Vikas Kumar vs

NGT10 Jan 2025IA No. 595/2023 in Original Application No. 581/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The NGT, while widening the scope to address permissibility of temporary bridges across river channels for mining nationwide, directed MoEF&CC, MoJS, and CPCB to conduct a detailed scientific study by reputed national institutes to evaluate environmental impacts on river flow and morphology. Pending the study, the interim order permitting construction under Haryana policy was continued with specif

What did the court decide?

permission for construction of temporary bridge on river Yamuna in the State of Haryana granted by the Irrigation and Water Resources Department as per Haryana Government Policy.

Vikas Kumar vs — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶130

11. In case any damage is occurred to any Irrigation structure by a mining agency, then it would be repaired by the concerned agency. Failing which, the same would be repaired by the Irrigation & Water Resources Department, Haryana, Panchkula at the cost of the concerned mining agency. 12. For loss of property, human, machinery during mining material crossing through temporary path etc. the mining agency would be solely responsible for the same. 13. In case length of a mining block in river is 1.00 km. or more, than temporary paths can be constructed by the Mining agencies after every 500 mtr. Length/distance after obtaining NOC from Irrigation and Water Resources Department Haryana Panchkula as per design and specifications approved by Irrigation & Water Resources Department, Haryana, Panchkula. 14. Maintenance of these temporary paths would be done by the mining agencies at their own cost. 15. All rules and instructions issued by the Govt. from time to time should be followed by the mining agencies. 16. All rules/ regulations of mining department and irrigation and water recourse department, Haryana, Panchkula under Haryana canal and drainage act should be followed. 17. Any dispute arising between the Mining agency and Irrigation & Water Resources Department, Haryana, Panchkula under this policy mining agency can file appeal if any, in this regard to the Superintending Engineer of Irrigation & Water Resources Department, Haryana, Panchkula of the concerned district and the same will be settled by the CE concerned. 18. The charges/Fees for issue NOC to Mining Contractors will be levied off as per Annexure-D of Haryana Govt. Gazette notification No. 2/175/2011-11W dated 25th July 2017 regarding policy guidelines for considering the proposals of the private/Govt./Public Sector bodies/undertakings for allowing construction of Road Bridges, Roads and laying of various utility lines (pipelines/cables etc) across along the canals/drains and rivers/rivulets of Irrigation & Water Resources Department, Haryana, Panchkula and Water Resources Department, Haryana." Copy of Memo dated 18th 119th October, 2021 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary to Govt. of Haryana, Irrigation and Water Resources Department is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-R/7. 5. That in the present OA under consideration, an application was made by M/s Yodha Mines & Minerals, to the Mining Officer, District Sonipat and it was requested to allow mining contractor to lay RCC pipes to cross river flow for Mining

¶173

Date	Meeting/Site	Brief description of activities
15.06.2023	First Meeting	Acquainted with NGT Order, Haryana Govt. Policy, etc., Decided to co-opt Dr. SR Wate and Dr. R.G. Patil
23.06.2023	Site visit	Inspected temporary bridge
23.06.2023	Second Meeting	Acquainted with sand mining leasing policy and practices of Haryana State Government
27.07.2023	Site visit	Inspected Temporary bridge site during normal flow
28.07.2023	Third Meeting	^{Decided outline and timeline of} the Report
24.08.2023	Fourth Meeting	Discussion on the Draft Report and its finalisation

¶213

*Impact Category*	*S. No.*	*Environmental Condition*
Sustainable Mining Practices	9	The depth of mining in Riverbed shall not exceed one meter or water level whichever is less, provided that where the Joint Inspection Committee certifies

¶215

	about excessive deposit or over accumulation of mineral in certain reaches requiring channelization, it can go up to 3 meters on defined reaches of the River.
19	Depending on the location, thickness of sand, deposition, agricultural land / Riverbed, the method of mining may be manual, semi-mechanized or mechanized; however, manual method of mining shall be preferred over any other method.”

¶361

23. That, in the present case of the State of Haryana, to excavate the minerals on the other side of the creek, temporary bridges are put in place after obtaining all the necessary permissions and clearances from the Irrigation Department of the State of Haryana, which is the authorized body under the Policy, dated 19.10.2021, of the State of Haryana. The said policy oversees carrying out of mining activities in River Yamuna after due consideration of all relevant aspects, i.e., environmental safeguards, unrestricted flow of River Yamuna without diversion, extraction of sand mineral from sandy loom(s) created between creeks and their transportation to stock sites. Under the said policy, upon receiving application for establishing these temporary structures, the Irrigation Department takes into consideration the fact whether the necessary conditions have been complied with by the mining agency, the time of the year, the flow of the river, the fitness of the mining agency to carry out the project, ecology of the river and much more and after due and thorough consideration, grants the permission (for a limited duration) to the applicants. 24. That with regard to the issue of permissibility of mining across river channels, the power to grant environmental clearance is vested in the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), constituted by the MoEF & CC in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986, and the Rules framed thereunder . X X X X 28. That since the NMCG has not yet conducted any ground-level research/studies at this stage in the present matter and since it has nothing substantial on record to substantiate its involvement in granting permission for erection of temporary bridges across the creeks, the same cannot be granted the power to entertain the applications for temporary erections by the mining agencies. Also, since neither there are any guidelines laid down at the national level pertaining to the issue-athand nor is there any mechanism in place (other than the ones at the state level, for instance, the policy dated 19.10.2021 of the State of Haryana) pertaining to the issue. Hence in such scenario, the NMCG may not be given authority for considering the application for temporary bridges.

¶423

specific provisions in the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 (SSMG, 2016) and Enforcement & Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020 (EMGSM, 2020). Similarly, on the One hand MoEF & CC has taken the stand that the construction of temporary bridges for carrying out mining and allied activities may cause changes in channel configuration and flow-paths impacting 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. and alteration or modification of the above attributes may cause hazardous impact on ecological equilibrium of riverine regime, adverse impact on in-stream biota and riparian habitats and changes in channel configuration and flow-paths but MoEF & CC has not advocated for prohibition of mining activities across river streams and construction of temporary bridges across river streams. MOEF&CC has stated that a detailed study is required to determine on the permissibility of mining across river channel and the impact of temporary bridge across river channels but MOEF&CC has neither looked into applicability of the issue to all States and UTs and collection of relevant information and material regarding policies and practices from them nor suggested modalities for conduct of such study for making recommendations for determining the environmental questions involved and review/modification of existing policies and guidelines on the basis of recommendations thereof. Surprisingly, MOEF&CC has submitted that vide notification S.O. 1886 (E) dated 20.04.2022 it has delegated the power to the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) to grant Environmental Clearances to all minor mineral (including sand) mining leases, irrespective of mine lease area and < 250 ha mining lease area in respect of major mineral mining lease other than coal and any site specific Environmental Clearance Conditions may be stipulated by SEIAA after deliberations/appraisal by State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC). MOEF&CC has further submitted

¶425

that it has vide notification no. S.O. 637 (E) dated 28.02.2014 also delegated the power to SEIAA to issue show cause notice to project proponents in case of violation of the conditions of the environmental clearance issued by the said Authorities to projects or activities within their jurisdiction. Response filed by MOEF&CC seems to be based on and is indicative of operative mindset to delegate its responsibilities and discharge of obligations to protect and improve the environment to the States and UTS and other Statutory Authorities without any active supervision, monitoring and directions from time to time for pro-actively taking measures for suitable modifications for effective protection and improvement of environment. The consequences of such apathy and abdication may be disastrous and may result in incurring of huge costs for remediation of environmental damage caused. Instances thereof abound in the surroundings of river Yamuna itself. Haryana Government failed to protect Badkhal Lake, a natural water body which sustained flora and fauna and was also a great tourist attraction in the vicinity of South Delhi, from drying out due to excessive mining in the area and is now spending hundreds of crores of rupees to fill the same with treated sewage to restore the water body and tourist destination. Posterity will provide the logical answer to the question whether such efforts can completely restore the natural beauty and pristine glory of the lake but at present the same is under cloud of serious doubts. The story of Quiet Flowing Maili Yamuna is no different. Success of all efforts made so far is under cloud of serious doubts. The same has become an issue of political campaigning without becoming a touch stone of the working of MOEF&&CC, Central and all concerned State Governments and their instrumentalities and also Pollution Control Boards/Committees without bringing in focus poor and completely neglected implementation of environmental laws by them. MOEF&CC cannot abdicate its functions and disown its responsibility cast on it under constitutional obligation imposed by Article 48A of the Constitution of India to protect and improve environment.

¶478

SL.No	Type of Vehicle	Defined Quantity	Quantity in Cubic meter
1	6 Tyre Truck	18500 Kgor 12.5 Ton	8.00
2	10 Tyre Truck	28000 Kgor 18 Ton	12.00
3	12Tyre Truck	35000 Kgor 24 Ton	16.00
4	14 Tyre Truck	42000 Kgor 30 Ton	20.00

¶497

i)	Sub Divisional Officer (C), Sonipat -Chairman
ii)	Executive Engineer, Irrigation
	Department, Sonipat -Member
iii)	Deputy Director, Agriculture, Sonipat -Member
iv)	Mining Officer, Sonipat -Member
v)	Regional Officer, Haryana Pollution Control Board, Sonipat -Member
6.	The committee visited the site in question on
26.0 obse	7.2024 and submitted the report with following rvations:
"Duri	ng the site inspection mining activities at the site of
M/s	Yodha Mines and Minerals, Jainpur-2 Sand Unit is
foun	d closed due to the rainy season w.e.f. 01.07.2024.
The cond	mining activity will be closed till 15.09.2024 as per the itions of environment clearance.

Vikas Kumar vs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Babu Lal Jajoo vs State of Rajasthan Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change

Kulal Munindar Narendar Goud vs Union of India

Kulal Munindar Narendar Goud vs Union of India

Vikas Kumar vs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Babu Lal Jajoo vs State of Rajasthan Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change

Kulal Munindar Narendar Goud vs Union of India

Kulal Munindar Narendar Goud vs Union of India

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Coram

Rathinasamy vs District Collector

Yogesh Pratap Singh vs the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change

News Item on India'S Sinking Islands Appeared in the Hindu 19.03.2023 vs

Shchem Corporation vs Gujarat Pollution Control Board

Ashok Vijay vs State of Rajasthan

Shailesh Singh vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Mohammad Ziaurrahman Khan vs State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority Uttar Pradesh

Shivendra Dutt Shukla vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Amulya Kumar Shahi vs State of Haryana

Dwarka Expressway Gurugram Development Association vs Muncipal Corporation of Gurugram

Society for Protection of Culture Heritage Environment Tradition and Protection of National Awareness (Also Known as Spchetna) vs Union of India