2010 framed by the Ministry of Mines which  

have to be given effect to, inculcating the spirit of Article 48A,  

Article 51A(g) read with Article 21 of the Constitution.

17.    The State of Haryana and various other States have not  

so far implemented the above recommendations of the MoEF  

or  the  guidelines  issued  by  the  Ministry  of  Mines  before  

issuing auction notices granting short term permits by way of  

auction of minor mineral boulders, gravel, sand etc., in the  

river  beds  and  elsewhere  of  less  than  5  hectares.   We,  

therefore,  direct  to  all  the  States,  Union Territories,  MoEF  

and  the  Ministry  of  Mines  to  give  effect  to  the  

recommendations made by MoEF in its report of March 2010  

and the model guidelines framed by the Ministry of Mines,  

within a period of six months from today and submit their  

compliance reports.    

18.   Central Government also should take steps to bring  

into force the Minor Minerals Conservation and Development  

Rules 2010 at the earliest.  State Governments and UTs also  

should take immediate steps to frame necessary rules under  

26

Section  15  of  the  Mines  and  Minerals  (Development  and  

Regulation)  Act,  1957  taking  into  consideration  the  

recommendations of MoEF in its Report of March 2010 and  

model guidelines framed by the Ministry of Mines, Govt. of  

India.  Communicate  the  copy  of  this  order  to  the  MoEF,  

Secretary,  Ministry of  Mines,  New Delhi,  Ministry of  Water  

Resources,  Central  Government Water  Authority,  the  Chief  

Secretaries  of  the  respective  States  and  Union  Territories,  

who  would  circulate  this  order  to  the  concerned  

Departments.   

19.    We,  in  the  meanwhile,  order  that  leases  of  minor  

mineral including their renewal for an area of less than five  

hectares  be  granted  by  the  States/Union  Territories  only  

after getting environmental clearance from the MoEF.  

Ordered accordingly.

.......................................J.     (K.S. Radhakrishnan)

.......................................J. (Chandramauli Kr. Prasad)

New Delhi

27

February 27, 2012

28