Full Judgment Text
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
2
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
3
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
4
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.
5
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,
6
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
7
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
8
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:
9
“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
10
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
11
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
12
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
13
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,
14
(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
15
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
16
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
17
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.
18
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
19
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
20
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.
21
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
22
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.
st
12. The Minister for (E & F) wrote DO letter dated 1 June,
2010 to all the Chief Ministers of the States to examine the
report and to issue necessary instructions for incorporating
23
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
24
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
25
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
26
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
27
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
28
February 27, 2012