Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan vs Seiaa - Environmental Appeal

## 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 7, Cited by 0 ] ### National Green Tribunal

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan vs Seiaa on 20 March, 2026

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE
THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)
**********

                    APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ)

IN THE MATTER OF:

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804

                                                    .....Appellant
                               Versus

1. The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Maharashtra
   Through its Chairman,
   Having Office at: Room No. 217,
   2nd Floor, Mantralaya,
   Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400 032.

2. The District Collector, Bhandara,
   Having Office at: Collectorate Complex,
   Bhandara, Maharashtra- 441 904

3. The District Mining Officer, Bhandara,
   Having Office at: Collectorate Complex,
   Bhandara, Maharashtra- 441 904

4. Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change,
   Through the Principal Secretary,
   Indira Paryavaran Bhavan,
   Jorbagh Road, New Delhi- 110 003

5. The State of Maharashtra,
   Through the Chief Secretary,
   Mantralaya, Madam Cama Road,
   Mumbai- 400 032

6. Maharashtra Pollution Control Board,
   Through its Member Secretary,
   Kalpatary Point, 3rd and 4th Floor,
   Opp. PVR Cinema, Sion Circle,
   Mumbai- 400 022

7. M/s R Sandesh Infravision Pvt. Ltd.,
   Through Ruchir Kumar Agrawal,
   Having Office: House No. 613 & 614,
   Shiv Narayan Bhavan, P. S. Agrawal Marg,
   Santra Market, Nagpur, Maharashtra- 440018.

APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 1 of 82
....Respondents
AND

                         APPEAL NO.01 OF 2026 (WZ)

Abhishek Vikas Gondane
Occupation: Business, R/o: Near Water Tank,
Gandhi Nagar, Tumsar, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441912.
.....Appellant

                                  Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                     ....Respondents

                                   AND

                         APPEAL NO.02 OF 2026 (WZ)

Abhishek Vikas Gondane
Occupation: Business, R/o: Near Water Tank,
Gandhi Nagar, Tumsar, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441912.
.....Appellant

                                  Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                     ....Respondents

                                   AND

                         APPEAL NO.03 OF 2026 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804

                                                     .....Appellant

                                  Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                     ....Respondents

APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 2 of 82
AND

                         APPEAL NO.04 OF 2026 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804

                                                     .....Appellant

                                  Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                     ....Respondents

                                   AND

                         APPEAL NO.05 OF 2026 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804

                                                     .....Appellant

                                  Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                     ....Respondents

                                   AND

                         APPEAL NO.06 OF 2026 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804

                                                     .....Appellant
                                  Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                     ....Respondents

APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 3 of 82
AND

                         APPEAL NO.07 OF 2026 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804

                                                     .....Appellant

                                  Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                     ....Respondents

                                   AND

                         APPEAL NO.08 OF 2026 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804

                                                     .....Appellant

                                  Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                     ....Respondents

                                   AND

                         APPEAL NO.09 OF 2026 (WZ)

Abhishek Vikas Gondane
Occupation: Business, R/o: Near Water Tank,
Gandhi Nagar, Tumsar, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441912.
.....Appellant

                                  Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 4 of 82
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                     ....Respondents

                                   AND

                         APPEAL NO.10 OF 2026 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804

                                                     .....Appellant

                                  Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                     ....Respondents

                                   AND

                         APPEAL NO.11 OF 2026 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804

                                                     .....Appellant

                                  Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                     ....Respondents

                                   AND

                         APPEAL NO.12 OF 2026 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804

                                                     .....Appellant

APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 5 of 82
Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                     ....Respondents

                                   AND

                         APPEAL NO.13 OF 2026 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804

                                                     .....Appellant

                                  Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                     ....Respondents

                                   AND

                         APPEAL NO.14 OF 2026 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804

                                                     .....Appellant

                                  Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                     ....Respondents

APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 6 of 82
AND

                         APPEAL NO.15 OF 2026 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804

                                                     .....Appellant

                                  Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                     ....Respondents

                                   AND

                         APPEAL NO.16 OF 2026 (WZ)

Abhishek Vikas Gondane
Occupation: Business, R/o: Near Water Tank,
Gandhi Nagar, Tumsar, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441912.
.....Appellant

                                  Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                     ....Respondents

                                   AND

                         APPEAL NO.17 OF 2026 (WZ)

Sanjay Kushabrao Rehpade
Occupation: Business, R/o Nagpur Road,
Shanti Nagar, Takiya ward, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 904
.....Appellant

                                  Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                     ....Respondents

APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 7 of 82
AND

                         APPEAL NO.18 OF 2026 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804

                                                     .....Appellant

                                  Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                     ....Respondents

                                   AND

                         APPEAL NO.19 OF 2026 (WZ)

Sanjay Kushabrao Rehpade
Occupation: Business, R/o Nagpur Road,
Shanti Nagar, Takiya ward, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 904
.....Appellant

                                  Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                     ....Respondents

                                   AND

                         APPEAL NO.20 OF 2026 (WZ)

Abhishek Vikas Gondane
Occupation: Business, R/o: Near Water Tank,
Gandhi Nagar, Tumsar, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441912.
.....Appellant

APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 8 of 82
Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                     ....Respondents

                                   AND

                         APPEAL NO.21 OF 2026 (WZ)

Abhishek Vikas Gondane
Occupation: Business, R/o: Near Water Tank,
Gandhi Nagar, Tumsar, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441912.
.....Appellant

                                  Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                     ....Respondents

                                   AND

                         APPEAL NO.22 OF 2026 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804

                                                     .....Appellant

                                  Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                     ....Respondents

                                   AND

                         APPEAL NO.23 OF 2026 (WZ)

APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 9 of 82
Abhishek Vikas Gondane
Occupation: Business, R/o: Near Water Tank,
Gandhi Nagar, Tumsar, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441912.
.....Appellant

                                  Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                     ....Respondents

                                   AND

                         APPEAL NO.24 OF 2026 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804

                                                      .....Appellant

                                  Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                     ....Respondents

                                   AND

                         APPEAL NO.25 OF 2026 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804

                                                      .....Appellant

                                  Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                     ....Respondents

APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 10 of 82
AND

                         APPEAL NO.30 OF 2026 (WZ)

Abhishek Vikas Gondane
Occupation: Business, R/o: Near Water Tank,
Gandhi Nagar, Tumsar, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441912.
.....Appellant

                                  Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                     ....Respondents

                                   AND

                     APPEAL NO.642 OF 2025 (WZ)

Abhishek Vikas Gondane
Occupation: Business, R/o: Near Water Tank,
Gandhi Nagar, Tumsar, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441912.
.....Appellant

                                  Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                     ....Respondents

                                   AND

                     APPEAL NO.643 OF 2025 (WZ)

Abhishek Vikas Gondane
Occupation: Business, R/o: Near Water Tank,
Gandhi Nagar, Tumsar, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441912.
.....Appellant

APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 11 of 82
Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.644 OF 2025 (WZ)

Abhishek Vikas Gondane
Occupation: Business, R/o: Near Water Tank,
Gandhi Nagar, Tumsar, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441912.
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.645 OF 2025 (WZ)

Sanjay Kushabrao Rehpade
Occupation: Business, R/o Nagpur Road,
Shanti Nagar, Takiya ward, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 904
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.646 OF 2025 (WZ)

APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 12 of 82
Abhishek Vikas Gondane
Occupation: Business, R/o: Near Water Tank,
Gandhi Nagar, Tumsar, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441912.
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.647 OF 2025 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804

                                                   .....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.648 OF 2025 (WZ)

Abhishek Vikas Gondane
Occupation: Business, R/o: Near Water Tank,
Gandhi Nagar, Tumsar, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441912.
.....Appellant

APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 13 of 82
Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.649 OF 2025 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804

                                                   .....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.650 OF 2025 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804

                                                   .....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.651 OF 2025 (WZ)

Abhishek Vikas Gondane
Occupation: Business, R/o: Near Water Tank,
Gandhi Nagar, Tumsar, Bhandara,

APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 14 of 82
Maharashtra- 441912.
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.652 OF 2025 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804

                                                   .....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.653 OF 2025 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804

                                                   .....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.654 OF 2025 (WZ)

APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 15 of 82
Abhishek Vikas Gondane
Occupation: Business, R/o: Near Water Tank,
Gandhi Nagar, Tumsar, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441912.
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.655 OF 2025 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804

                                                   .....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.656 OF 2025 (WZ)

Sanjay Kushabrao Rehpade
Occupation: Business, R/o Nagpur Road,
Shanti Nagar, Takiya ward, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 904
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 16 of 82
AND

                     APPEAL NO.657 OF 2025 (WZ)

Abhishek Vikas Gondane
Occupation: Business, R/o: Near Water Tank,
Gandhi Nagar, Tumsar, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441912.
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.658 OF 2025 (WZ)

Abhishek Vikas Gondane
Occupation: Business, R/o: Near Water Tank,
Gandhi Nagar, Tumsar, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441912.
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.660 OF 2025 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804

                                                   .....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,

APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 17 of 82
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.661 OF 2025 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804

                                                   .....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.662 OF 2025 (WZ)

Abhishek Vikas Gondane
Occupation: Business, R/o: Near Water Tank,
Gandhi Nagar, Tumsar, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441912.
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.663 OF 2025 (WZ)

Sanjay Kushabrao Rehpade
Occupation: Business, R/o Nagpur Road,
Shanti Nagar, Takiya ward, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 904

APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 18 of 82
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.664 OF 2025 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804

                                                   .....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.665 OF 2025 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804

                                                   .....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 19 of 82
APPEAL NO.666 OF 2025 (WZ)

Abhishek Vikas Gondane
Occupation: Business, R/o: Near Water Tank,
Gandhi Nagar, Tumsar, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441912.
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.667 OF 2025 (WZ)

Abhishek Vikas Gondane
Occupation: Business, R/o: Near Water Tank,
Gandhi Nagar, Tumsar, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441912.
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.668 OF 2025 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804

                                                   .....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 20 of 82
....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.669 OF 2025 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804

                                                   .....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.670 OF 2025 (WZ)

Sanjay Kushabrao Rehpade
Occupation: Business, R/o Nagpur Road,
Shanti Nagar, Takiya ward, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 904
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.671 OF 2025 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804

APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 21 of 82
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.672 OF 2025 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804

                                                   .....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.673 OF 2025 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804

                                                   .....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.674 OF 2025 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804

APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 22 of 82
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.675 OF 2025 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804

                                                   .....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.676 OF 2025 (WZ)

Sanjay Kushabrao Rehpade
Occupation: Business, R/o Nagpur Road,
Shanti Nagar, Takiya ward, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 904
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 23 of 82
APPEAL NO.677 OF 2025 (WZ)

Abhishek Vikas Gondane
Occupation: Business, R/o: Near Water Tank,
Gandhi Nagar, Tumsar, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441912.
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.678 OF 2025 (WZ)

Abhishek Vikas Gondane
Occupation: Business, R/o: Near Water Tank,
Gandhi Nagar, Tumsar, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441912.
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.679 OF 2025 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804

                                                   .....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,

APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 24 of 82
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.680 OF 2025 (WZ)

Sanjay Kushabrao Rehpade
Occupation: Business, R/o Nagpur Road,
Shanti Nagar, Takiya ward, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 904
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.681 OF 2025 (WZ)

Sanjay Kushabrao Rehpade
Occupation: Business, R/o Nagpur Road,
Shanti Nagar, Takiya ward, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 904
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.682 OF 2025 (WZ)

Sanjay Kushabrao Rehpade
Occupation: Business, R/o Nagpur Road,
Shanti Nagar, Takiya ward, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 904

APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 25 of 82
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.683 OF 2025 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.684 OF 2025 (WZ)

Abhishek Vikas Gondane
Occupation: Business, R/o: Near Water Tank,
Gandhi Nagar, Tumsar, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441912.
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.685 OF 2025 (WZ)

Abhishek Vikas Gondane

APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 26 of 82
Occupation: Business, R/o: Near Water Tank,
Gandhi Nagar, Tumsar, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441912.
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.686 OF 2025 (WZ)

Sanjay Kushabrao Rehpade
Occupation: Business, R/o Nagpur Road,
Shanti Nagar, Takiya ward, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 904
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.687 OF 2025 (WZ)

Sanjay Kushabrao Rehpade
Occupation: Business, R/o Nagpur Road,
Shanti Nagar, Takiya ward, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 904
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 27 of 82
APPEAL NO.688 OF 2025 (WZ)

Sanjay Kushabrao Rehpade
Occupation: Business, R/o Nagpur Road,
Shanti Nagar, Takiya ward, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 904
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.689 OF 2025 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.690 OF 2025 (WZ)

Sanjay Kushabrao Rehpade
Occupation: Business, R/o Nagpur Road,
Shanti Nagar, Takiya ward, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 904
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 28 of 82
APPEAL NO.691 OF 2025 (WZ)

Sanjay Kushabrao Rehpade
Occupation: Business, R/o Nagpur Road,
Shanti Nagar, Takiya ward, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 904
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.692 OF 2025 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804

                                                   .....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.693 OF 2025 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 29 of 82
....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.694 OF 2025 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.695 OF 2025 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.696 OF 2025 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 30 of 82
AND

                     APPEAL NO.697 OF 2025 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.698 OF 2025 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.699 OF 2025 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 31 of 82
AND

                     APPEAL NO.700 OF 2025 (WZ)

Abhishek Vikas Gondane
Occupation: Business, R/o: Near Water Tank,
Gandhi Nagar, Tumsar, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441912.
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.702 OF 2025 (WZ)

Sanjay Kushabrao Rehpade
Occupation: Business, R/o Nagpur Road,
Shanti Nagar, Takiya ward, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 904
.....Appellant
Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.703 OF 2025 (WZ)

Abhishek Vikas Gondane
Occupation: Business, R/o: Near Water Tank,
Gandhi Nagar, Tumsar, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441912.
.....Appellant

                               Versus

APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 32 of 82
The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.704 OF 2025 (WZ)

Abhishek Vikas Gondane
Occupation: Business, R/o: Near Water Tank,
Gandhi Nagar, Tumsar, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441912.
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.705 OF 2025 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.706 OF 2025 (WZ)

Sanjay Kushabrao Rehpade
Occupation: Business, R/o Nagpur Road,
Shanti Nagar, Takiya ward, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 904
.....Appellant

                               Versus

APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 33 of 82
The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.707 OF 2025 (WZ)

Abhishek Vikas Gondane
Occupation: Business, R/o: Near Water Tank,
Gandhi Nagar, Tumsar, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441912.
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.708 OF 2025 (WZ)

Sanjay Kushabrao Rehpade
Occupation: Business, R/o Nagpur Road,
Shanti Nagar, Takiya ward, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 904
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.709 OF 2025 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804
.....Appellant

APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 34 of 82
Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.710 OF 2025 (WZ)

Sanjay Kushabrao Rehpade
Occupation: Business, R/o Nagpur Road,
Shanti Nagar, Takiya ward, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 904
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.711 OF 2025 (WZ)

Abhishek Vikas Gondane
Occupation: Business, R/o: Near Water Tank,
Gandhi Nagar, Tumsar, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441912.
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.712 OF 2025 (WZ)

Sanjay Kushabrao Rehpade

APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 35 of 82
Occupation: Business, R/o Nagpur Road,
Shanti Nagar, Takiya ward, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 904
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.713 OF 2025 (WZ)

Sanjay Kushabrao Rehpade
Occupation: Business, R/o Nagpur Road,
Shanti Nagar, Takiya ward, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 904
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.714 OF 2025 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.715 OF 2025 (WZ)

APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 36 of 82
Sanjay Kushabrao Rehpade
Occupation: Business, R/o Nagpur Road,
Shanti Nagar, Takiya ward, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 904
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.716 OF 2025 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.717 OF 2025 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 37 of 82
APPEAL NO.718 OF 2025 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.719 OF 2025 (WZ)

Sanjay Kushabrao Rehpade
Occupation: Business, R/o Nagpur Road,
Shanti Nagar, Takiya ward, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 904
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.720 OF 2025 (WZ)

Sanjay Kushabrao Rehpade
Occupation: Business, R/o Nagpur Road,
Shanti Nagar, Takiya ward, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 904
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 38 of 82
AND

                     APPEAL NO.721 OF 2025 (WZ)

Sanjay Kushabrao Rehpade
Occupation: Business, R/o Nagpur Road,
Shanti Nagar, Takiya ward, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 904
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.722 OF 2025 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.723 OF 2025 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804
.....Appellant

                               Versus

APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 39 of 82
The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.724 OF 2025 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.725 OF 2025 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                  ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.726 OF 2025 (WZ)

Shamshir Abdul Wahab Khan
Behind Takiya Darga, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441 804

APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 40 of 82
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                        ....Respondents

                                AND

                     APPEAL NO.727 OF 2025 (WZ)

Abhishek Vikas Gondane
Occupation: Business, R/o: Near Water Tank,
Gandhi Nagar, Tumsar, Bhandara,
Maharashtra- 441912.
.....Appellant

                               Versus

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Maharashtra & Ors.

                                                        ....Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:

Mr. Sangramsingh R. Bhonsle, Advocate along-with
Mr. Nrupal A. Dingankar, Ms. Pallavi Kakade, Ms. Pushkara
A. Bhonsle, Mr. Sanmitra Y. Pol, Mr. Naman Sherstra,
Ms. Shruti Sharma and Mrs. Sneha S. Bhonsle, Advocates

Counsel for the Respondents:

Mr. Aniruddha Kulkarni, Advocate for R-1/SEIAA,
R-5 & R-6/MPCB
Mr. Nitin P. Deshpande, Advocate for R-2 & 3
Mr. Pushkal Mishra, Advocate for R-4/MoEF&CC
Mr. Raghunath B. Mahabal, Advocate along-with
Mr. Sachin Subhash Gore, Advocate for R-7

PRESENT:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh (Judicial Member)
Hon'ble Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee (Expert Member)

                                  Reserved on    : 10.03.2026
                                Pronounced on     : 20.03.2026

APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 41 of 82
JUDGMENT 1. These appeals have been filed seeking quashing of ECs granted on

different dates which are mentioned below in tabular form for each appeal,

which have been granted by Respondent No.1-SEIAA, Maharashtra for

undertaking sand mining at different ghats which have mentioned therein

in each appeal, but the grounds which have been set up to assail these

ECs are common, therefore they are being considered together in

consolidated manner:-

APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 42 of 82 APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 43 of 82

1. We may make it further clear that during the course of hearing, it

transpired that the ECs were transferred to third persons, therefore the

appellants have moved IAs for impleadment of the third person as

Respondent No.7- M/s R Sandesh Infravision Pvt. Ltd., in almost in all

cases except few which we have already considered at the time of hearing

the arguments when we reserved the judgment in this case.

1. For the sake of convenience, we have taken facts of the lead case i.e.

Appeal No.641 of 2025, wherein the EC dated 16.12.2025 for undertaking

sand mining at Dhanori Sand Ghat over an extent of 4.5 hectares at

Wainganga River Bed Adjoining Gut No.181/1, 180/2, 181, 579, 189, 183,

Village Dhanori, Tehsil Pauni, District Bhandara, Maharashtra has been

assailed.

APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 44 of 82

1. In brief, the facts of the lead case are that the appellant/appellants

is/are aggrieved by the blatant breach of procedure established by law for

the grant of Environment Clearance. The Notification dated 15.01.2016

inserted the provision in EIA Notification, 2006 for preparation of District

Survey Report (DSR) for Sand Mining or River Bed Mining and Mining of

other Minor Minerals. The Notification dated 15.01.2016 states that a

District Survey Report (DSR) is to be prepared to ensure the areas of

deposition where mining can be allowed, identification of areas of erosion

and areas where mining should be prohibited. This Notification also

provides that a Sub-Divisional Committee comprising of the Sub-Divisional

Magistrate, Officers of the Irrigation Department, State Pollution Control

Board, Forest Department, Geology or Mining Officer, would visit each site

for which Environmental Clearance has been applied for and make

recommendation on suitability of site for mining or prohibition thereof.

This Notification also provides for a Pre-Feasibility Report to be submitted

at the time of filing an Application for the grant of Environmental

Clearance. In the case in hand, neither the requirement of a proper site

visit by a Sub-Divisional Committee is satisfied nor has the Respondent

No.2- District Collector, Bhandara submitted a Pre-Feasibility Report.

1. The Respondent No.4- Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate

Change, published the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines,

2016, which provide various „Standard Environment Conditions for Sand

Mining‟ that ought to be followed whenever a proposal for sand mining is

being considered, whether for grant of EC or for any other purpose such as

Mining Lease or preparing a District Survey Report.

1. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change has

published the Enforcement & Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 45 of 82 2020 in the month of January, 2020, which first introduced the concept of

Replenishment Study for the purposes of assessing whether the river is

capable of recovering the sand that has been extracted through sand

mining. In the present case, the Replenishment Calculation for the Sand

Ghats in the Bhandara District is highly flawed and therefore, it shows an

image which is contrary to the facts on the ground and thus, leads to the

threat of mining of sand which is far in excess of what the riverine systems

can replenish, leading to further erosion of the river bank.

1. Vide the Notification dated 25.07.2018, the Respondent No. 4-

Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change (MoEF&CC) provided

a detailed procedure for the preparation of a District Survey Report for

Sand Mining or River Bed Mining. By this provision, the Sub-Divisional

Committee would make a recommendation on the suitability of a site for

mining.

1. The Respondent No.5- State of Maharashtra through the Chief

Secretary, vide Government Resolution dated 08.04.2025, notified the

Sand Extraction Policy, 2025, under which, Respondent No.1- State

Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Maharashtra

constituted various committees, viz. the Technical Sub-Committee, the

Taluka Sand Monitoring Committee and the District Sand Monitoring

Committee for the purposes of survey, assessment and recommendation of

sand ghats for mining. The Constitution of the said committees are

contrary to the provision of a Sub-Divisional Committee in terms of the

Notification dated 15.01.2016 and 25.07.2025 issued by the Respondent

No.4- Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change.

1. In the case in hand, the District Survey Report for the Bhandara

District for the years 2025-2026 was finalized and published on APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 46 of 82 21.11.2025 by the Respondent No.3- District Mining Officer, Bhandara.

The DSR for the District Bhandara contains a „Replenishment Calculation

of Sand Ghat‟. In terms of the Guidelines, 2020, one of the most important

aspects of the DSR is the Replenishment Study Report. In the absence of a

Replenishment Study Report, a DSR is rendered fundamentally defective.

In the present case, the Replenishment Study report is itself defective,

incomplete and runs contrary to the requirements laid down under the

2020 Guidelines. Therefore, since the DSR is without proper and valid

Replenishment Study Report, the DSR is also untenable and ought not to

have been relied upon by the Respondent No.1-SEIAA to grant the

Impugned EC.

1. One of the requirements as laid down in the Notification dated

15.01.2016 for applying for a grant of prior EC is that a Sub-Divisional

Committee, consisting of a Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Officers from

Irrigation Department, State Pollution Control Board or Committee, Forest

Department, Geology or Mining Officer shall visit each and every sand ghat

proposed for mining and shall make a recommendation on the suitability

of site for mining or prohibition thereof. In the case in hand a "Technical

Sub-Committee" was constituted in terms of the Notification dated

08.04.2025 of Respondent No.5-State of Maharashtra through the Chief

Secretary, consisting of the Talathi, Circle Officer, Tehsildar, Deputy

Engineer, Water Resources Department, Junior Geologist, Groundwater

Survey and Development Authority. The said "Technical Sub-Committee"

visited the site of the said sand ghat and thereafter, submitted a Report,

recommending that the said sand ghat be proposed for sand mining. This

"Technical Sub-Committee" constituted for assessing the present sand

ghat is not proper and does not satisfy the requirements as laid down in

Notification dated 15.01.2016 and thus, cannot be considered to be APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 47 of 82 compliant with the requirement of a Sub-Divisional Committee. The said

Technical Sub-Committee has not applied its mind to the geography,

geology and layout of the said sand ghat and has merely acted as a rubber

stamp, recording the basic information such as size of the sand ghat,

quantity of sand to be excavated etc. This report of the Technical Sub-

Committee ought not to have been considered at par with the requirement

of a report of a Sub-Divisional Committee.

1. The District Level Sand Monitoring Committee, constituted under

the Notification dated 08.04.2025 of the Respondent No.5- State of

Maharashtra through the Chief Secretary, conducted a Meeting on

18.11.2025 and approved the proposal for making an Application for the

grant of EC for a total of 118 sand ghats in Bhandara District. The said

sand ghat forms a part of the 118 sand ghats, which were approved by the

District Level Sand Monitoring Committee for applying for EC.

1. For making an application for grant of EC, it is a pre-requisite that

there exists an approved Mining Plan. In terms thereof, on 27.11.2025, the

Directorate of Geology and Mining, Government of Maharashtra, vide letter

to the Respondent No.3- District Mining Officer, Bhandara approved the

Mining Plan for a total of 112 sand ghats in the Bhandara District. The

said sand ghat forms a part of the 112 sand ghats, for which the Mining

Plan was approved.

1. Relying on the incomplete and untenable DSR, the Respondent

No.2-District Collector, Bhandara filed an application on 28.11.2025 for

grant of EC for the Dhanori Sand Ghat over an extent of 4.5 hectares at

Wainganga River Bed adjoining Gut No.181/1, 180/2, 181, 579, 182, 183,

Village Dhanori, Tehsil Pauni, District Bhandara, Maharashtra. In terms of

the Notification dated 15.01.2016 and 25.07.2018 of the Respondent No.4- APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 48 of 82 MoEF&CC, one of the requisites of an application for grant of EC is that a

duly filled „Form 1-M‟ has to be submitted along with the application for

grant of EC, which contains the details of the sand ghats, to be proposed

for sand mining.

1. Along-with the application for grant of EC for the said sand ghat, the

Respondent No.3-District mining Officer, Bhandara also uploaded an

Environment Management Plant to the „PARIVESH Portal‟. The

Environment Management Plan provides for a systematic plan for

balancing the needs of the environment during developmental activities

being carried out.

1. The Respondent No.3- District Mining Officer, Bhandara also

submitted a "Site Specific Enforcement and Monitoring Plan", in alleged

compliance of the 2016 Guidelines and the 2020 Guidelines. From its

perusal, it is apparent that the said plan is nothing but a generic outline

that has been taken up by the Respondent No.3 to merely show paper

compliance with the 2016 Guidelines and the 2020 Guidelines.

1. The State Level Expert Appraisal Committee-1 took up the proposals

for grant of EC in its Meeting dated 04.12.2025. After a cursory perusal of

the proposal made by the Respondent No.2- District Collector Bhandara, it

was recommended that EC be granted for the sand mining at the said

sand ghat, for a period up to 30.09.2026. A perusal of the Minutes of the

339th Meeting of the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee-1 held on

03.12.2025 would make it clear that Respondent No.2 had filed a

multitude of proposals for grant of prior EC for various sand ghats in the

District Bhandara. The SEAC-1, in all of the „Deliberation‟ made, has

adopted a „cut and paste‟ method for all the said sand ghats and has

therefore, completely failed to apply its mind to the proposals present APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 49 of 82 before it. The non-application of mind is reflected from the fact the SEAC-1

has recommended that the said sand ghats, as well as other sand ghats,

be granted EC despite the fact that no Pre-Feasibility Report was

submitted by the Project Proponent along with the application seeking

grant of prior EC and that the Replenishment Study Report was contrary

to the 2020 Guidelines.

1. In the terms of the recommendation of the SEAC-1 for grant of EC

for the said sand ghat, the Respondent No.1-SEIAA granted EC for the

sand mining at the Dhanori Sand Ghat for the above mentioned area. A

bare perusal of the said Minutes of the Meeting of the Respondent No.1-

SEIAA would reflect that it had not applied its mind to the proposal in a

holistic and individual manner and has adopted the „template method‟ to

record its deliberations. Further, it is submitted that such an approach is

absolutely contrary to the scheme of grant of prior EC, the objective of

which is to ascertain the harm that may be caused to the environment by

a specific proposal.

1. Thereafter, the Respondent No.2- District Collector, Bhandara on

10.12.2025 published a Notice regarding the e-Auction Notice for the

auction of total 99 sand ghats in the Bhandara District, including the

Dhanori sand ghat for the year 2025-2026 to be conducted on 29.12.2025.

1. Thereafter, on 12.12.2025, in terms of the approval granted by the

Respondent No.1-SEIAA to the grant of EC for the said sand ghat, the

Respondent No.1 granted prior EC to proposed Mining Project for the sand

mining of the Dhanori Sand Ghat.

1. Through amendment in the pleadings, the appellant has submitted

that Respondent No.1-SEIAA has transferred the Impugned EC to the APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 50 of 82 Respondent No.7- M/s R Sandesh Infravision Pvt. Ltd., who was the

successful bidder for e-Auction conducted by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 for

the mining of sand ghats in District Bhandara. Further, it is submitted

that although this Tribunal had issued notice in the present appeal on

05.01.2026, this Tribunal was of the opinion that the stay on the mining of

sand at the said sand ghat could only be granted after hearing the

Respondents and listed the present Appeal on 29.01.2026. In the

interregnum, with a mala fide intention to defeat the Orders of this

Tribunal, the Respondent No.1-SEIAA, in connivance with the Respondent

Nos.2 & 3, hastily transferred the Impugned EC to the Respondent No.7

and thus created third party interests.

1. The Respondent No.1-SEIAA, while granting the Impugned EC, erred

in not considering the fact that the application for EC for the said sand

ghat did not contain a Pre-Feasibility Report. Further, the Respondent

No.1-SEIAA also did not consider that the Replenishment Study Report

was in utter disregard of the requirements under the 2020 Guidelines,

which goes to the root of the purpose of a DSR and thus, vitiates the entire

DSR. Hence, the appellant has approached this Tribunal for getting the

above relief.

1. This matter along-with the other connected matters were heard by

this Tribunal on 05.01.2026, when the same was admitted and treated the

present appeal as lead case and passed directions therein to issue notices

to all the Respondents.

1. From the side of Respondent No.4-MoEF&CC, reply Affidavit dated

23.01.2026 has been filed, in which it is recorded that the answering

Respondent vide Notification dated 25.07.2018 in Appendix-X has laid

down, a detailed procedure for preparation of DSR for sand mining or river APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 51 of 82 bed mining, as well as procedure for preparation of DSR for minor

minerals other than sand mining or river bed mining. In that Notification,

it is stated that the DSR shall form the basis for application for EC,

preparation of reports and appraisal of projects. The Report shall be

updated once every five years.

1. As per Judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal

No.3661 of 2020 in State of Bihar Vs. Pawan Kumar vide order dated

10.11.2021, emphasis has been laid on the importance of DSR. The DSR is

required to be prepared before the auction/e-auction/grant of mining lease

by Mining Department or Department dealing with mining activity in the

respective States. The Sub-Divisional Committee consists of various

Officers from Revenue Department, Irrigation Department, State Pollution

Control Board, Forest Department and Geology Mining Department of the

State Government as they are better equipped to visit the sites and prepare

the draft DSR for the concerned District.

1. Further, it is mentioned that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in its

Judgement dated 08.05.2025 in State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Vs.

Gaurav Kumar & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.14170 of 2024) and connected

cases, has categorically held that EC can be issued only on the basis of a

valid and subsisting DSR. It was upheld by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court

that the National Green Tribunal‟s directive that no auction for sand-

mining blocks can proceed on the basis of a draft DSR. Only a final, fully

compliant DSR can serve as the basis for environmental clearance and

subsequent e-auction.

1. Further, it is mentioned that the EMGSM-2020 Guidelines issued by

the MoEF&CC answering respondent, mandates in "4.0...the identification

of possible sand mining sources and preparation of District Survey Report APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 52 of 82 (DSR). "4.1.1...The guidelines further emphasize detailed procedure to be

followed for the purpose of identification of areas of aggradation/deposition

where mining can be allowed and identification of areas of erosion and

proximity to the infrastructural structures and installation where mining

should be prohibited. Calculation of annual rate of replenishment, allowing

time for replenishment after mining, identification of ways of scientific and

systematic mining; identifying measures for protection of environment and

ecology and determining measures for protection of bank erosion,

benchmark (BM) with respect to Mean Sea Level (MSL) should be made

essential in mining channel reaches (MCR) below which no mining shall be

allowed..."

1. Further, it is mentioned that, the EMGSM 2020 also emphasize in

5.0 REPLENISHMENT STUDY "The need for replenishment study for river

bed sand is required in order to nullify the adverse impacts arising due to

excessive sand extraction. Mining within or near river bed has a direct

impact on the stream's physical characteristics, such as channel geometry,

bed elevation, substratum composition and stability, in-stream roughness of

the bed, flow velocity, discharge capacity, sediment transport capacity,

turbidity, temperature etc. Alteration or modification of the above attributes

may cause an impact on the ecological equilibrium of the riverine regime,

disturbance in channel configuration and flow-paths. This may also cause

an adverse impact on in-stream biota and riparian habitats. It is assumed

that the riparian habitat disturbance is minimum if the replenishment is

equal to excavation for a given stretch. Therefore, to minimize the adverse

impact arising out of sand mining in a given river stretch, it is imperative to

have a study of replenishment of material during the defined period...".

Generic Structure of Replenishment Study, Methodology for

Replenishment Study has also been provided in EMGSM 2020. APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 53 of 82

1. After having gone through the facts, which are mentioned in the

affidavit of Respondent No.4-MoEF&CC, we may mention here that we are

disappointed that Respondent No.4 has not provided any assistance in this

Affidavit with regard to the dispute involved in the present appeal. It was

the bounden duty of MoEF&CC to express the opinion in the case in hand

as to whether procedure, which has been narrated above by them to be

followed for grant of EC preparation of DSR and conducting the

Replenishment Study, were followed in letter and spirit by the Project

Proponent in the case in hand or not and whether SEIAA has followed the

procedure which has been narrated by the MoEF&CC in its Affidavit.

Merely submitting rule position will not suffice the purpose in the case in

hand. We believe that in future at least some assistance would be rendered

by the MoEF&CC in such cases.

1. From the side of Respondent No.1-SEIAA, reply Affidavit dated

12.02.2026 have been filed wherein it is submitted that the appellant

herein is indirectly challenging the procedure adopted for preparation and

finalization of the DSR, by challenging the impugned EC. What cannot be

done directly cannot be done indirectly. As per the procedure, the draft

DSR was put in public domain for a period of 30 days inviting public

objections and suggestions. Further newspaper advertisement was also

caused to be published in newspapers having wide circulation on 15th

October, 2025. If the appellant claims himself to be a journalist, then it is

surprising to know that he was not aware about the publication of the

draft DSR inviting public objections/suggestions. In the appeal nowhere

has it been stated that they had filed any objection and given suggestion to

the draft DSR. Without doing so, the appellant is challenging the EC. APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 54 of 82

1. Further, it is mentioned that the appellant obtained interim stay on

the operation of the EC, which has indirectly allowed illegal sand mining to

fester in the district of Bhandara causing more harm to the environment

and huge losses to the State Exchequer. The credentials and bonafides of

the applicants must be tested, in terms of the judgment passed by Hon‟ble

Supreme Court in Ankita Sinha‟s case.

1. During the course of appraisal and deliberations, the District

Administration, through the District Collector and the District Mining

Officer, made a detailed presentation before the SEAC and furnished

comprehensive information, documentary records, confirmations, and

written undertakings, on the basis of which the SEAC examined and

appraised the proposals.

1. Further, it is mentioned that the District Collector and the District

Mining Officer had provided confirmations and undertakings to the SEAC

that the District Survey Report (DSR), Replenishment Study, identification

and finalization of sand ghats and the associated technical assessments

had been prepared strictly in accordance with the Sustainable Sand

Mining Management Guidelines, 2016, the Enforcement and Monitoring

Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020 and the State Sand Mining Policy, 2025.

1. Further, it is mentioned that the SEAC, on the basis of the aforesaid

presentation meticulously examined the methodology of surveys,

replenishment calculations, comparative data of previous years, demand-

supply assessment, identification and finalization of sand ghats,

Groundwater Survey Development Authority (GSDA) recommendations on

mineable depth, and approval of Mining Plan by the Directorate of Geology

and Mining, Nagpur, and thereafter recorded its observations and

recommendations.

APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 55 of 82

1. Further, it is mentioned that the SEAC was also presented with

comparative analysis of the data pertaining to previous years, including

the stretch monitored with respect to Length x Breadth (L x B in meters)

and the Ground Level (GL) monitored during pre-monsoon and post

monsoon periods for a minimum continuous period of three years, in order

to assess sediment deposition trends, validate replenishment rates, and

ensure scientific reliability and regulatory compliance of the

Replenishment Study.

1. Further, it is mentioned that the SEAC also considered the DSR,

more specifically the Replenishment Study in the DSR. The argument of

the appellant that defective Replenishment Study would render the DSR

defective has no legs to stand as the present appeal challenges the

procedure for grant of EC. A DSR cannot be challenged by way of

challenging the EC. All these objections could have been raised when the

draft DSR was put in public domain. The appellant did not choose to

challenge the DSR and hence, the DSR attained finality.

1. The SEAC has gone through the DSR which contains sand ghat

study along with the river replenishment study chapter. It has been

specifically observed as below:-

"Replenishment study is carried out and continued by physical

survey of field by conventional method fixing bench mark with

elevation status grid of 25 m x 25 m, area slope method and

theoretical method. Sand ghats are located on the Wainganga,

Sur, Chulbandh, Bawanthali rivers. Replenishment rate for

Wainganga River is 100%, Sur River is 58%, Chulbandh River is

62% Bawanthali River is 100%. It is also to take a note that this APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 56 of 82 may vary and depends on rainfall and geographical & geological

conditions."

1. Further, it is mentioned that the Mining Plan was duly presented,

deliberated upon, and discussed in detail at the time of appraisal and

presentation before the SEAC, and that the formal approval of the Mining

Plan was also obtained from the competent authority, namely the

Directorate of Geology and Mining (DGM), Nagpur, prior to consideration

and recommendation of the proposal.

1. A bare perusal of Clause 6 of Notification dated 15.01.2026 states

that the Project Proponent shall furnish the application along with a Pre-

Feasibility Report, in addition, to Form-1, Form-1A and Form-M. Also, as

per office Memorandum dated 15.12.2021, MoEF&CC has stated that

for all Category "B2" projects (other than those covered in Schedule-8 of

the EIA Notification 2006), the Project Proponents shall apply in Form-2 on

PARIVESH portal along with requisite documents. On selection of category

as "B2", the fields in Form-2 which may not be relevant for such projects,

(i.e., EIA Report etc.) shall automatically get disabled. Form-2 along with

the Application at serial no.38 shows the list of annexures/enclosures

which are to be uploaded and it does not contain any column for

submission of the Pre-Feasibility Report.

1. Further, it is mentioned that as per MoEF&CC Notification dated

30.12.2010, Pre-Feasibility Report is required only for EIA projects, and in

case of mining projects, EIA is required for mining areas of more than 5

hectares. In the present case, all the sand ghats are of less than 5 hectares

and based on above averments it is urged by the Learned Counsel that

there is no infirmity if the Pre-Feasibility Report was not uploaded on the APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 57 of 82 PARIVESH portal because the sand ghat involved herein, were less than 5

hectares area.

1. Further, it is mentioned that with respect to the objection raised by

the appellant that no recommendation of the Sub-Divisional Committee for

proposing the said Sand Ghat for EC was made, it is submitted that in

terms of the State Sand Mining Policy, 2025, Government of Maharashtra,

the final authority for approval and authorization of the identified sand

ghats vests with the District Level Sand Monitoring Committee (DLSMC),

and that the role of the SEAC is limited to technical appraisal and

recommendation, in accordance with the applicable regulatory framework.

1. We find from the perusal of the above Affidavit that sufficient

justification has been given by Respondent No. 1 regarding requirement of

the Pre-Feasibility Report and consideration of all requisite documents,

including approved mining plan, before recommendation and approval of

project for EC and we are in concurrence with this argument.

1. From the side of Respondent Nos.2-District Collector, Bhandara and

3-District Mining Officer, Bhandara Affidavit dated 12.02.2026 is filed,

wherein it is submitted that the Office of the District Collector advertised

preparation of draft District Survey Report in the newspapers having larger

circulation, on 15th October, 2025 and the draft DSR was published on

NIC portal of Bhandara District on 17th October, 2025. No objections and

suggestions were received from the general public and, therefore, the DSR

was finalized. The DSR has been prepared as per the methodology

provided.

1. Further, it is mentioned that the appellant has challenged the DSR

on various grounds. First among them being that the Replenishment APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 58 of 82 Study was not in consonance with Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines

for Sand Mining, 2020, in this regard, it is submitted that Para 5.1 of the

said Guidelines required four surveys to be conducted. The first survey

needed to be carried out in the month of April for recording the level of

mining lease before the monsoon. The second survey is to be done at the

time of closing of mines for monsoon season. This survey will provide the

quantum of material excavated before the onset of monsoon. The third

survey needed to be carried out after the monsoon, to know the quantum

of material deposited/replenished in the mining lease. The fourth survey is

conducted at the time of March to know the total quantity of material

excavated during the financial year. For the subsequent years, there will

be a requirement of only three surveys. The result of year-wise surveys

helps the State Government to establish the replenishment rate of the

river. Based on the replenishment rate, future action may be planned.

1. Having relied on the above stipulation made in Para 5.1 of the

Guidelines of 2020, the Learned Counsel for appellant asserts that page

Nos.382-387 of the paper-book do not indicate as to when these surveys

were conducted because they only show the year, i.e. from 2015-16 upto

2025-26.

1. It is submitted by Respondent No. 2 & 3 that this DSR is for one

year only, unlike for five years in other States. Since the DSR is for one

year only, the requisite replenishment survey carried out during the earlier

year, would assume relevance. As per the Enforcement and Monitoring

Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020 (Clause 5.1), the replenishment period

may vary on nature of the channel and season of deposition arising due to

variation in the flow. Such period and season may vary on the

geographical and precipitation characteristic of the region. In Bhandara APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 59 of 82 District, the monsoon period runs from June to September only for four

months.

1. Further, it is mentioned that the survey are carried out both

physically as well as theoretically. The Enforcement and Monitoring

Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020 lay down what are the required details

of Replenishment study. The said requirement incorporated in para 5.2.4

states that they should be a summary of the elevation data (data of

deposition of sand) from each section profile based on the post monsoon.

1. The survey should have the figures mentioned in tabular form.

There has to be a comparison of both pre-monsoon and post-monsoon

elevation data. It is submitted that these requirements are strictly adhered

to. As regards the physical surveys, they are conducted in following

manner.

The District Bhandara does not have much rainfall. There is no rain

between October and June. Therefore, the first survey conducted in

October, 2024 was considered to be pre-monsoon survey. It is material to

note that there was no mining activity between October, 2024 and to the

end of May, 2025. Hence, there was no question of conducting post

monsoon survey in order to know the extent of excavation carried out

during the season. In order to ascertain the increase in the sand deposit

due to flow of water during monsoon, the second survey was conducted in

October, 2025. The mining activity has started after EC was transferred,

but the same has been halted due to the interim stay granted by this

Tribunal on 05.02.2025. The post monsoon survey would be carried out at

the close of the season followed by pre-monsoon survey that will be carried

out in June, 2026.

APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 60 of 82

1. The first survey was carried out from 03.10.2024 to 16.10.2024,

which was required to be carried out in the month of April for recording

the level of sand before the monsoon. The DMO had issued a letter dated

30.09.2024, calling upon the Tehsildar, Executive Engineer, Water

Conservation, Regional Officer, MPCB and the Senior Geologist, GSDA, to

Co-operate with the agency.

1. The second survey was supposed to be carried out at the time of

closing of mines before monsoon season. As per para 5.1 of the Guidelines,

2020, this survey is supposed to be carried out to provide the quantity of

the material excavated before the onset of monsoon. In this regard, it is

further submitted that, this time, no mining activity was carried out

because there was no EC. Therefore, no such survey was conducted. The

second survey is supposed to be conducted for checking quantity of

material excavated from sand ghats after closure of the excavation period.

1. As there was no EC and excavation was not carried out, no survey

was carried out. In order to find out replenishment/deposit after the

monsoon of June, 2025, the post monsoon survey (third survey) was

carried out as per the para 5.1 of the Guidelines, 2020, conducted between

06.10.2025 to 16.10.2025.

1. Further, it is mentioned that the District Collectorate has got the

aerial survey done by the Maharashtra Remote Sensing Application Centre

(MRSAC) in the month of October, 2025.

1. The latest Reports of the above-referred surveys manually carried

out by the Technical Committee are uploaded on the PARIVESH Portal.

The said Reports disclose everything related to the survey, including the APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 61 of 82 date of the survey. How the appellant has failed to notice the same is not

understandable.

1. Further, it is mentioned that the District Collectorate has carried out

two kinds of surveys - manual as well as theoretical, which are

incorporated in the DSR. In Bhandara District, the replenishment rate is

very high. Therefore, it is imperative that the excavation should be carried

out for smooth passage of water for mitigating flood situation and erosion

of land. The updation of District Survey Report every five years is not

necessary because the DSR in question is prepared for one year. The

Collectorate of Bhandara District updates the DSRs every year.

1. Further, it is mentioned that the four surveys to be conducted in the

first year and three surveys to be conducted in the subsequent years as

per the Guidelines, 2020, cannot be strictly enforced in State of

Maharashtra, particularly in Bhandara District because the Sand Mining

Policy, 2025 in Maharashtra prescribes granting of EC for one year only.

Taking into consideration this aspect, the mandatory surveys are carried

out and thus, substantial compliance of the mandatory provisions has

been made.

1. The next objection raised by the Learned Counsel for the appellant

pertains to the non-submission of mining plan. In this regard, it is

submitted that the mining plan is a huge document (minimum 37 MB)

and, therefore, for want of available space, only the letter approving the

mining plan was uploaded. Though the mining plan was not uploaded, it

was presented before the SEAC and SEIAA at the time of presentation.

From the covering letter dated 02.12.2025, it is clear that hard copy of the

mining plan was submitted before SEAC. Therefore, the SEIAA in its APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 62 of 82 Minutes of meeting recorded that there was an approved mining plan,

which was valid upto 30.09.2026. Thus this requirement is fulfilled.

1. Although technically it was possible to split the documents into

smaller files and compress it for the purpose of uploading, however, since

approval letter was uploaded and hard copy of mining plan was submitted

before SEAC and also presented before SEAC/ SEIAA, we concur that

requirement was substantially fulfilled.

1. The next objection raised by the appellant pertains to non-

submission of Pre-Feasibility Report contrary to the Notification dated

15.01.2016. In this regard, it is submitted that there is an office

memorandum dated 15.12.2021 issued by the MoEF&CC, as per para 4 of

which the Project Proponent are required to apply in form-2 on PARIVESH

Portal along with requisite documents. On selection of category, as "B2"

the fields in form-2 which may not be relevant for such projects would

automatically get disabled. Form No.2 does not contain any reference to

the Pre-Feasibility Report. Therefore, the Project Proponent was under a

bona fide impression that the requirement of proposal for EC should

contain the information asked to be filled in, in various columns of the

said form No.2 and the documents relating to the said columns. Even

otherwise, as per the Notification dated 30.12.2010 issued by MoEF&CC,

Pre-Feasibility Report is only required for EIA projects. There is no column

pertaining to the pre-feasibility report in form No.2 on the PARIVESH

portal. Therefore, it remained to be submitted.

1. The next objection raised by the appellant is that while preparing

the DSR there is no recommendation made by the Sub-Divisional

Committee for the purpose of sand ghats in question. In this regard,

reliance placed by the appellant on Notification of MoEF&CC dated APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 63 of 82 15.01.2016, particularly Appendix-X titles as "Procedures for preparation

of District Survey Report". This appendix provides for a Sub-Divisional

Committee comprising of a Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Officers from

Irrigation Department, State Pollution Control Board, Forest Department,

Geology or Mining Officer.

1. Further, it is mentioned that the State Government has formulated

sand mining policy by the Government Resolution dated 08.04.2025,

which provides for three Committees. The survey and verification of

sand/gravel would be carried out by the following Committees. The

technical sub-committee is expected to carry out survey. Then there is a

Taluka Level Sand Monitoring Committee, which is supposed to assist the

District Level Committee in preparation of DSR. Then there is a District

Level Committee. The Taluka Level Sand Monitoring Committee submits

the spot inspection report along with documents and proposals to the

District Level Committee for final approval. From the comparative table, it

is clear that the members of all the Committees taken together, cover

requirements of membership of the Sub-Divisional Committee as per the

Notification dated 15.01.2016. In the State of Maharashtra, the

functioning of the Sub-Divisional Committee is divided into two

Committees, viz. Technical Sub-Committee and Taluka Level Sand

Monitoring Committee. The Sustainable Sand Mining Guidelines, 2016 lay

down that at least three members of the Sub-Divisional Committee must

participate in the survey. This condition is more than fulfilled in the case

in hand because the number of Officers, who participated in this survey,

are more than three. The Taluka Level Sand Monitoring Committee had

participated in preparation of draft DSR. It was uploaded on the website

for inviting objections; only after no objections are received, it was finalized

by the District Level Sand Monitoring Committee headed by the Collector. APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 64 of 82 This mode is laid down in the Sand Mining Policy, 2025 framed by the

State Government.

1. The Collectorate has acted as per the Sand Policy of the Government

of Maharashtra for the year 2025-2026, therefore, the substantial

compliance with the requirement of survey by Sub-Divisional Committee

will be treated to have been made. Hence, the EC may not be set aside on

technical grounds.

1. Further, it is mentioned that there are certain elements who indulge

in illegal mining in Bhandara District, who are interested in halting the

legal mining being carried out pursuant to the EC. The District

Administration finds it very difficult to curb the illegal mining and to

substantiate the same, data has been provided therein.

1. Learned Counsel for the appellant has filed Rejoinder dated

17.02.2026 to the reply Affidavit of Respondent Nos.2 and 3, wherein it is

denied that the DSR cannot be challenged by way of an appeal and further

it is reiterated that replenishment study on which the DSR is prepared is

defective.

1. The appellant has given a timeline that have been violated by the

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in carrying out surveys in tabular as below:- APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 65 of 82

1. Having indicated the above timeline, it is said that Respondent

Nos.2 and 3 have not followed the above timeline while carrying out the

surveys for the purpose of replenishment study, which is bad in law and

asserted that the EC should be set aside.

1. Another Rejoinder dated 17.02.2026 is filed by the appellant to the

reply dated 12.02.2026 filed by the Respondent No.1-SEIAA, wherein all

the averments made by the SEIAA have been denied and it is asserted that

the SEIAA did not apply its mind while granting the Impugned ECs.

1. From the side of Respondent Nos.2 and 3, Additional Affidavit dated

25.02.2026 have been filed, wherein the details of the various surveys

carried out by them for the purpose of replenishment study has been

given. It is submitted that replenishment period may vary on nature of

channel and season of deposition arising due to variation in the flow. Such

period and season may vary on the geological, geographical and

precipitation characteristic of the region and requires to be defined by the

local agencies preferably with the help of Central Water Commission and APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 66 of 82 Indian Meteorological Department. The excavation will, therefore, be

limited to estimated replenishment, estimated with consideration of other

regulatory provisions. This built-in flexibility provision recognizes that the

four-survey structure is an adaptable generic framework- not a rigid

calendar mandate irrespective of site conditions. It is true that said clause

requires four surveys to be carried out in one year. However, in the next

sub-para of para 5.1, it is made clear that the replenishment period may

vary on nature of channel and season of deposition arising due to variation

in the flow. Such period and season may vary on the geological,

geographical and precipitation characteristic of the region and requires to

be defined by the local agencies preferably with the help of Central Water

Commission and Indian Meteorological Department.

1. Further, it is mentioned that not only the number of surveys to be

carried out, is mentioned but also explains when these surveys are to be

carried out and what should be the object behind it. The first survey needs

to be carried out in the month of April. The object of this survey is to

record the level of mining lease before the monsoon. The second survey

needs to be conducted at the time of closing of mines for monsoon season.

The object of this survey is to provide the quantity of material excavated

before the onset of monsoon. The third survey needs to be carried out after

the monsoon to know the quantum of material deposited/replenished in

the mining lease. The fourth survey at the end of March is carried out to

know the quantity of material excavated during the financial year. The

object of this survey is to ensure that the Government has data of level of

mining lease before the monsoon, the quantity of material excavated before

the onset of monsoon, the quantum of material deposited/ replenished in

the mining lease and the quantity of material excavated during the

financial year. What is mandatory is a survey before the excavation begins, APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 67 of 82 a survey to know the quantum of material excavated, the quantum of

material replenished, and the quantity of material excavated during the

financial year. Once this data is available, the object of the Guidelines,

2020 is fulfilled. The dates of survey can vary during the exigency of

situation. In other words, so long as the first survey is carried out before

the excavation begins; the second survey is carried out at the time of

closing of sand mines; the third survey is carried out at such a time where

the replenishment will come on record and the fourth survey is carried out

in order to know the quantity of material excavated.

1. Further, it is mentioned that the Government of Maharashtra‟s Sand

Policy dated 08.04.2025 mandates annual scooping and slicing of sand

using spade and metal pan by manual labour.

1. In Bhandara District, the maximum proposed sand extraction depth

ranges from 0.5 metres to 1.70 metres. No benches are proposed and no

mechanical equipment is deployed. The NABL laboratory requirement

under Clause 5.2 relates to assessment of particle size distribution and

bulk density in the context of evaluating slope stability of extraction

benches. For manual scooping operations to a maximum depth of 1.70

metres with no bench creation, there are no slope stability concerns. The

factual premise that triggers the NABL requirement is absent.

1. Further, it is mentioned that the State of Maharashtra has framed

Sand Policy each and every year as can be seen from the order of the

Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.4830 of 2010. As per the

Maharashtra Minor Mineral Extraction (Development and Regulation)

Rules, 2013, they have statutory force because they have been framed

pursuant to the provision of Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals

(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. Thus, the State Government is APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 68 of 82 entitled to have its own sand mining policy. It is reiterated that sub-para

in para 5.1 of the 2020 Guidelines recognizes this principle.

1. Further, it is mentioned that the State Government has framed the

latest policy on 08.04.2025, which is further modified on 9th October

1. As per this modification, since the exact information about sand

accumulation in subsequent years is not available, excess accumulation

could cause revenue loss to the government. Hence, the government

considered reducing the auction period for both river and creek sand

groups to 1 year. Accordingly, the mining plan, environmental clearance,

and other required permissions mentioned in the resolution dated

08.04.2025 shall now be valid for 1 year. Therefore, DSR is prepared for

one year only. Therefore, survey, as prescribed in para 5.1 of the 2020

Guidelines for the remaining four years, is not required.

1. Further, it is mentioned that the surveys to be carried out by the

Collectorate, Bhandara for the purpose of replenishment, were carried out

on 03.10.2024 to 16.10.2024. The second survey was not required to be

carried out for the reasons stated in the said Affidavit dated 12.04.2026.

The third survey was carried out between 06.10.2025 to 16.10.2025, while

the fourth survey is to be carried out in March, 2026.

1. The District Collectorate followed the State Government's mining

policy which prescribes three committees. The first survey was carried out

by the technical committee, which identified 54 sand ghats. Then on

26.11.2024, a newspaper advertisement was published inviting objections

for DSR. Ghats were proposed as per the 16.02.2024 Policy.

1. Further, it is mentioned that the first survey was carried out in

October 2024. Therefore, the object of the first survey was fulfilled. The APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 69 of 82 second survey is to be carried out at the time of closing of mines for

monsoon season in order to have the record of material excavated. Since

no excavation had taken place for want of EC, this survey was not carried

out because there was no point in carrying out this survey. It is further

submitted that the geological, geographical, precipitation characteristic did

not change as there was no rainfall during this period between October

2024 to June 2025 affecting the replenishment study and sand deposition.

The third survey which is required to be carried out after the monsoon to

know the quantum of material deposited/ replenished in the mining lease,

was carried out in October 2025, after the rainy season. The requirement

of the fourth surveys, as envisaged in Para 5.1 of the Enforcement and

Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020, is of "generic" nature. In the

case in hand, there was no operational lease at any of the ghats proposed

for sand mining during the period from October, 2024 upto the onset of

monsoon in June, 2025. Hence, the Sand Level observed in October, 2024

remained unchanged upto March, 2025 (time envisaged for first survey)

and April, 2025 (time envisaged for second survey). Subsequent survey

was carried out in October, 2025 (time envisaged for third survey) to

assess sand deposition during monsoon. The fourth survey, as envisaged

in the Guidelines, will be carried out in March, 2026. Thus, there is no

lapse in replenishment study.

1. Besides the above pleadings, the Learned Counsel for the appellant

has also submitted to us Rejoinder to the Additional Affidavit filed by

Respondent Nos.2 & 3, wherein the same facts have been reiterated by

him which we have already mentioned above. Much emphasis is laid on

timeline for surveys, which were conducted, which are being reproduced

herein below for the sake of convenience:-

APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 70 of 82

1. Having drawn attention to the above, it is submitted by the Learned

Counsel for the appellant that only two surveys were done, one in October,

2024 and the other in October, 2025 by the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in

the case in hand and no other surveys were conducted, which is nothing

but the violation of the Rule 5.1 of the Guidelines, 2020 cited above and

having said so, it is urged by him that since these are the mandatory

Guidelines, the same could not have been avoided and the replenishment

study should be treated to be defective and hence based on that, the DSR

also stands to be defective.

1. We have heard the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the

appellant as well as that of learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1- SEIAA,

2- District Collector, Bhandara and 3- District Mining Officer, Bhandara at

length and gone through the details of the case at length.

1. From the above respective averments of the parties, it is quite clear

that the appellant has assailed the impugned EC mainly on the grounds

that:-

APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 71 of 82

i. The replenishment study which was required to be done in accordance

with the Para 5.1 of Guidelines, 2020, have not been followed and hence

the replenishment study should be defective and based on that the DSR

has been prepared, which too would stand defective;

ii. The Pre-Feasibility Report and the mining plan were required to be

uploaded on the PARIVESH Portal, which too was not done and in view

of that mandatory provision has been violated therefore, on that account

also the EC needs to be set aside; and

iii. The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 had transferred the Impugned ECs to

Respondent No.7, during pendency of this appeal therefore, it is prayed

that in case these ECs are held to be illegal and hence are set aside, in

that case the transferred ECs should also be set aside.
79. Point No.(i): As per this point, we have to decide as to whether the

replenishment study suffers from any defects. In this regard the Learned

Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that Para 5.1 of the

Guidelines, 2020 laid down the specific timeline for conducting the survey,

which provides the four surveys to be conducted in a first year. The first

survey is to be done in April in order to record the level of sand mining

lease before the monsoon, meaning thereby that the status of sand mining

leases and quantity of sand for extraction is to be determined during this

survey. The second survey is to be conducted at the conclusion of the

mining before onset of monsoon season in order to ascertain the quantity

of material excavated before the onset of monsoon. The third survey would

be conducted after the monsoon is over in order to ascertain the quantum

of material deposited/replenished in the mining lease and the fourth/last

survey would be conducted at the end of March to ascertain the total

mined material excavated during the financial year. And it is further APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 72 of 82 argued by him that this timeline cannot be varied under any

circumstances, which is being opposed by the Learned Counsel for the

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and it is being said that this timeline is flexible,

which can be vary depending on nature of the channel and season of

deposition arising due to variation in the flow. Further, such period and

season may vary on the geographical and precipitation characteristic of the

region and which requires to be defined by the local agencies preferably

the Central Water Commission and Indian Meteorological Department.

1. The reliance has been placed by the Learned Counsel for the

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 on the Judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Ram Deen Maurya (Dr.) Vs. State of UP & Others - (2009)6

SCC 735, wherein, at para 43, it is held as follows:-

"43. To answer this issue, it is necessary to find out, whether the

Rule is directory or mandatory. If it is mandatory, then it is

settled Rule of interpretation, it must be strictly construed and

followed and an act done in breach thereof will be invalid. But if

it is directory, the act will be valid although the non-compliance

may give rise to some other, penalty if provided by the statute. It

is often said that a mandatory enactment must be obeyed or

fulfilled exactly, but, a directory provision non-compliance with it

has been held in many cases as not affecting the validity of the

act done in breach thereof (see Principles of Statutory

Interpretation, 11th Edn. 2008 by Justice G.P. Singh)."
81. Perusal of the above, would make it clear that if an act is done in

non-compliance with directory provision, the same would not be treated to

be invalid even if, non-compliance may give rise to some penalty, while APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 73 of 82 mandatory statute must be construed strictly and any act done in

contravention thereof would be invalid.

1. Further, in this judgment it is also recorded that how it is to be

ascertained as to whether the provision is mandatory or directory. For this,

content/subject matter and object of the statute must be considered. If

consequences of non-compliance with procedural requirement are not

provided by the statute, the requirement must be treated as directory.

1. In view of the above Judgment, it is quite clear that in the case in

hand, if we apply this ruling, we find that consequence of non-following of

the timeline for surveys to be conducted has not been laid down in the

Guidelines. Hence, it should be treated by us to be a directory provision.

Further, if we go through the object of laying down these guidelines, the

same is that the surveys should be conducted prior to grant of permission

for mining in order to estimate/ determine the quantity of the material

available for extraction, which in this case has been done. Further, the

second survey was supposed to be done for the purpose of determining the

quantity of material which has been excavated prior to monsoon, for that

the second survey has not been conducted in the case in hand because no

mining activity had taken place as there is no earlier EC nor any lease was

operational in the ghats in question. Therefore, the second survey even if

not conducted as in the case in hand, would not amount to any material

difference in the quantity of sand available and hence this cannot be

treated as violation in the case in hand because no material was extracted.

The third survey is required to be done after monsoon in order to

determine the material deposited/replenished and this survey was done in

the case in hand in October, 2025. There is no question of fourth survey to

be conducted because that time is yet to arrive for it to be conducted. In APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 74 of 82 view of above timeline which has been explained by the Learned Counsel

for Respondent Nos.2 and 3, we find that the object which has been

provided under the Guidelines, 2020 are fully met. Therefore, we do not

find any violation of Guidelines to have been made by the Respondent

Nos.2 and 3. What is also very clear is that flexibility can be there as it has

already been cited above by us, therefore, we overrule the objection in this

regard raised by the Learned Counsel for the appellant.

1. Reliance is also placed by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 on the Judgment

delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in [Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd.

and Others Vs. Union of India and Others](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/26352158/) - 2013 (4) SCC 575,

wherein, at para 32, it is held as follows:-

"32. Where, however, the challenge to the environmental
clearance is on the ground of procedural impropriety, the High
Court could quash the environmental clearance only if it is
satisfied that the breach was of a mandatory requirement in the
procedure. As stated in Environmental Law edited by David
Woolley, Q.C., John Pugh-Smith, Richard Langham and William
Upton, Oxford University Press:

"It will often not be enough to show that there has been a
procedural breach. Most of the procedural requirements
are found in the regulations made under primary
legislation. There has been much debate in the courts
about whether a breach of regulations is mandatory or
directory, but in the end the crucial point which has to be
considered in any given case is what the particular
provision was designed to achieve."
As we have noticed, when the plant of the appellant Company
was granted environmental clearance, the Notification dated 27-
1-1994 did not provide for mandatory public hearing. The
explanatory note issued by the Central Government on the
Notification dated 27-1-1994 also made it clear that the project APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 75 of 82 proponents may furnish rapid EIA report to the IAA based on one
season data (other than monsoon), for examination of the project
comprehensive EIA report was not a must. In the absence of a
mandatory requirement in the procedure laid down under the
scheme under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 at the
relevant time requiring a mandatory public hearing and a
mandatory comprehensive EIA report, the High Court could not
have interfered with the decision of the Central Government
granting environmental clearance on the ground of procedural
impropriety."

1. A perusal of the above Judgment would indicate that, what is

important is to see whether the object of the provision has been achieved

or not in the case in hand. If we apply this judgment in the case in hand,

we find that object behind laying down the Guidelines, 2020 (Para 5.1) is

to ascertain the quantity of the sand available for extraction prior to grant

of EC considering the rate of replenishment and level of existing

extraction, and thereafter the permission is granted for its extraction for

certain quantity. This objective stands achieved by the surveys which have

been conducted in the case by the Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

1. As against the above Judgments, the Learned Counsel for the

appellant has relied upon the judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court

delivered in [Department of Mines and Geology, State of Punjab Vs.

State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Punjab](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/157064909/) -

(2020) 19 SCC 500, wherein, he read out following portion of para 1, it is

held as follows:-

"1. ..................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 District

Forest Officer concerned, final District Survey Report and

environmental management plan."
APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 76 of 82

1. Having read the above portion, he said that, this could mean that

Pre-Feasibility Report and mining plan were required to be uploaded by

the Project Proponent/Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the case in hand on the

PARIVESH Portal, which has not been done, therefore, it is breach of the

Guidelines which would result in EC to be defective and hence should be

set aside. We do not find that any benefit of this ruling can be granted to

the appellant because this ruling does not say that in case Pre-Feasibility

Report and the mining plan are not uploaded on the PARIVESH Portal that

would entail rejection of the EC.

1. The other Judgment, which has been relied upon by the Learned

Counsel for the appellant, is delivered in the matter of [State of Uttar

Pradesh and Another Vs. Gaurav Kumar and Others](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/81810/) - 2025 SCC

OnLine SC 1069, wherein reliance is placed in Para 20, which is as

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 APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 77 of 82 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. May be a

precautionary principle, it is not only legal and valid but is also

mandatory. It must be enforced strictly and with all vigor."
89. Having drawn attention to the above aspect of the Judgment of

Hon‟ble Supreme Court, it was vehemently urged by the Learned Counsel

for the appellant that the DSR should be prepared for five years not for one

year. But, in the case in hand, DSR is prepared for one year, which is in

violation of above judgment. We are not convinced with this argument of

Learned Counsel of the appellant that the DSR should be prepared for 5

years minimum. The cited judgment also mentions that 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. Further, in the case in hand, it is made clear by the

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 that DSR as per the State Policy is being prepared

yearly and the same is updated every year, which is a better procedure

than preparing the DSR once for five years. Updation of DSR yearly would

definitely result in taking better care of environment by better assessment APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 78 of 82 of extracted and available sand quantity and ecological conditions and that

is also in accordance with the State Policy. It is not the case of the

appellant that the State Policy cannot be framed to that effect nor the

State Policy has been challenged before us. Hence, no benefit can go to the

Learned Counsel for the appellant based on this judgment.

1. Point No.(ii): As regards the non-uploading of mining plan on the

PARIVESH Portal, we are of the view that the same could not be done

because of the file being larger than the permissible size although, it could

have been uploaded in piece meal, but the same has not been done, but it

appears to be only a technical flaw left in this matter, which we do not

consider sufficient to hold that it will vitiate the grant of EC. Moreover, we

find that the SEIAA in its reply has clearly stated that the entire mining

plan was placed before them at the time of consideration of grant of EC.

We are convinced with the reply of SEIAA.

1. The next issue, which we have to deal with, is as to whether the

non-uploading of Pre-Feasibility Report on PARIVESH Portal, would result

in any adverse consequence to the Respondent Nos.2 and 3. In this

regard, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in their reply filed on 12th February,

2026, have made it clear that there is an office memorandum of

15.12.2021 issued by the Government of India, MoEF&CC, as per Para 4

of this Notification the Project Proponent is required to apply in Form-2 on

PARIVESH Portal along with requisite documents. On the selection of

category of "B2", the fields in Form-2 may not be relevant for such project

and automatically get disabled. Therefore, it appears from the submission

made by the Respondent No.2 & 3 that there was no requirement for B2

category project to upload the Pre-Feasibility Report. From the side of

MoEF&CC also nothing has been stated in this regard, as to whether the

said Pre-Feasibility Report was required to be uploaded or not. MoEF&CC APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 79 of 82 in their affidavit has mentioned that as per their notification dated

25.07.2018 it has been mentioned that the DSR shall form the basis for

application for EC, preparation of reports and appraisal of projects, which

has been complied with in the case in hand. Therefore, we are satisfied

with the reply filed by Respondent No. 2 & 3 in this regard regarding non-

requirement of uploading of Pre-feasibility Report.

1. Point No.(iii): Now, we have to consider as to whether the Impugned

EC, which has been transferred to Respondent No.7, needs to be set aside

as prayed by the appellant because transfer has been made of the EC

prayed to be quashed, while this matter was sub-judice. In this regard,

Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.7 has submitted their reply dated

04.03.2026, wherein they have submitted that the answering respondent

was bona fide transferee of the EC. The ECs given in Table-1 (at Page

No.646 of the paper book), were granted to Respondent No.2- District

Collector, Bhandara by SEIAA as per the dates shown in the said table. On

10.12.2025, the tender for respective sand ghats were published by

District Collector, Bhandara in various newspapers; on 01.01.2026, the

tender was finalized in the name of the answering respondent, while

issuing Letter of Intent (LOI) as per the tender condition and the LOI, the

EC was to be transferred within a period of one month. On 08.01.2026,

respondent submitted the application for transfer of EC to SEIAA on

PARIVESH Portal. The application was submitted for transfer of EC as per

Clause 11 of EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006. The said application was

accompanied, as per the requirement, by required documents i.e. Request

Letter, Undertaking and No Objection Certificate of the earlier EC holder. It

was not mentioned in the tender document or in LOI that the appeals

against the EC were pending before this Tribunal. No notice was served on

the answering respondent nor were they informed about the pending APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 80 of 82 litigation on 27.01.2026. The answering respondent received the letter of

transfer of EC after following due process of law and through legally

prescribed PARIVESH Portal. There was no status quo or stay order or any

restraining order from any competent Court at that point of time. The

answering respondent is an innocent bona fide third party transferee for a

fair bona fide transfer value who actually in good faith based on the formal

EC documents obtained the mining leases and hence should not suffer for

alleged deficiency in the proceeding, if any, between the original parties in

the appeals. The answering respondent was not made party by appellant

at the stage of hearing on 05.02.2026, when the ECs were already

transferred on 27.01.2026. This information was in public domain and

was also known to the appellant. This seems intentional suppression of

information. Further, it is submitted that the EC was transferred on

27.01.2026 in the name of answering respondent. Hence, it is prayed that

declaration be made that the EC transferred against consideration to the

bona fide holders will remain protected from the order of cancelling the

original EC. Secondly the EC transferee should be held to be entitled to

refund the amount paid to the Collector with interest and the return of the

bank guarantee. Reliance is also placed by the Learned Counsel on the

doctrine of legitimate expectation. Since the appellant has sought

annulment of transferred ECs also i.e. the EC transferred in favour of

Respondent-7 but from the above analysis we have already come to the

conclusion that the EC which has been issued by the Respondent No.1-

SEIAA in favour of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 has been upheld by us and it

is held that the same do not suffer from any infirmity and therefore, they

will not be set aside by us. The question of setting aside the EC of the

Respondent No.7 who is the transferee of the original EC, therefore, does APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 81 of 82 not arise. Hence whatever submissions are made by the Respondent No.7

need not be considered by us at all.

1. After having considered all the aspects, we have arrived on the

conclusion that all the ECs in the above mentioned appeals do not deserve

to be set aside and the same are upheld. Interim relief stands vacated.

1. In view of above, we dismiss all these appeals accordingly.

2. There shall be no order as to costs.

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

                                          Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee, EM

March 20, 2026
APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ)
Along-with other matters
SAR APPEAL NO.641 OF 2025 (WZ) Page 82 of 82