Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal Nos.11497-11504 of 2018

Department of Mines & Geology, State of Punjab.   .... Appellant(s)

Versus

State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Punjab.

                                            …. Respondent (s)

O   R   D   E   R   

1. The  subject  matter  of  these  Appeals  is  the  order

passed by the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New

Delhi  (hereinafter,  ‘the  Tribunal’)  dismissing  the  Appeals

filed  by  the  Appellant  challenging  the  order  dated

09.04.2018  passed  by  the  Respondent.   The  Review

Application filed by the Appellant was also dismissed by the

Tribunal.   An application was preferred by the Appellant for

obtaining  environmental  clearance  under  Environment

Impact  Assessment  Notification  dated  14.09.2006

1

(hereinafter, ‘the EIA Notification’) for mining minor minerals

(sand) in an area of 12.96 hectares from the river bed of

river Satluj in the revenue estate of village Heatewal, Tehsil

Jagraon,  District  Ludhiana.  The  Appellant  submitted  the

required documents including Form-I, pre-feasibility report,

proof  of  ownership  of  land,  approved  mining  plan,  No

Objection  Certificate  from  the  concerned  District  Forest

Officer,  final  District  Survey  Report  and  environmental

management plan.    

2. The  State  Expert  Appraisal  Committee  (SEAC)

considered the application submitted by the Appellant and

granted environmental clearance for carrying out mining of

minor minerals in the 12.96 hectares.  By an order dated

03.05.2017, the environmental clearance was granted under

the  provisions  of  EIA  Notification,  subject  to  certain

conditions that were mentioned therein.   

3. The  Appellant  issued  notices  dated  03.05.2017  and

13.06.2017  notifying  its  intention  to  put  up  102  minor

mineral mines for auction.  On completion of the auction,

the Appellant applied to the Respondent for transfer of the

mining environmental clearances in favour of the successful

2 | P a g e

bidders  of  the  mining  sites.    The  application  filed  for

transfer of the environmental clearance was taken up by the

Respondent  in  its  125th meeting  held  on  12.01.2018  in

respect of village Heatewal.  It was found by the Respondent

that:   

i. Many  of  the  Khasra  numbers  are  located  in

stream, whereas at the time of filing application

for  environmental  clearance,  all  the  Khasra

numbers were shown to be in the river bed of river

Satluj and away from the active channel.  

ii. Some of the Khasra numbers being located in the

agricultural land prove that no replenishment may

be available.   

4. In view of the above, the Respondent issued a notice to

the Appellant to show cause why the mining environmental

clearance  granted  earlier  should  not  be  revoked.    The

Appellant submitted its  explanation which was considered

by the Respondent after which an order dated 09.04.2018

was passed, revoking the environmental clearance granted

to  the  Appellant.   Aggrieved  thereby,  the  Appellant  filed

Appeals before the Tribunal which were dismissed.  Review

3 | P a g e

Applications filed by the Appellant were also dismissed by

the Tribunal.  

5. The  Tribunal  observed  that  the  cancellation  of  the

environmental  clearance was preceded by spot inspection

by  the  Committee  constituted  by  the  Sub-Divisional

Magistrate, Jagraon on 12.12.2017.  The Committee visited

the  area  on  13.12.2017  to  verify  the  facts.  The  joint

demarcation  report  submitted  by  the  said  Committee

showed that:

i. Most  of  the  land  is  under  flood  protection

‘Bundhs/Spurs’.   Also, part of the land is adjoining

the flood protection ‘Bundh’.

ii. Part  of  the  land  being  under  private  cultivation

proves that replenishment may not be available.    

6. As the revocation of the environmental clearance was

on  the  basis  of  a  joint  demarcation  report,  the  Tribunal

declined to interfere.    

7. The  learned  counsel  for  the  Respondent  took  us

through  the  basic  information  provided  by  the  Appellant

while making an application for environmental clearance in

4 | P a g e

which it was stated that the proposed mining lease area is a

part of the river bed of river Satluj and no agricultural land

was involved.  He also referred to the pre-feasibility report in

which it was mentioned by the Appellant that the land was

situated in the river bed of the river Satluj and the proposed

activity was to take place in the dry part of the river bed and

hence there would be no change in the land used. It was

further  mentioned  in  the  said  report  that  the  excavated

material will get replenished in every monsoon season.  

8. The  revocation  of  the  environmental  clearance  and

rejection of the application filed for transfer of the mining

environmental clearance is on the following grounds that:

i. Many  of  the  Khasra  numbers  are  located  in

stream, whereas at the time of filing application

for  environmental  clearance,  all  the  Khasra

numbers were shown to be in the river bed of river

Satluj  and  away  from  the  active  channel.  The

General Manager-cum-Mining Officer, Ludhiana had

clearly  marked  the  mining  site  as  ‘Aks  sajra’

showing  Khasra  numbers  away  from  the  active

5 | P a g e

channel and stated that no instream mining is to be

involved.   

ii. Some  of  the  Khasra  numbers  being  located  in

agricultural land proves that no replenishment may

be available.   

9. The Respondent came to the said conclusion relying on

the  joint  inspection  report  submitted  by  the  Revenue

Department and Mining Department.     The Respondent was

of  the  opinion  that  the  appraisal  of  the  application  for

environmental clearance was on the basis of the information

furnished by the Appellant which was contrary to the ground

reality as found from the joint demarcation report.      

10. After  examining  the  material  on  record  and  the

submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for

the parties, there is no reason to interfere with the order

passed by the Tribunal.   The order of revocation of the

environmental  clearance is pursuant to the acceptance of

the report submitted by the Expert Committee constituted

by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jagraon.  The report shows

that the ground reality is different from what was projected

6 | P a g e

by  the  Appellant  in  its  application  for  grant  of  the

environmental clearance.   

11. However,  the  dismissal  of  these  Appeals  shall  not

preclude  the  Appellant  from  filing  an  application  for

environmental  clearance afresh which shall  be considered

by the Respondent on its own merits.  

12. For  the  aforementioned  reasons,  the  Appeals  are

dismissed.    

                 ..…................................J                                                      [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

                                           ..…................................J                                                     [HEMANT GUPTA]

New Delhi, November 18, 2019

7 | P a g e