National Green Tribunal Case on Environmental Impact Assessment

Select the following parts of the judgment
| Facts | Issues |
| Petitioner's Arguments | Respondent's Arguments |
| Analysis of the law | Precedent Analysis |
| Court's Reasoning | Conclusion |
For entire doc: Unmark Mark View how precedents are cited in this document View precedents: Unmark Mark View only precedents: Unmark Mark Select precedent ... Filter precedents by opinion of the court
| Accepted by Court |

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 6, Cited by 0 ] ### National Green Tribunal

T. Saravanakumar S/O.Thangavel ... vs The Tamilnadu State Environment Impact ... on 27 March, 2026

Item No.1 & 2:- Supplementary List

              BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
                   SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

                 Friday, the 27th day of March 2026.

                 [Through Physical Hearing (Hybrid Option)]

              Original Application No.77 of 2023 (SZ)

                                    WITH

                    Appeal No.80 of 2022 (SZ)

IN THE MATTER OF:

       O.A. No.77/2023 (SZ):

       T. Saravanakumar
       S/o. Thangavel,
       Residing at No.6/121,
       Chinnathambipalayam,
       Kumaripalayam,
       Namakkal District - 637 015.
                                                               ...Applicant(s)
                                      Versus

   1) The Tamil Nadu State Environment
      Impact Assessment Authority,
      Rep. by the Member Secretary,
      3rd Floor, Panagal Maligai,
      No.1, Jeenis Maligai,
      Saidapet, Chennai - 15.

   2) The Executive Engineer,
      Public Works Department
      Mines and Monitoring Department,
      Pudhukotai Road, Thiruchirapalli - 620 007.

   3) Ministry of Environment, Forest and
      Climate Change,
      Rep. by its Member Secretary,
      Paryavaran Bhavan, CGO Complex,
      Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003.

      (R3 - Suo Motu impleaded as per order dt.06.10.2023)

                                                              ...Respondent(s)
                                      WITH

    Appeal No.80/2022 (SZ):

   1) Anaithu Vivasaykalin Kanimavala,
      Neervala, Sutrusoolal Padhukapu Iyakkam
     Registration No. 108/2021,
     Represented by its President - M.S. Thirumalai
     Door No.2/184, Chinna Kaliamman Kovil Street,
     Pisindi Village, Kariyapatti Taluk,
     Virudhunagar District.

                                                                    Page 1 of 25

2) Nenmeni Panchayat
Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District
Represented by its President,
Mrs. S. Velammal,
Wife of Sakthivel,
Nenmeni, Sattur Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
...Appellant(s)
Versus

1) The Secretary
Government of India,
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change,
Paryavaran Bhavan, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003.

2) The Secretary to Government
Department of Environment, Climate Change & Forest,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort George, Chennai - 600 009.

3) The Member Secretary
State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority
(Tamil Nadu)
3rd Floor, Panagal Maligai,
No.1, Jeenis Road, Saidapet,
Chennai - 600 015.

4) The Executive Engineer
PWD, WRO, MMD,
Tallakulam,
Madurai - 625 002.

5) The District Collector
Virduhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
...Respondent(s)

O.A. No.77/2023 (SZ):-

For Applicant(s): M/s. A. Yogeshwaran & B. Poongkhulali.

For Respondent(s): Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for R1.
Mr. P.S. Raman, AG a/w.
Dr. D. Shanmuganathan for R2.
Mr. T. Raghavan for R3.

Appeal No.80/2022 (SZ):-

For Applicant(s): M/s. T. Kokilavane & Nishant.

For Respondent(s): Mr. AR. L. Sundaresan, ASGI a/w.
Mr. G.M. Syed Nurullah Sheriff for R1.
Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for R3.
Mr. P.S. Raman, AG a/w.
Dr. D. Shanmuganathan for R2, R4 & R5.

Judgment Reserved on: 11th February, 2026.

                                                             Page 2 of 25

CORAM:

HON'BLE Smt. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

HON'BLE Dr. PRASHANT GARGAVA, EXPERT MEMBER

                           COMMON JUDGMENT Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member

         "அகழ் வாரைத் தாங் கும் நிலம் ப ாலத் தம் ரம

         இகழ் வாை் ் ப ாறுத்தல் தரல."

(குறள் 151: ப ொறறயுறைறை)

1) The above verse (151) in the Thirukkural highlights
the patience of the earth, which continues to support and provide
for those who dig, till or wound it for their own gain.

2) In the context of modern sand mining, this ancient
wisdom serves as both an environmental ethic and a stark
warning. While the Earth 'bears' those who dig, modern sand
mining often exceeds the natural 'patience' of the environment.
Unlike traditional manual mining, large scale extraction leads to
irreversible damage like riverbed degradation and falling water
tables. Thiruvalluvar often warned that prosperity without limits
will perish. In sand mining, when the Earth's patience is
exhausted, it manifests as environmental collapse.

3) In this context, the above-captioned application
[Original Application No.77 of 2023 (SZ)] is filed alleging the
mechanization of river sand mining lease by the Project Proponent
(Respondent No.2), namely the Public Works Department (PWD).

4) The dispute refers to the illegal mechanized mining by
the 2nd Respondent at S.F. No.643/1 Part (Mile 77/2+150 to 77/5
+ 150), Oruvandhoor Village, Namakkal District, in an extent of
16.18.0 Hectares on the Cauvery Riverbed.

5) The Project Proponent had secured the Environmental
Clearance by classifying the project category as 'B2' and stated
that two poclains can be used. The Environmental Clearance was
issued on 10.08.2016 with a validity period of two years.
However, the same was amended on 09.10.2017, permitting the
use of four poclains. As the Project Proponent has been deploying
heavy machinery particularly poclains, which was added by way of
an amendment, had unilaterally altered the method of mining.
Thus alleging, the applicant prays for restricting of the operation
to the manual method only, as the mechanization converts the
project into 'B1' Category, which requires a comprehensive
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and mandatory public
hearing component.

6) Similar is the challenge in Appeal No.80 of 2022
(SZ) to the Environmental Clearance dated 10.09.2022 granted
for sand quarrying in an extent of 4.95.5 Hectares situated at Sy.
No.1095 Part, Nenmeni Village, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar
District.

7) It is alleged that the 4th Respondent/Public Works
Department had not complied with the orders passed in W.P. (MD)
No.20903 of 2016 dated 12.02.2021, wherein the Hon'ble High
Court ordered the constitution of the Committee for conducting
studies on the availability of river sand on the adjacent patta lands
to the river Vaippar in the village limits of Nenmeni and adjoining
villages.

8) The appellant has alleged that the Project Proponent
had purposely obtained the Environmental Clearance under 'B2'
Category, showing an extent as 4.95.5 Hectares in order to avoid
a public hearing. The Environmental Clearance was issued under
'B2' Category for a period of six months and it allowed the usage
of the opencast method by mechanical means without providing
means for replenishment. Hence, the appeal.

9) In both the Original Application and the Appeal, the
question involved is whether the 'mechanical mining' can be
allowed when the Environmental Clearance is issued under
the 'B2' Category, which allows only the 'manual mining'
method.

10) In Original Application No.77 of 2023 (SZ), the
original Environmental Clearance was granted on 10.08.2016,
allowing semi-mechanized mining with an ultimate depth of 1
Meter below the riverbed for a period of two years. However, an
amended Environmental Clearance was issued on 09.10.2017,
increasing the number of poclains that can be employed.

11) Similarly, in Appeal No.80 of 2022 (SZ), the Project
Proponent had applied for Environmental Clearance under 'B2'
Category to do only the manual mining and avoid public hearing,
limiting the mining area to 4.95.5 Hectares, whereas the
Environmental Clearance was granted, allowing the usage of
opencast method by mechanical means without providing for
means of replenishment.

12) The river and its beds are not merely geographical
features but the life blood of the fertile agricultural landscape.
'Sand Mining', which is a modern term, is not known to the ancient
text. However, the ecological and spiritual importance of the river
sand is deeply embedded in their descriptions of prosperity and
conservation. River sand has its own ecological significance, as it
acts as a water filter and storage. Rivers like the Cauvery are
natural aquifers with regulated flow.

13) The famous Tamil poetess Avvaiyar explained the
interconnectedness of the land and water and stated that:

"வை ் புயை நீ ை் உயரும்
நீ ை் உயை பநல் உயரும்
பநல் உயைக் குடி உயரும்
குடி உயைக் பகால் உயரும்
பகால் உயைக் பகான் உயை்வான்"

"As the bunds rise, the water level will rise
As the water level rises, the paddy crop will rise/thrive
As the paddy crop rises, the citizens lives will rise/prosper
As the citizens prosper, the sceptre will rise
As the sceptre rises, the king himself will rise"
14) When the ridge is raised, the water level rises. This
reflects the understanding of maintaining the physical integrity of
the river environment, including its beds and banks, which, in fact,
directly impacts the kingdom's survival. Besides the ecological
significance, river sand had high cultural and aesthetic value.
Rivers were revered and personified as nurturing mothers. River
sand symbolized a clean, thriving environment. Harming the
riverbed was seen as an act against the mother who sustains life.
The river and river sand were used in various rituals, highlighting
its presence in daily spiritual life.

15) The Tamil Literature emphasise that it is the duty of
the King to protect the waterbodies and that allowing the
degradation of the river (over-extraction) was considered a failure
of moral leadership.

16) The renowned ancient poet and philosopher,
Thiruvalluvar, in one of his celebrated couplets, states:

நீ ை்இன்று அரமயாது உலபகனின் யாை்யாை்க்கும்
வான்இன்று அரமயாது ஒழுக்கு

"No living being regardless of their status or power
can survive or function without water"

("The world cannot exist without water.")

17) This couplet emphasizes that without proper
management of natural resources, particularly the protection of
rivers, both morality and the fabric of society would deteriorate.
Whether it is economic and political chain or the existential
necessity, water is the fundamental basis for all life.

18) However, in the modern context, the sand is deemed
as gold and traded for a short-term profit at the cost of a lifeline.
While the river sand is classified as a 'minor mineral', which is
primarily under the control of the State, the environmental laws
and the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
restrict the extraction. In fact, there is an active ban on private
river sand mining from 2019 and the State operates a limited
number of legal quarries under strict monitoring.

19) The Environment Impact Assessment (EIA)
Notification, 2006, imposes certain restrictions and prohibitions on
new projects/activities unless the prior Environmental Clearance
has been accorded in accordance with the objectives of the
National Environment Policy. Accordingly, the projects/activities
are classified into Category 'A' - requires Central-level appraisal
and Category 'B' - requires State-level appraisal. Category 'B' is
further divided into 'B1' Category, which mandates the EIA Study
and public hearing, whereas the 'B2' Category does not warrant
either the EIA Study or public hearing. Over the years, the
amendments were brought about in this EIA Notification, 2006,
for the purpose of strengthening the Environmental Clearance
norms and laying down further procedures for close scrutiny.

20) The O.M. dated 18.05.2012 was issued after the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2012) 4 SCC
629 - Deepak Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. dated
27.02.2012, orders that include the mining of minor lease area
less than 5 Hectares also within the ambit of the prior
Environmental Clearance, which includes the renewal of the
ongoing lease also.

"8. .... .... .... Sand mining on either
side of the rivers, upstream and instream, 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 riverbeds,
destruction of natural habitats of organisms living on the
riverbeds, affects fish breeding and migration, spells disaster
for the conservation of many bird species, increases saline
water in the rivers, etc.

1. 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, instream
   roughness elements, depth, velocity, turbidity, sediment
   transport, stream discharge and temperature. Altering these
   habitat characteristics can have deleterious impacts on both
   instream 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 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.

2. 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 instream and upstream of several
rivers, which may have serious environmental impact on
ephemeral, seasonal and perennial rivers and riverbeds and
sand extraction may have an adverse effect on biodiversity
as well. Further, it may also lead to bed degradation and
sedimentation having a negative effect on the aquatic life.
The 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 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.

1. We find that it is without conducting any study on the possible environmental impact on/in the riverbeds and elsewhere 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 riverbed has an impact on the river's 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 ha, separated by 1 km, because their collective impact may be significant, hence the necessity of a proper environmental assessment plan.

... ... ...

1. Quarrying of river sand, it is true, is an important
   economic activity in the country with river sand forming a
   crucial raw material for the infrastructural development and
   for the construction industry but excessive instream sand
   and gravel mining causes the degradation of rivers. Instream
   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.

2. 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
   biodiversity as loss of habitat caused by sand mining will
   affect various species, flora and fauna and it may also
   destabilise 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 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 48-A and Article 51-A(g) read with Article 21 of the
   Constitution."
   (emphasis supplied)

21) The above quoted paras became the jurisprudential
basis for river sand mining to be framed in a neutral, technical and
legally precise manner highlighting both common practices and
regulatory concerns. The Ministry of Environment, Forests and
Climate Change (MoEF&CC) had issued the Official Memorandum

(O.M.) dated 24.12.2013, which is a guideline for consideration of
the proposal for grant of Environmental Clearance regarding the
categorization of Category 'B' projects into 'B1' and 'B2'. The sand,
which is a minor mineral, was categorized as 'B2' Category. As
per the above-mentioned O.M., no river sand mining project with
a mine lease area less than 5 Hectares may be considered for
granting Environmental Clearance. The river sand mining projects
with a mining lease area greater than 5 Hectares and less than 25
Hectares will be categorized as 'B2' Category. In addition to the
requirement of documents such projects will be subject to
stipulations, namely (1) Mining activity shall be done manually,
(2) The depth of the mining shall be restricted to 3 Meters/water
level whichever is less, (3) No instream mining, (4) Mining lease
period will be for a maximum period of five years, (5) If the
periphery of the one lease is less than 1 Km from another and the
total area exceeds 25 Hectares, the project becomes 'B1' Category
regardless of individual size.

22) The O.M. dated 24.12.2013 categorize the
projects/activities into 'B1' and 'B2'. It is pertinent to note that
the said O.M. does not include rough stone, gravel, brick earth,
ordinary earth in the method of extract, except for the river sand
mining. 'B2' Category also includes metallurgical industry, cement
plant, leather, skin industries, chemical industries, etc. River
sand mining is categorized predominantly based on the
method of extraction, in addition to the area of the mining
lease. 'B2' Category project, less than 5 Hectares, did not require
Environmental Clearance only in non-cluster mining. In the cluster
method, where adjacent blocks are taken up, separate quarrying
plans and Environmental Clearance should be obtained, yet
cumulative impact remains the determinative factor. This
assumes importance to prevent the mischief of segmentation,
whereby a large contiguous mining is fragmented into smaller
leases to evade the 'B1' threshold. For the said reason, if the
periphery of one lease is within 500 meters of another and the
total area exceeds 25 Hectares, the rigorous EIA protocol will
apply. The classification of 'B1' and 'B2' categories is rooted in the
'Precautionary Principle' and the physical impact on the river
ecology. The exemption under 'B2' Category is technically
restricted to the shallow depths typically of 1 meter, thereby

preserving the riverbed and protecting the aquifers' natural
filtration capacity. Hence, deploying poclains or mechanical
opencast mining will result in deep pit extraction, resulting in bank
instability and an increase in turbidity.

23) While so, the Sustainable Sand Mining Management
Guidelines, 2016 (SSMMG-2016) was issued by the MoEF&CC.
The said guidelines highlight the need for sand mining compliance.
While the above guidelines allow for semi-mechanized operation
in certain conditions based on the period of operation, they strictly
enforce that the mining plan must match the Environmental
Clearance category.

24) It was argued on the side of the State of Tamil Nadu
that the SSMMG-2016 has superseded the O.M. dated 24.12.2013
insofar as the sand mining is concerned. To support the said
contention, it was stated that while issuing the SSMMG-2016, it
did not specify the conditions mentioned in O.M. dated
24.12.2013. Therefore, it was argued that the intention was to go
only by the SSMMG-2016 and not by the O.M. and the
Environmental Clearances, though issued under 'B2' Category,
mechanical mining is permitted.

25) The Environmental Clearances referred to in both the
Original Application and Appeal impose conditions to the Project
Proponent to have judicious use of a minimum number of poclains
and not more than two poclains on the project site till the expiry
of the lease period or excavation of the approved quantity,
whichever is earlier. However, in the Oruvandhoor mining
operation, a later amendment permits the use of four poclains in
the Oruvandhoor Sand Quarry for loading sand into trucks by
scooping it from the riverbed. [O.A. No.77 of 2023 (SZ)]

26) Whether the said operation would be legally
authorized under the approved mining plan and does not
constitute a violation. Certainly, this would be a circumvention by
obtaining a clearance under 'B2' category, which is meant for
manual mining only, but using heavy machinery.

27) In the next scenario [Appeal No.80 of 2022 (SZ)],
where the decision to grant Environmental Clearance was not
arbitrary but based on the rigorous appraisal on the specific
recommendations of the State Expert Appraisal Committee
(SEAC), then it is by adopting segmentation obtained the
clearance under 'B2' Category, bringing it under the threshold of
4.95.5 Hectares and not account for the cluster impacts to avoid
the public hearing and replenishment study requirements.

28) Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor
General and Mr. P.S. Raman, the Advocate General, State of Tamil
Nadu, categorically stated that the O.M. is rendered otiose after
the SSMMG-2016 were framed. Appendix - XI of the EIA
Notification, 2006, provides for the procedure for Environmental
Clearance for mining minor minerals, including cluster. The
schematic presentation of requirements on Environmental
Clearance of minor minerals, including cluster situation is provided
therein.

29) If the arguments of the learned Additional Solicitor
General and the Advocate General, State of Tamil Nadu, are to be
accepted that the SSMMG-2016 had superseded the O.M. dated
24.12.2013, then the categorization of 'B2' so far as the sand
mining is concerned, is not in existence. If that is so, the State
Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) would not
have issued Environmental Clearances under 'B2' Category for
sand mining after 2016. Ironically, the Environmental Clearance
under challenge in Appeal No.80 of 2022 (SZ) was issued on
10.09.2022 in favour of the Public Works Department,
Thallakulam, Madurai, which is only under 'B2' Category and
permits opencast method by mechanized means
poclains/excavators and tippers. So, the argument of the learned
Additional Solicitor General and the Advocate General do not
support their stand.

30) The appellant in Appeal No.80 of 2022 (SZ) also had
produced several of the Environmental Clearances issued under
'B2' Category across the country for sand mining.

31) In Himmat Singh Shekhawat Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. [Original Application No.123 of 2014
(PB)] reported in 2015 SCC Online NGT 846, the Principal
Bench of this Tribunal, vide Judgment dated 13.01.2015, has held
that:

"60. In the case before the Tribunal .... ...

... ... ...

However, in so far as the Office Memorandum dated 24 th
June, 2013 placing a prohibition under paragraph 4(b) (i) is
concerned, it apparently is beyond the scope of such guidelines.
Prohibition of carrying on of mining activity or excavation
activity which is otherwise permitted by the Notification of 2006
cannot be done by an Office Order, because it would apparently
run contra to the provisions of Notification of 2006.

... ... ...

Similarly, the Office Memorandum dated 24th December,
2013 in so far as it declares that river sand mining of a
lease area of less than 5 hectares would not be
considered for grant of Environmental Clearance is again
violative of the above settled principles. No such
restriction has been placed under the Notification of
2006 or under the provisions of the Act and the Rules of
1986. The executive therefore, cannot take away the
right which is impermissible under the principle or
subordinate legislation.

... ... ...

This only furthers the cause of fair classification of
projects, which is the primary purpose of the Notification. For
these reasons, we quash paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Office
Memorandum dated 24th June 2013 and part of
paragraph 2(iii) in so far as it prohibits grant of
Environmental Clearance to the mine area of less than 5
hectares as being violative of the Notification of 2006
and the Rules of 1986."
(emphasis supplied)

32) SSMMG-2016 refers to the O.M. dated 24.12.2013.
The O.M. dated 24.12.2013 has to be read with S.O. 141 (E) dated
15.01.2016.

33) The relevant portion of the SSMMG-2016 is usefully
quoted below:

"It is seen that the categorization of mines into 'B1'
and 'B2' category in which Category 'B2' leases are being
exempted from the requirement of Environment Impact
Assessment, Environment Management Plan, and Public
Consultation for grant of EC, in many cases now the mining
leases are being given for 25 hectares or less. This defeats
the purpose and intent of Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment
which orders environment clearance for all mining leases
irrespective of size. The environment clearance without
Environment Impact Assessment, Environment Management
Plan, and Public Consultation does not serve the purpose of
environment clearance which is to ensure environmentally
sustainable and socially responsible mining. So, if a cluster
or individual lease size exceeds 5 hectare, the EIA/ EMP
should be completed in the process of grant of prior
environment clearance."
34) In similar facts, one of us, Hon'ble Judicial Member,
had occasion to deal with the same issue in Original Application
No.152 of 2021 (SZ) & batch [D. Hema Kumar Vs. Union of
India & Ors. ] reported in 2023 SCC Online NGT 2192 and the
relevant para of the judgment dated 23.03.2023 is extracted
below:

"59. .... .... .... As per MoEF O.M. No. J-

13012/12/2013-IA-II(I) dated 24.12.2013, the following
condition interalia is imposed i.e., "in respect of "B2"
Category mining is to be done manually". So the permission
granted under specific condition (ii) and (xi) are contrary to
each other. Since as per the above referred O.M under „B2‟
category only manual mining is permitted. This shows that
besides nonconformity to the guidelines enforced, there is
non-application of mind while imposing specific conditions.

1. It is also to be noted that though the Sustainable
   Sand Mining Management Guidelines allows usage of semi-
   mechanised and mechanised mining, it ought to be
   permitted only depending upon the location, thickness of
   sand, deposition and nature of land, which requires detailed
   examination for each site. Such an examination is possible
   only if a detailed Sand Replenishment Study and
   Environmental Impact Assessment Study are undertaken
   and is subject to public hearing to ensure transparency. In
   the instant case, when considering the amendment,
   SEAC/SEIAA before permitting semi-mechanized mining
   ought to have sought a detailed EIA study and consider the
   Environmental Clearance under "B1" Category which alone
   would have fulfilled the conditions of the Sustainable Sand
   Mining Management Guidelines, 2016. Under "B2" category
   neither an EIA study nor a public hearing is envisaged, as a
   result only manual mining is permitted. This aspect was
   completely ignored by SEAC and SEIAA and they were too
   eager to grant the amendment sought by fast tracking the
   proposal and bypassing well established procedures of
   scrutiny and analysis of all relevant documents.

2. So far as the instant cases are concerned, there
   are violation of Environmental Clearance conditions as "B2"
   category as they cannot be permitted to use any machine be
   it mechanised or semi-mechanised. Mandatorily, it has to be
   done only manually. We are at a loss to understand as to
   how the SEIAA has amended the Environmental Clearance
   given earlier without adverting to its own guidelines for "B2"
   categories. No doubt there is no specific challenge to the
   Environmental Clearance granted but amendment given by
   SEIAA without adverting to its own guidelines cannot be
   taken advantage of by the project proponent. In this regard,
   we regret to state that the authority who is the rule maker
   has deliberately omitted to follow the same detrimental to
   environment."

35) In Appendix: Table (5) of the SSMMG-2016 regarding
the common method and practice of sand mining in the State of
Tamil Nadu is stated as follows:

"Manual mining is carried out in certain quarries. In
most of the sand quarries, two poclains are used by the
PWD."
36) In the suggestions/recommendations from the
States/Union of Territories for environmentally sustainable sand
mining, the State of Tamil Nadu has given its suggestions, which
are as follows:

"1. Excess sand deposits identified in the flood plains and
in-stream areas only to be mined in order to safeguard and
maintain ground water table.

1. Sand mining operation has to be carried out between
   6 am to 7 pm.

2. Mining operation should be carried out in a systematic
   manner without affecting environment and ecology of the area."
   37) Even the suggestions, as given by the State of Tamil
   Nadu, does not mention about the usage of machinery, but
   specifies that the mining operation to be carried out without
   affecting the environment and ecology of the area. Therefore, by
   any stretch of imagination, the 'B2' Category cannot be allowed to
   do mechanized mining. The sustainable sand mining does provide
   for 'B1' Category, where machinery can be deployed. However,
   the mining plan has to be given by the competent authority and
   the sand replenishment, geomorphology and hydrology studies
   have to be undertaken. Additionally, the local monitoring for
   replenishment at specific mining sites, monitoring of the entire
   reach through estuary will provide a cumulative response of the
   system to the sand and gravel extractions. So, avoidance of the
   study on the impact of sand mining would only result in
   deterioration or lead to ecological degradation. When, admittedly,
   the private parties are not allowed to do the sand mining and it is
   only the State Government that is allowed to do the sand mining,
   it would be appropriate for the Public Works Department to do the
   EIA Study, then obtain the Environmental Clearance under 'B1'
   category for sand mining by subjecting it to a public hearing. Even
   government conducted sand mining is not categorically exempted
   from obtaining Environmental Clearance. The State also should
   comply with the EIA Notification based procedure unless a specific
   statutory exemption applies. Thus, the 'monopoly' status of the
   State does not by itself exempt such mining from Environmental
   Clearance or EIA related requirements.

38) In Appeal No.80 of 2022 (SZ), where the challenge is
to the Environmental Clearance issued under 'B2' Category with
the opencast method by mechanized means poclains/excavators
and tippers, the SEAC - Tamil Nadu has failed in its
recommendation to address the issue of sustainable sand mining
practices, as prescribed under the SSMMG-2016. While restricting
the mining plan period to six months and the quantity not to
exceed 4,99,550 Cu.M. and with the ultimate depth of 1 Meter
below the bed level, the SEAC has not stated why it has
recommended the mechanized means by using poclains. When
the SSMMG-2016 specifically prescribes that the usage of semi-
mechanized or mechanized method depends on the location,
thickness of sand, deposition, agricultural land/riverbed, the same
does not find a mention in the SEAC's recommendation and the
SEIAA - Tamil Nadu also has failed to address the said issue. The
State Government cannot lawfully bypass the Environmental
Clearance process. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a
valid DSR and replenishment study-based appraisal are
mandatory pre-requisites for granting Environmental Clearance
and the Environmental Clearances issued without them are treated
as procedurally defective. SSMMG-2016 also specifically states
that the manual mining method shall be preferred over any other
method. Hence, the SEAC - Tamil Nadu has not provided any
reason for recommending or permitting the use of machinery in
deviation from the manual mining method in the amended
Environmental Clearance dated 31.01.2023, after deleting
Condition No.68. The Project Proponent being the Government
and when it is doing mining in an area of less than 5 Hectares,
only to secure Environmental Clearance under 'B2' Category to
escape the rigours of the scrutiny, which negates the very
objective of the EIA Notification and the Principle of Public Trust
Doctrine and the Principle of Sustainable Development, obtained
the Environmental Clearance under 'B2' Category. On that very
ground, the impugned Environmental Clearance ought to be set
aside.

39) In the reply statement by the Public Works
Department/2nd Respondent in O.A. No.77 of 2023 (SZ) referred
to the various orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble

High Court to demonstrate how the development of law evolved
regarding the 'B2' Category. The Government of Tamil Nadu
constituted a High-Level Committee pursuant to the order passed
by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No.985 of 2000 dated
26.07.2002, to study the river and riverbeds in the State with
reference to the impact of sand quarrying. In the process, taking
cognizance of indiscriminate quarrying in the river systems,
exploitation of natural resources and the illicit and haphazard sand
mining which had led to degradation of groundwater quality, sea
water intrusion, etc., the Government of Tamil Nadu took effective
steps to curb the same by bring out an amendment to the Tamil
Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, by introducing 'Rule
38A', whereby all the existing leases for quarrying sand in
Government lands and permissions granted in Ryotwari lands are
ceased to operate with effect from 02.10.2003 and right to quarry
the sand in the state only vest with the State Government through
the Public Works Department and the Water Resources
Department.

40) On 27.01.1994, under the Environment (Protection)
Act, 1986, the Central Government (MoEF&CC) issued the EIA
Notification, 1994, which mandated that all new
projects/activities, including expansion/modernization of the
existing industries, shall not be undertaken unless they are
accorded Environmental Clearance by the Central Government.
The said notification became the subject matter of M.C. Mehta
Vs. Union of India & Ors. Pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, a circular was issued by the MoEF&CC on
12.02.2004 regarding the procedure for obtaining the
Environmental Clearance, which was modified again on
28.10.2004 and subsequently, the MoEF&CC issued a Notification
dated 14.09.2006 superseding all the earlier notifications issued
in this regard. The said EIA Notification, 2006, were classified
into two categories, namely 'A' and 'B' Categories. As per which,
the 'A' Category projects will obtain Environmental Clearance from
the MoEF&CC and for the 'B' Category projects, the Environmental
Clearance will be issued by the SEIAA.

41) In the meanwhile, so far as the sand mining in
Thamirabarani and other rivers in the State of Tamil Nadu are
concerned, in M. Periyasamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
[W.P. (MD) No.11182 of 2010] dated 02.12.2010, the
Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras had directed
that no machinery should be used in quarrying. The said case did
not deal with the issue of mining activity without Environmental
Clearance or categorization of 'B1' and 'B2'. Subsequently, in the
review application, the judgment was reviewed to state that the
minimum use of poclains i.e. not more than two in each of the
quarry site be used.

42) To be noted is that the said judgment was only to curb
the rampant mining activities happening then and not about the
categorization. Therefore, the judicial intent was to focus on crisis
management and to regularise the supply chain and have a
regulatory control mechanism immediately, rather than
approaching it from a scientific perspective. It was with the said
intention that the Hon'ble High Court had permitted the usage of
machinery at the specific instance to ensure the continuity of the
public works. In other words, the above-said judgment did not
consider the ecological impact nor the usage of two poclains were
based on any technical study. Further, the said order did not
specify the number of machines that can be deployed in terms of
the extent of the lease area. This allowed the smaller area leases
to engage in deeper extraction. The said loophole led to cluster
mining.

43) In Cauvery Neervala Aathara Pathukappau
Sangam Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu [W.P. (MD) No.8111
of 2012] dated 03.08.2012, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras
directed the State to obtain Environmental Clearance and directed
the quarries that were in operation for more than five years to be
stopped. In the meanwhile, the SEIAA - Tamil Nadu decided in its
meeting held on 28.08.2012 to follow the procedure of the SEIAA

• Andhra Pradesh to formulate similar guidelines for mining projects as an interim arrangement and started issuing Environmental Clearances under 'B2' Category. Since the SEIAA - Tamil Nadu did not have the powers, there were challenges by way of appeals. In the meanwhile, on 24.12.2013, the MoEF&CC

issued O.M., classifying the projects into 'B1' and 'B2'. The river
sand mining projects between 5 and 25 Hectares categorized as
'B2' and provided that mining was done manually. While so, the
appeals were disposed of by this Tribunal, on 24.02.2014,
directing the sand quarries to run on the ad hoc guidelines of the
SEIAA for a period of six months and to submit a proposal for
Environmental Clearance based on the new guidelines issued by
the MoEF&CC on 24.12.2013.

44) The said order was also challenged before the Hon'ble
High Court of Madras at Madurai Bench in Kollidam Aaru
Pathukappu Nala Sangam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported
in 2014 (5) CTC 397, which stayed the operation of the Tribunal's
judgment. Upon challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
appeals were directed to be disposed of within a month. On
06.08.2014, the Hon'ble High Court in the final judgment held that
the O.M. dated 24.12.2013, permitted only manual mining and
that the SEIAA lacked inherent jurisdiction for such classification
as 'B2' and the Environmental Clearances granted were illegal.
The 2nd Respondent (PWD) did not challenge the said order.

45) After, the Himmat Singh Shekhawat Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. [O.A. No.123 of 2014 (PB)] dated
13.01.2015, that quashed the portion of the O.M. dated
24.12.2013, which stipulated that no clearance would be granted
for less than 5 Hectares. On 15.03.2016, in consultation with all
the States, including the State of Tamil Nadu, the MoEF&CC had
issued the SSMMG-2016. The said guidelines explicitly
recommend manual mining to preserve the river health.

46) The contention of the learned Additional Solicitor
General and the Advocate General, State of Tamil Nadu, that the
said SSMMG-2016 issued by the MoEF&CC has superseded the
O.M. dated 24.12.2013 is incorrect, as the SSMMG-2016 is only a
supplement and does not supplant the O.M. dated 24.12.2013.
The said O.M. dated 24.12.2013 is referred to in the SSMMG-2016,
and nowhere does it state that the O.M. has been superseded or
has become inoperative. The SSMMG-2016 also indicates that,
depending upon factors such as location, thickness of sand,
deposition, and whether the area is agricultural land or riverbed,

the method of mining may be manual, semi-mechanized, or
mechanized; however, the manual method of mining is to be
preferred over any other method. The guidelines do not specifically
state whether mechanized mining is applicable to 'B2' category
projects, but merely recommend that the manual method be
preferred over the mechanized method. In fact, the applicant has
also mentioned that he has not objected to the usage of machinery
but only has stated that it can be used in the 'B1' category, as the
EIA Study and Public Hearing are being done.

47) It is important to note that the MoEF&CC has issued
the SSMMG-2016 and Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for
Sand Mining, 2020. The 2020 Guidelines does not replace the
2016 Guidelines and the 2016 Guidelines does not supersede the
O.M. dated 24.12.2013. In fact, they only supplement and
complement each other.

48) The National Green Tribunal has repeatedly
emphasised that allowing riverbed mining without a scientific DSR
and sand replenishment study entails serious ecological risk. Even
a regulated extraction can lead to lowering and widening of the
riverbed, bank erosion, disruption of flow patterns and loss of
aquatic habitats. Therefore, it is imperative that Environmental
Clearances must be strictly conditioned on the availability and
quantity of such studies. The guidelines act as operational and
monitoring framework that supplements the legal requirement of
the EIA Notification. The newer guidelines are preferred when
they are more stringent than the MoEF&CC's Office
Memorandums.

49) In fact, the 2016 and 2020 Guidelines were issued to
supplement the EIA Notification, 2006, particularly to fill the gaps
in environmental management of minor minerals. In other words,
the EIA Notification mandates prior Environmental Clearance while
the guidelines define how the clearance is obtained and monitored.
They work in tandem. To be noted is that the Office Memorandums
are issued by the MoEF&CC to clarify or amend the procedures
while guidelines offer a comprehensive framework.

50) From the above detailed discussions, it is clear that
sand is a minor mineral and must be treated as a replenishment
resource. The guidelines mandate the permissible volume of
extraction to be capped at the annual replenishment rate of the
river stretch. Thus, the use of the concept of annual
replenishment protects long-term channel stability as well as the
aquatic and riparian habitat by extracting volume sustainable by
watershed processes. In other words, manual mining generally
extracts sand at a pace that allows for natural regeneration. On
the contrary, the use of poclains or JCB extracts the sediments
that were accumulated over the decades within a matter of days,
thereby leaving the river beyond replenishment or exceeding the
replenishment capacity. In this context, the 'B1' category
appraisal becomes important, as it includes the replenishment
study, other than which there is no scientific data to assess the
sustainable mining.

51) In this context, sand extraction requires a District
Survey Report (DSR) that identifies aggradation areas suitable for
mining while prohibiting operations in erosion zones. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court, in 2025 SCC Online SC 1069, State of Uttar
Pradesh & Anr. v. Gaurav Kumar & Ors., has mandated the
submission of replenishment data for the grant of Environmental
Clearances. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced
below:

"20. Conclusion: Having considered the regulatory
regime introduced from time to time, increasing the width as
well as the depth of scrutiny before granting an environmental
clearance for sand mining, we are of the opinion that there is a
mandatory requirement of preparation of a DSR. The DSR shall
form the basis for application of environmental clearance. It
shall also be the basis for preparation of reports and also
appraisal of the projects. Another important facet of DSR is that
it shall be prepared for all the districts and the draft is to be
placed in the public domain. There is a requirement for keeping
a copy of DSR in Collectorate. It must also be posted on the
district's website for 21 days. After comments are received,
they shall be considered and if found correct, they will be
incorporated in the final report. The final DSR will then be
finalized within 6 months by the DEIAA. The lifetime of the
report is five years. After five years the existing DSR will not be
tenable and a new DSR will have to be prepared and finalized.
The purpose and object of prescribing a lifetime of five years
for subsistence of a DSR is for the reason that the position of
ecology and the environment is rapidly changing and the
position that exists five years back, may not subsist for later
days. It is true that it might have changed even before the
expiry of five years but a reasonable estimate, to work as a
benchmark is a policy consideration. As a precautionary
principle, it is not only legal and valid but is also mandatory. It
must be enforced strictly and with all vigor."
52) The 2020 Guidelines place special emphasis on the
necessity of conducting a replenishment study. The recent decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2025 INSC 1025 Union
Territory of J & K (previously State of Jammu & Kashmir) &
Anr. vs. Raja Muzaffar Bhat & Ors., Civil Appeal No.8055 of
2022 & batch, mandates the requirement of such a
replenishment study.

"29. From the foregoing analysis, it is apparent that in
light of Guidelines, 2016 and the Guidelines, 2020, the absence
of a replenishment study renders a DSR fundamentally defective.
These guidelines categorically require that any assessment of
mineable mineral quantity must be premised on scientific
estimation of replenishment rates, failing which the DSR lacks the
foundational data necessary to determine sustainable extraction
limits.

1. Over the past two decades, environmental statutory
   and regulatory law in India has undergone significant evolution,
   particularly in response to the challenges posed by unregulated
   and unsustainable sand mining. Recognizing the adverse
   ecological impacts of such activities, successive legal and policy
   frameworks have progressively tightened the requirements for
   environmental compliance. In order to appreciate the present
   controversy, it was necessary to retrace the legal trajectory.
   Recently, this Court has discussed, in detail, the legal regime
   surrounding the preparation, nature, scope and importance of
   DSR in Gaurav Kumar (supra). However, the focal point for
   present discussion is the value that must be appended to
   replenishment study before EC is granted to mining operations.

2. Demand for construction-grade sand is growing at a
   tremendous rate and it is said that the world is expected to run
   out of this resource by 2050. Construction-grade sand, can be
   found in aquatic environments, such as rivers and is a
   provisioning ecosystem service. Even under controlled
   circumstances, the practice of extracting sand from the riverbed
   and banks impacts the environment. In the physical environment,
   the primary effects are riverbed widening and lowering. In the
   biological environment, the overarching effect is a reduced
   biodiversity and stretches from the aquatic and shoreline flora
   and fauna to the whole floodplain area. Due to easy access, river
   sand and gravel have been used extensively in construction
   projects. Depending on the mining operation method as well as
   morphologic and hydraulic characteristics of the river, sand
   mining may cause bed and bank erosion or other negative
   consequences for the river eco-system. It is, therefore, necessary
   to conduct appropriate studies, including that of replenishment
   to explore sustainable and cost-effective methods for river
   mining.

3. Without a proper study of the existing position of
   the riverbed and its sustainability for further sand mining, grant
   of environmental clearances would be detrimental for the
   ecology. It has therefore been held that a detailed study leading
   to a preparation of the replenishment report is an integral part of
   the DSR. If the DSR becomes the foundation for consideration of
   an application for environmental clearance, then it is compelling
   to ensure replenishment studies are undertaken in advance and
   the report forms an integral part of the DSR.

4. In view of the existing legal regime that mandates
   preparation of replenishment report in a scientific manner and
   such a report forming an integral part of the District Survey
   Report, we hold that a District Survey Report without a proper
   replenishment study is equally untenable."
   53) In the light of the above, DSR with replenishment
   study is mandatory in the process of EIA and issuance of
   Environmental Clearance.

54) In the State of Tamil Nadu, the Water Resources
Department assesses annual deposition based on rainfall,
catchment geology and river profiles. Until replenishment studies
confirm viability, no mining activity should be permitted. The
physical impacts of illegal sand mining include the widening and
deepening of riverbeds, which increases sand vulnerability. In the
absence of sufficient sand to retain monsoon water, it flows rapidly
into the sea. The consequences include severe erosion and more
critically, groundwater depletion. Additionally, seawater intrusion
degrades soil quality, resulting in reduced agricultural productivity.

55) From an ecological perspective, illegal mining disrupts
habitats, reduces biodiversity, and adversely affects flora and
fauna. When agriculture suffers due to water scarcity, it impacts
food security and related activities. Communities dependent on
healthy river ecosystems also face risks to their livelihoods.

56) The legal sand mining has to comply with the
prescribed extraction limits, which is through the Environmental
Clearance granted by the SEIAA, as per the prescribed provisions
of the EIA Notification, 2006 and its subsequent amendments, on
the basis of the approved mining plan. The Sustainable Sand
Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 and Enforcement and
Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020, are the appropriate
regulatory regime for sustainable sand mining and adoption of
environmental-friendly management practices. The sand mining
rules have also laid down the procedure subsequently for making
the District Survey Report (DSR) for sand mining and the DSR
shall form the basis for the application for Environmental
Clearance, preparation of reports and appraisal of the projects.
Though the aerial survey and use of remote sensing and GI
applications, etc. are mentioned in the SSMMG-2016, it is the EIA
Study, which will do the replenishment study, which would be a
scientific data to determine the quantity.

57) In the above context of sand mining,
"SEGMENTATION" has emerged as a practice of dividing a single
large mining project into several smaller lease areas to
deliberately bypass rigorous environmental regulations.
Segmentation constitutes a regulatory loophole that was subject
to judicial scrutiny in the Deepak Kumar case, wherein it was held
that such segmentation ignores the cumulative environmental
impact.

58) Effective river replenishment, in fact, requires a
holistic study of a long river stretch, preferably covering at least
one district. Segmentation makes it difficult to accurately calculate
the Annual Replenishment Rate. When the replenishment study is
incorporated as part of the District Survey Report (DSR),
segmentation can be avoided. Moreover, it is easier for authorities
to monitor a larger river stretch than fragmented sections. Even
if the cluster guidelines are followed, the inclusion of a
replenishment study as part of the DSR makes the preparation of
the EIA or EMP easier.

59) In O.A. No.77 of 2023 (SZ), the mining area is 16.18.0
Hectares and has conveniently evaded the 'B1' status by obtaining
the 'B2' categorization, despite using mechanized mining. In
Appeal No.80 of 2022 (SZ), the extent is 4.95.5 Hectares, which
is marginally less than the regulatory threshold. In the event if
the leases are within 500 meters of each other, the cluster method
has to be applied, which requires a cumulative environmental
impact assessment study, as stipulated in 'B1' Category.
Therefore, the standalone 'B2' Category is different from the
cluster.

60) In view of the above detailed discussions, it is evident
that the original Environmental Clearance, which is impugned in
Appeal No.80 of 2022 (SZ), was issued on 10.09.2022 and was
subsequently amended on 31.01.2023. The original clearance was
valid for a period of six months from 10.09.2022. The amendment
dated 31.01.2023 pertained only to the type of mining and did not
alter the period of validity. Therefore, the validity of the
Environmental Clearance expired on 10.03.2023.

61) In Original Application No.77 of 2023 (SZ), the
Environmental Clearance was initially granted on 10.08.2016 for a
period of two years and was later extended by order dated
01.02.2023.

62) In both matters [Original Application and Appeal], the
projects were classified under the 'B2' category and admittedly, no
EIA study was conducted. Further, in both cases, the validity of
the Environmental Clearances was extended.

63) In Original Application No.77 of 2023 (SZ), the
Environmental Clearance initially permitted the use of only two
poclains but was subsequently amended to allow the use of five
poclains. As already held, in view of the O.M. dated 24.12.2013,
which has been upheld by this Tribunal, river sand mining under
the 'B2' category must be carried out only manually. Since no EIA
study was conducted in either case, it is deemed that the Project
Proponent initially intended to undertake manual mining but later
sought amendments to carry out mechanical mining for
convenience. Therefore, the admitted use of poclains and
consequent mechanical mining, in the absence of an
Environmental Clearance under the 'B1' category, amounts to
illegal mining. Accordingly, the entire period of mining carried out
by the Project Proponent is illegal and the Project Proponent is
liable to pay environmental compensation for the violations, to be
assessed by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPC B).

64) The impugned Environmental Clearance dated
10.08.2016 in Original Application No.77 of 2023 (SZ), as
extended on 01.02.2023 under the 'B2' category, is in violation of
the conditions stipulated in the O.M. dated 24.12.2013 and is
therefore liable to be set aside. Similarly, the Environmental
Clearance dated 10.09.2022, impugned in Appeal No. 80 of 2022
(SZ), though issued under the 'B2' category, was later amended
to permit the use of poclains, thereby rendering the clearance
invalid under the 'B2' category. Consequently, the mining carried
out pursuant to the same is illegal.

65) In the result,

        (I)    The impugned Environmental Clearance dated 10.08.2016 in Original Application No.77 of
               2023 (SZ), as extended on 01.02.2023 and the
               impugned Environmental Clearance issued on
               10.09.2022 in Appeal No.80 of 2022 (SZ) are
               declared illegal.

(II) Consequently, the Project Proponent is liable to
pay environmental compensation, to be
assessed by the Central Pollution Control Board
(CPC B).

(III) The CPC B is directed to assess the
environmental damage and levy appropriate
compensation within a period of three
months from the date of this judgment, in
accordance with law.

66) With the above directions, the Original
Application No.77 of 2023 (SZ) and Appeal No.80 of 2022
(SZ) are disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM

                                                        Sd/-

Dr. Prashant Gargava, EM

                                                             Internet - Yes/No

                                                All India NGT Reporter - Yes/No

O.A. No.77/2023 (SZ) &
Appeal No.80/2022 (SZ)
27th March, 2026. Mn.

Note:

The Registry is directed to communicate this
order to the CPC B for compliance.