Disposed

Ram Kumar Shukl vs

NGT6 Nov 2025Original Application No. 1108/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal considered complaints of illegal sand mining in Uttar Pradesh using boats and heavy machinery beyond permitted depths. The Tribunal examined Joint Committee reports and respondent replies regarding mining leases, environmental clearances, and consent to operate. It directed state authorities to enforce sustainability guidelines, implement strict monitoring mechanisms, a

What did the court decide?

Directed state authorities to enforce sustainable sand mining guidelines, implement monitoring with digital surveillance, and prepare SOPs for environmental compensation within three months.

Ram Kumar Shukl vs — Mining and Natural Resources | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item no. 09

¶2

(Court No. 2)

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

(Through Physical Hearing with Hybrid V.C. Option)

¶5

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1108/2024

¶6

IN THE MATTER OF:

¶7

1. RAM KUMAR SHUKL

¶8

Son of Hanuman Bali Shukl, Resident of village-Surseni Tilhapur, Tehsil-Bara and District-Prayagraj State of Uttar Pradesh

¶9

Applicant

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

1. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

¶12

Through Secretary Environment, Forests and Climate Change Government of Uttar Pradesh, Office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF), 17, Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow-226001 Email: [email protected]

¶13

2. DIRECTOR, MINING AND GEOLOGY, UTTAR PRADESH Khanji Bhawan 27/8, Raja Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001 Email: [email protected]

¶14

3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PRAYAGRAJ District Magistrate Office, Collectorate, Prayagraj-211002 Email: [email protected]

¶15

4. CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

¶16

Through Member Secretary, Parivesh Bhawan, East Arjun Nagar New Delhi- 110032, Email: [email protected]

¶17

5. UTTAR PRADESH POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

¶18

Through Member Secretary, TC-12V, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010 Email: [email protected]

¶19

6. M/S TARA ENTERPRISES, PRAYAGRAJ Owner Shri Chanderjeet Kushawaha 51, R.K.Puram, Haweliya, Awas Vikas, Jhunsi, Prayagraj-211019

¶20

Respondents

¶21

O.A.No.1108/2024

¶22

Ram Kumar Shukl Vs. State of UP & Ors.

¶23

¶24

For the Applicant:

¶25

None for the Applicant.

¶26

For the Respondents:

¶27

Ms. Priyanka Swami, Advocate for respondent no.1.

¶28

Mr. Mukesh Verma and Vatsala Tripathi, Advocates for respondents no. 2 & 3.

¶29

Ms. Parkhi Singh and Ms. Soni Singh, Advocates for respondent no.4. Mr. Amit Shukla, Advocate for respondent no.5.

¶30

Mr. Ajay Singh and Mr. Himanshu Shukla, Advocates for respondent no.6.

¶31

PRESENT:

¶32

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER

¶33

_____________________________________________________________________________ Judgment Reserved on:- 08.07.2025 Judgment pronounced on:- 06.11.2025 ________________________________________________________________________

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

PRONOUNCED BY: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JM

¶36

The applicant-Ram Kumar Shukl son of Hanuman Bali Shukl, resident of village-Surseni Tilhapur, Tehsil-Bara and District-Prayagraj has sent the present undated letter petition (pages no. 1 to 13 of the paper book) by post to this Tribunal, which has been treated and registered as Original Application under Sections 14 and 15 of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (NGT Act, 2010) for exercise of suo-moto jurisdiction in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in

¶37

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Versus Ankita Sinha and

¶38

others, (2022) 13 SCC 401 .

¶39

The applicant has raised grievances regarding mining in villageNodhia Tarhar, Tehsil-Bara, District-Prayagraj by Chanderjeet Kushwah in violation of Environmental Clearance (EC) and Consent to Operate (CTO) conditions and environmental norms. The relevant part of the letter petition enumerating grievances of the applicant reads as under:-

¶40

O.A.No.1108/2024

¶41

Ram Kumar Shukl Vs. State of UP & Ors.

¶42

¶43

“ विषयः अिैध बालू के खनन ि परििहन संचालन के सम्बन्ध में। X X X X

¶44

विनम्र ननिेदन है कक प्रार्थी िाम कुमाि शुक्ल पुत्र श्री हनुमान बली शुक्ल ग्राम-सुिसेनी निल्हापुि , कौशाम्बी का मूल ननिासी है। प्रार्थी की जानकािी में यह िथ्य प्रकाश में आया की ग्राम नौक़िया ििहाि , पिगना ि िहसील- बािा जनपद प्रयागिाज में अिैध बालू का खनन जे०सी०बी०. पोकलैण्ड िर्था बोट (नाि) द्वािा प ट्टाधािक श्री चन्रजीि कुशिाहा द्वािा ककया जा िहा है िर्था परििहन संचालन भी ककया जा िहा है। यहााँ यह भी अिगि किाना है कक श्री चन्रजीि कुशिाहा जी का बालू खदान का जो पट्टा हुआ है िह ग्राम मझियािी खण्ड- 6 पिगना ि िहसील बािा जनपद प्रयागिाज का हुआ है। उसी की पट्टे की आड़ में ग्राम नौक़िया ििहाि में अिैध बालू का खनन बड़ी िेजी से किाकि परििहन संचालन कििे हुए बड़ी िेजी से अिैध वबक्री उसी पट्टे के ििन्ना पि कि िहे है। श्रीमान् जी को सादि यह भी अिगि किाना है कक पट्टाधािक श्री चन्रजीि कुशिाहा जी के द्वािा जनपद प्रयागिाज िर्था जनपद कौशाम्बी दोनों में नाि ि पोकलैण्ड के द्वािा अिैध खनन ककया जा िहा है जबकक परििहन का संचालन नसर्फ एक ििर् ही किने का प्रािधान है औि N.G.T. एिं खनन ननयमािली के अनुसाि नसर्फ 3 मीटि गहिाई िक ही खनन मशीन द्वािा किने का प्रािधान है , पिन्िु पट्टाधािक श्री चन्रजीि कुशिाहा जी द्वािा जबिन ननयम ि कानून को िाक पि िखकि 3 मीटि से ज्यादा गहिाई लगभग 7 ि 8 मीदि गहिा बालू का खनन कायफ अिैध रूप से ककया जा िहा है।

¶45

अिः श्रीमान् जी से प्रार्थफना है कक अिैध बालू खनन ि परििहन संचालन किने िाले बालू माकर्या के झखलार् कठोि दण्डात्मक कायफिाही कििे हुए पट्टा ननिस्ि कि प्रार्थनमकी दजफ किाने की कृपा किें। ”

¶46

English Translation by the Registry of the relevant part of the letter

¶47

petition quoted above is reproduced below:-

¶48

“Subject: Regarding illegal sand mining and transportation operations.

¶49

X X X X

¶50

It is humbly requested that the applicant, Ram Kumar Shukla, son of Shri Hanuman Bali Shukla, is a native of Village Surseni Tilhapur District, Kaushambi. The applicant has come to know that illegal sand mining is being carried out in the village Naudhiya Tarhar, Pargana, Tehsil-Bara, District Prayagraj, by the lessee, Shri Chandrajeet Kushwaha, using JCBs, Poclain, and boats, and transporting the sand. It is also to be informed that the sand mining lease granted to Shri Chandrajeet Kushwaha is for the village of Majhiyari, Block-6, Pargana and Tehsil, District Prayagraj. Under the guise of this lease, illegal sand mining is being carried out in the village of Naudhiya Tarhar, and transportation operations are being

¶51

O.A.No.1108/2024

¶52

Ram Kumar Shukl Vs. State of UP & Ors.

¶53

¶54

carried out, and illegal sales are being made at a rapid pace using the same lease. Sir, I also respectfully inform you that the lease holder, Mr. Chandrajeet Kushwaha, is carrying out illegal mining using boats and Poclain in both Prayagraj and Kaushambi districts, even though transportation is permitted only on one side. According to the NGT and mining regulations, mining by machine is permitted only up to a depth of 3 meters. However, the lease holder, Mr. Chandrajeet Kushwaha, is illegally mining sand at depths exceeding 3 meters, approximately 7 and 8 meters deep, flouting the rules and regulations.

¶55

Therefore, it is requested to you Sir that you should take strict punitive action against the sand mafia involved in illegal sand mining and transportation, cancel the lease and register an FIR.”

¶56

Since the averments made in the letter petition treated as Original Application raised substantial environmental questions related to implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, this Tribunal, vide order dated 14.11.2024, constituted a Joint Committee comprising of District Magistrate, Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh State Pollution Control Board (UPPCB), and Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) with direction to visit the site, collect relevant information and submit factual report within one month which period was extended vide order dated 16.12.2024 whereby the Joint Committee was directed to submit its report within two weeks.

¶57

In compliance thereof, report dated 13.12.2024 (pages no.14 to 193 of the paper book) of the Joint Committee was filed by CPCB by e- mail dated 14.12.2024. The relevant part of the report is reproduced below:-

¶58

“Joint Committee Report on OA No. 1108/2024 in the matter of Ram Kumar Shukl Vs State of U.P. Passed by Hon’ble NGT order dated 14.11.2024

¶59

X X X X

¶60

In compliance with said Hon’ble NGT order, the following officials were nominated from the concerned departments for Joint Committee:

¶61

1. Shri Kamal Kumar, Scientist 'E', CPCB, RD- Lucknow

¶62

2. Shri Vinay Singh, ADM (FIR), Prayagraj

¶63

3. Shri Kaushal Kumar, AEE, UPPCB, RO, Prayagraj

¶64

O.A.No.1108/2024

¶65

Ram Kumar Shukl Vs. State of UP & Ors.

¶66

¶67

Joint inspection of the site in the village Majhiyari Nodhia Tarhar in Tehsil Bara district Prayagraj along with the bank of river Yamuna and it’s distributary river (lagoon created by bifurcation of main Yamuna River stream due to summer condition) of river Yamuna was carried out on 06.12.2024 by the Joint Committee. During site visit, Shri Vaibhav Kumar Soni, Mining Inspector, Prayagraj, Shri Mohd Faisal, SSA, CPCB, RD, Lucknow, Shri Mithlesh Kumar, Lekhpal, Shri Vidya Bhushan Singh, Representative of M/s Tara Enterprises, Prayagraj were also present during visit.

¶68

2. Field Observations:

¶69

Observations based on Joint Committee inspection and records provided by the concern departments are as follows:

¶70

1. Letter of Intent (LoI) for the lease was issued by the District Administration to the Project Proponent (PP) (Shri Chanderjeet Kushawaha, M/s Tara Enterprises, Prayagraj) on 04.01.2022 for mining in 10 hectare mine lease area of village Majhiyariwith quantity 160000 m³ per year for 5 years. Copy of LoI is annexed as Annexure- II.

¶71

2. The above-mentioned mining lease has been granted by Director, Geology and Mining Directorate, U. P. vide letter dated 19.05.2022 to District Magistrate, Prayagraj (Mining Department) for approval of mining site for the duration of 19.05.2022 to 18.05.2027. Copy of letter is annexed as Annexure- III.

¶72

3. The public hearing for the said mining project was conducted on 08.02.2023. Environmental Clearance (EC) has been granted for sand mining in the lease area by State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Uttar Pradesh on 04.05.2023 to M/s Tara Enterprises. The method of mining prescribed in the EC is manual and semi mechanized. Copy of EC is annexed as Annexure- IV.

¶73

4. The PP was granted Consent to Operate (CTO) under the Water (PCP) Act, 1974, and the Air (PCP) Act, 1981 on dated 12.12.23, which is valid up to 31.12.27. Copy of CTO is annexed as Annexure- V.

¶74

¶75

The mining plan for the project is attached as Annexure-VI

¶76

6. The replenishment study for the project is attached as Annexure-VII

¶77

7. Total 159895 m³ of sand has been excavated by the project proponent from May 04, 2023 to June 30, 2024 according to the Mining Department, Prayagraj records.

¶78

8. The letter petition in the present matter was received in Hon'ble on 23.01.2024 complaining about illegal mining activity in village Nodhia Tarhar Tehsil Bara, District Prayagraj being carried out using heavy machinery and boats up to a depth of 7-8 metre by Chanderjeet Kushwaha.

¶79

O.A.No.1108/2024

¶80

Ram Kumar Shukl Vs. State of UP & Ors.

¶81

¶82

9. During visit mining activity was not being carried out in this mine lease area. Mining Inspector informed that project proponent has carried out mining activity till 30 June, 2024 and stopped mining activity during the months July-Sep24.The representative of the project proponent informed that the mining will begin after the water level on the distributary river banks decreases and after lease area demarcation by pillars.

¶83

10. It was observed that illegal mining was carried out on the bank of river Yamuna near border of village Nodhia & Amaliyaat 01 Km away from leased area and marks of machines were observed on the bank of distributary of river in the village Majhiyari Photographs of signs of illegal mining on the bank and marks observed during visit are enclosed.

¶84

11. Mining Inspector informed that a FIR was lodged on dt.12.11.24 for illegal mining in this regard in the name of unknown person. Copy of FIR is attached as Annexure-VIII.

¶85

12. During the visit, following observation with respect to condition of EC & CTO, Mining Plan, Mining guideline etc. were observed in the mining area of M/s Tara Enterprises, Manjhiyari Village:

¶86

a) The PP has yet not conducted the digital processing of the entire lease area so far.

¶87

b) During the visit, no pillar was found in the lease area. c) The PP has not carried out the hydro-geological study. d) During the visit, temporary pathway for transportation of standard weigh brides and PTZ camera were not found in site area of river bank.

¶88

e) No display board with mining lease information was available on site.

¶89

f) The temporary camp, toilets and hand pump were not found in the site.

¶90

g) The project proponent (PP) has submitted of the sixmonthly compliance reports to the Regional Office, SEIAAUP. Copy of the report is attached as Annexure-IX

¶91

h) The PP has conducted third-party monitoring of ambient air quality, ambient noise level, soil quality and water quality during March 2024 and August 2024. Copy of the report is attached as Annexure-X

¶92

4. Recommendations:

¶93

Based upon the above field observations, Joint Committee recommends as below:

¶94

1. Mining Department should take necessary action against illegal mining activities found near the border of village Nodhia- Amaliyaon river bank of Yamuna and ensure that no illegal mining takes place in Yamuna River.

¶95

2. The use of heavy machinery and boats which can be used for in-stream mining should not be allowed near the river. Stringent action should be taken against any persons found

¶96

O.A.No.1108/2024

¶97

Ram Kumar Shukl Vs. State of UP & Ors.

¶98

¶99

carrying out illegal mining, obstructing flow of the river, and keeping heavy machinery and lifter boats near the river.

¶100

3. Mining Department should not allow mining activity of M/s Tara Enterprises, Manjhiyari Village without compliance of EC conditions and action should be taken, if violations found and UPPCB shall also take necessary action for any violation of EC and CTO conditions under the Water (PCP) Act, 1974, and the Air (PCP) Act, 1981.

¶101

4. Mining Department and UPPCB should ensure proper compliance of Sustainable Sand Mining Guideline, 2020.”

¶102

Vide order dated 21.01.2025, this Tribunal impleaded (1) State of Uttar Pradesh through Secretary, Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2) Director, Geology and Mining Directorate, Uttar Pradesh, (3) District Magistrate, Prayagraj, (4) Central Pollution Control Board through Member Secretary, (5) Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board through Member Secretary and (6) M/s. Tara Enterprises, Prayagraj (owner-Shri Chanderjeet Kushawaha), 51, R.K. Puram, Haweliya, Awas Vikas, Jhunsi, Prayagraj, as respondents no. 1 to 6 and issued notices to the respondents requiring them to file their responses.

¶103

Response dated 25.02.2025 (pages no. 228 to 374 of the paper book) was filed by respondent no. 4- CPCB. The relevant part of the affidavit dated 25.02.2025 filed by respondent no. 4-CPCB is reproduced

¶104

below:-

¶105

“REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT No. 04: CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD (CPCB)

¶106

X X X X

¶107

3. That, in compliance of the Hon’ble NGT order dated 14.11.2024, whereby a Joint Committee was formed with CPCB as the Nodal Authority, the report of the Joint Committee has been filed on 14.12.2024 with observations and recommendations therein considering the issues raised in the letter petition.

¶108

4. That, for ease of reference to this Hon’ble Tribunal, salient legal provisions regarding sand mining are mentioned below:

¶109

O.A.No.1108/2024

¶110

Ram Kumar Shukl Vs. State of UP & Ors.

¶111

¶112

4.1 Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation), Act, 1957: That under the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation), Act, 1957 (hereinafter called as “MMDR Act, 1957”), the States are empowered to make the rules for regulating the grant of prospecting Licenses or mining leases in respect of minor minerals and making rules for preventing illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals

¶113

4.2 Environment Impact Assessment Notification 2006: That the Central Government has made it mandatory to obtain Environmental Clearance for mining of minor minerals including sand mining. MoEF&CC published EIA Notification 1994 regarding Environmental Clearance to be obtained by mine owner for mining activities, which includes Environmental Impact Assessment/Environment Management Plan Reports.

¶114

4.3 Guidelines for Sustainable Mining and Enforcement & Monitoring of Sand Mining: That the MoEF&CC released “Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines 2016” to promote scientific mining of sand and encourage environmental friendly management practices. For enforcement of the regulatory provisions related to river sand mining for effective monitoring and ensuring sustainable sand mining, MoEF&CC has released “Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining” in January 2020.

¶115

4.4 The directions of this Hon’ble Tribunal dealing with illegal mining in another case are extracted below, for ease of reference:

¶116

4.4.1 That in the matter of Hon’ble NGT (PB) New Delhi in O.A. No. 360/2015 National Green Tribunal Bar Association vs. Virendra Singh (State of Gujarat), a report dated 30.01.2020 was prepared by an expert committee formed by order of Hon’ble NGT (PB)comprising of representatives of Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Central Pollution Control Board, Indian Institute of Forest Management-Bhopal, Institute of Economic Growth-New Delhi and Madras School of Economics, Chennai to recommend a scale of compensation to Hon’ble NGT (PB) to deal with cases of illegal sand mining in whole of country and the report was submitted to Hon’ble NGT on 30.01.2020. The Copy of the report dated 30.01.2020 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-I.

¶117

4.4.2 That Hon’ble NGT vide order dated 26.02.2021 in the aforesaid OA 360/2015 accepted the recommendations of the expert committee and directed for development of appropriate mechanism in states for assessment and recovery of compensation of environmental damage due to illegal (river) sand mining by using the approved scale of compensation. The Copy of the order dated 26.02.2021 of this Hon’ble Tribunal in O. A. 360/2015 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-II.

¶118

4.4.3 That as directed by the Hon’ble NGT vide order dated 26.02.2021 in the aforesaid O.A. CPCB vide letter dated 11.06.2021 has also issued directions to Environment Secretaries of States/UTs to evolve an appropriate mechanism

¶119

O.A.No.1108/2024

¶120

Ram Kumar Shukl Vs. State of UP & Ors.

¶121

¶122

for assessment of compensation in all Districts of the State and for utilisation of recovered compensation for restoration of environment by preparing appropriate action plan as per order dated 26.02.2021. The Copy of letter dated 11.06.2021 of the CPCB to Environment Secretaries of States/UTs is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-III.”

¶123

Response dated 25.02.2025 (pages no.194 to 227 of the paper book) was filed by respondent no. 5- UPPCB. The relevant part of the affidavit dated 25.02.2025 filed by respondent no. 5-UPPCB is reproduced below:-

¶124

“AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO.5, UTTAR PRADESH POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

¶125

X X X X

¶126

4. That in compliance of the order dated 21.01.2025 and in pursuance to the observations and recommendations made in the joint committee report dated 13.12.2024 the UPPCB vide its Letter No.-G01467/NGT-OA No. 1108/2024/2025 dated 21.02.2025 has sought information from the Senior Mining Officer, Prayagraj regarding the project proponent in question.

¶127

The Senior Mining Officer vide its Letter No.-2562/Khanij/202425 dated 21.02.2025 has informed that the project proponent having ordinary mining lease at Yamuna River Block No.6 in Village-Majhiyari Bhmbhore, Tehsil-Bara, District-Prayagraj for the period from 14.11.2023 to 13.11.2028.

¶128

A true copy of the letter dated 21.02.2025 from Senior Mining Officer, Prayagraj and Mining Deed dated 14.11.2023 are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R5/1 and Annexure R5/2.

¶129

5. That further it is informed by the Senior Mining Officer, Prayagraj that against the unknown miners a First Information Report has been lodged at Police Station-Lalpur, Yamunapur (Commissionerate Prayagraj) vide FIR No. 0003 dated 02.01.2024 and FIR No. 0082 dated 12.11.2024.

¶130

A true copy of the First Information Reports dated 02.01.2024 and 12.11.2024 are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R5/3(Colly).

¶131

6. That in pursuance to the information provided by the Senior Mining Officer, Prayagraj vide its letter dated 21.02.2025, the official of the UPPCB has inspected the Project Proponent on 21.02.2025.

¶132

A copy of the Inspection Report dated 21.02.2025, signed on 22.02.2025 along with the photographs taken during inspection is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R5/4.

¶133

O.A.No.1108/2024

¶134

Ram Kumar Shukl Vs. State of UP & Ors.

¶135

¶136

Further it is necessary to mention here that the Project Proponent in question has obtained Consent to Operate (CTO) from the UPPCB, valid for the period 12.12.2023 to 31.12.2027 vide Letter No. 194213/ UPPCB/Allahabad(UPPCBRO)/CTO/ Boath/ Prayagraj/ 2023 dated 12.12.2023.

¶137

A true copy of the CTO dated 12.12.2023 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R5/5.

¶138

7. That the Board in pursuance to the inspection dated 21.02.2025 and in view of the information provided by the Senior Mining Officer, Prayagraj has issued a Show Cause Notice dated 24.02.2025 imposing Environmental Compensation for violation from 14.11.2023 to 12.12.2023 in accordance to the methodology developed by the CPCB.

¶139

A copy of the Show Cause Notice dated 24.02.2025 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R5/6.”

¶140

Vide order dated 25.03.2025, this Tribunal granted time to respondent no. 6 to file its response subject to deposit of costs of Rs. 10,000/- with NGT Bar Association, Principal Bench, New Delhi. By the above said order, respondent no. 6 was also directed to file a copy of the CCTV footage of the cameras installed in the mining lease area for the last fifteen days, by way of a pen drive, along with its reply/response.

¶141

In compliance of order dated 25.03.2025, respondent no. 6 deposited costs of Rs.10,000/- with NGT Bar Association, Principal Bench, New Delhi and filed reply dated 24.04.2025 (pages no.375 to 411 of the paper book) along with pen drive. The relevant part of the reply is reproduced below:-

¶142

“REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT No. 6/ M/S. TARA ENTERPRISES BY ITS PROPRITOR CHANDERJEET KUSHWAHA

¶143

X X X X

¶144

3. That this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 21.01.2025 impleaded other Respondents including answering Respondent, Tara Enterprises/Respondent No.6 in the matter and directed the respondents to file reply but due to some personal Reason it was not filed on or before 25.03.2025 and Further this Hon’ble Court has given further one month time for filing Reply and also directed to file copy of CCTV footage of the cameras installed in the mining lease area for the last 15 days by way of pen drive along with its reply/response.

¶145

O.A.No.1108/2024

¶146

Ram Kumar Shukl Vs. State of UP & Ors.

¶147

¶148

4. That PP said that During inspection, whatever illegal mining, machine marks etc. were found on the banks of river Yamuna in villages Nauriha and Imilian which is about One Kilometer away from the Approved Mining Area of (PP), Answering Respondent has nothing to do with this illegal mining because it was difficult to carry out any operation (mining etc.) due to water logging in the river bed on the access road to the mining area, it was impossible to reach the mining site without a boat, mining work was not started by PP till the movement of vehicles in the mining area could be smooth, due to which the mine was closed. The answering Respondent has said nothing to do with regarding illegal mining because the PP had not visited the mining area or the nearby area and FIR was also logoed against the Unknown Person. This Hon’ble Court is also informed that probably people of villages Audhan, Durgapur etc. located in district Kaushambi, Tehsil Chayal, which are located to the north of the river bed, People of these villages often go to visit Masurian Mata Temple in village Nauriha and Imilian using tractors etc. to reach the boat in the main stream of the river for darshan. True Photo Copy of the photograph of the above mentioned village to the north of the river bed and Google map of Masurian Mata/Imilian Dham Temple is being annexed here with Annexure A-1.

¶149

5. That, it was difficult to reach the mining area due to water logging in the river bed on the access road to the mining area and it was not possible for trucks etc. to reach the mining area even in the month of October after the monsoon season months of July, August, September, hence no work related to mining operation could be done, due to which mining was not started in the area by PP. The boundary pillars installed earlier in the approved area get destroyed due to flood in the river during the monsoon season (months of July, August, September 2024). It is relevant to mention here that before starting the mining operation again, boundary pillars are installed according to the fixed geocoordinates. Mining operation had not started till the date of inspection, hence the boundary pillars were not installed at that time. Now before starting the mining operation, the boundary pillars were Installed/ located by PP and mining operation has been started from only since 07.01.2025.

¶150

6. That, digital processing of interior area of mining area was done as per the report given by the Joint Committee during inspection. More over Hydro Geological Study had been conducted by Geogreen Enviro House Pvt. Ltd. of the leased area of the PP, which was also made available by PP at the time of inspection but it was not made part of its Report by the Joint Committee. We are enclosing here Hydro Geological Study by the Geogreen Enviro House Pvt. Ltd for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. True Photocopy of the Hydro Geological Study of leased area is annexed here as Annexure A-2

¶151

7. That it was very difficult for PP to reach the mining area due to water logging (as earlier mentioned) in the river bed no work related to mining operation could be done, due to which mining was not started in the Leased area by PP till Jan 2025. Due to which or in the event of mining operation not being possible, at

¶152

O.A.No.1108/2024

¶153

Ram Kumar Shukl Vs. State of UP & Ors.

¶154

¶155

the time of inspection after the monsoon season, there was no sand extraction route and weighing machine and PTZ camera, the above has been fulfilled by PP before starting the mining operation from 07.01.2025.

¶156

8. That, In relation to the above aspect, this Hon’ble Court also now to be informed that after the monsoon season, in the month of October 2024, due to the change in the nature of the river in the river bed, there was excessive water logging on the drainage route from the river bed and the liability of the Answering Respondent was continuing from the month of October 2024, due to which the liability should not increase further, as a result, the PP has requested the District Magistrate Prayagraj through a letter dated 26.10.2024 to waive the liability till the access road to the mining area is not built. True Copy of Letter dated 26.10.2024 written by the Answering Respondent to the District Magistrate Prayagraj is annexed here as Annexure A-3

¶157

9. That In such a situation, an application was given to DM Office, Prayagraj by PP for termination of the lease, after which the above lease surrender application of the applicant was rejected by the Senior Mining Officer, Prayagraj on 21.11.2024, due to which, out of compulsion, in order to compensate for the increasing revenue on PP, mining operations have been started unwillingly from the month of January, dated 07.01.2025, by following all the pre-mining rules on the spot. True Copy with Translated Copy of the Letter dated 22.11.2024 by the Senior Mining Officer, Prayagraj is annexed herewith as Annexure A-4.

¶158

10. As per last Order dated 25.03.2025 Answering Respondent is also Providing the Recording of CCTV Footage of Cameras Installed in the Mining Lease Area and also depositing DD No.330698 of Rs. 10000/ in NGT Bar association as Cost Imposed by this Hon’ble Court on Answering Respondent.

¶159

11. It is very relevant to mention here that PP was not aware that mining cannot be done without obtaining CTO and neither was any restriction given to PP by the Mining Department in this regard, hence, in the absence of information, after the lease deed was executed on 14.11.2023, PP started mining operation seven days later on 21.11.2023. In this, no illegal action was taken by PP to intentionally damage the environment. PP received the CTO of the above mining area on 12.12.2023. This was the only occasion when PP has violated any Norms.

¶160

¶161

O.A.No.1108/2024

¶162

Ram Kumar Shukl Vs. State of UP & Ors.

¶163

¶164

Accordingly, the imposition of environmental compensation for the period prior to 21.11.2023 is factually incorrect and unjustified, and a formal objection has been submitted by the PP before the UPPCB seeking rectification of the same. Furthermore, it is brought to the kind attention of this Hon’ble Court that due to inadvertence and lack of requisite information, mining operations were carried out in the subject area without obtaining the requisite Consent to Operate (CTO). Upon realization, the PP has deposited a fine of ₹2,10,000/- calculated at the rate of ₹10,000/- per day for the said period of non-compliance, in good faith and without prejudice to its rights.

¶165

12. It is respectfully submitted that the Applicant, Ram Kumar Shukla, is not a social worker as claimed. Rather, it has come to light that he, along with his son, is engaged in illegal sand mining activities for personal profit. It is further submitted that the Applicant has been involved in lodging frivolous complaints against various individuals for the purpose of harassment and blackmail.

¶166

It has also come to the knowledge of the answering respondent that multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) have been registered against the Applicant in connection with the sand mining business and related tenders.

¶167

In particular, FIR No. 339/2022, dated 09.09.2022, registered at Police Station Sarai Akil, District Kaushambi, U.P., accuses the Applicant of extorting a sum of ₹4,00,000 by inducing fear of death or grievous injury, punishable under Sections 386 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Additionally, FIR No. 47/2023, dated 19.02.2023, registered at Police Station Pipari, District Kaushambi, U.P., also pertains to the sand business. In this instance, the Applicant stands accused of criminal breach of trust and intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace, punishable under Sections 406, 504, and 506 of the IPC.

¶168

13. That the Answering Respondent respectfully submits that the present application is liable to be dismissed, as the Applicant is allegedly engaged in the business of sand mining and trade, either directly or through affiliated entities. This material fact has been wilfully suppressed by the Applicant from this Hon’ble Court. Notably, on the previous date of hearing, i.e., 25.03.2025, when specifically queried by this Hon’ble Court regarding his occupation, the Applicant misrepresented himself as a farmer and social worker. However, the Applicant is reportedly involved in multiple cases pertaining to illegal mining and unauthorized sand trading. These facts, once substantiated, cast serious doubt on the bona fides of the Applicant and indicate a mala fide intent behind the filing of the present Letter Petition.

¶169

14. The Hon’ble Tribunal is apprised that the Applicant, while claiming environmental concerns by this present Letter Petition, has been reported to be carrying out or facilitating similar activities in the same or adjacent regions which is Clear by above given averments. This contradiction suggests an abuse of the process of this Hon’ble Tribunal to settle personal or

¶170

O.A.No.1108/2024

¶171

Ram Kumar Shukl Vs. State of UP & Ors.

¶172

¶173

business rivalries rather than for any genuine environmental concern.

¶174

15. It is a settled principle that a person approaching a court or tribunal must do so with clean hands. The Applicant, by not disclosing his own alleged involvement in the similar activities that he challenges, is guilty of concealment and misrepresentation, thereby disentitling himself to file this Letter Petition.”

¶175

This Tribunal observed that responses were not filed by respondents no. 1 to 3 and vide order dated 28.04.2025 directed respondents no. 1 to 3 to file their responses within three weeks. By the above said order, respondents no. 1 to 3 were directed to give all requisite details regarding the steps taken to prevent illegal mining, including details of any FIRs registered in respect of illegal mining. By the above said order, respondent no. 6 was also permitted to file additional response at least two days before the next date of hearing.

¶176

In compliance thereof, Enquiry Report dated 20.05.2025 (pages no.412 to 438 of the paper book) was filed by respondent no. 3- DM, Prayagraj. The relevant part of the enquiry report dated 20.05.2025 is reproduced below:-

¶177

“ जा ँ च आखा ् या

¶178

मा० िाष्ट्रीय हरिि न्यायानधकिण , नई कदल्ली में योझजि ओ०ए० सं०- 1108/2024 िाम कुमाि शुक्ला बनाम उ०प्र० िाज्य ि अन्य में पारिि आदेश कदनांक 28.04.2025 के कायफकािी अंश ननम्निि् है:-

¶179

“6. Responses by Respondents No. 1 to 3 may be filed within 3 weeks and no further adjournment will be granted for this purpose.

¶180

7. In their responses, Respondents No. 1 to 3 shall give all requisite details regarding the steps taken to prevent illegal mining including FIR registered in respect of illegal mining.”

¶181

मा० िाष्ट्रीय हरिि न्यायानधकिण के आदेश कदनांक 28.04.2025 के अनुपालन में झजलानधकािी , प्रयागिाज के आदेश संख्या- 150/ खननज / 2025-26 कदनांक 01.05.2025 द्वािा 05 सदस्यीय टीम गकठि कििे हुये यानचका से सम्बझन्धि श्री िाम कुमाि शुक्ल के प्रार्थफना पत्र (ओ०ए०) में उझल्लझखि िथ्यों की जााँच कि सुस्पष्ट जााँच आख्या उपलब्ध किाने के कदये गये आदेश के क्रम में श्री िाम कुमाि शुक्ल के प्रार्थफना पत्र में उझल्लझखि

¶182

O.A.No.1108/2024

¶183

Ram Kumar Shukl Vs. State of UP & Ors.

¶184

¶185

ग्रामों िर्था साधािण बालू खण्ड संख्या- 6 का कदनांक 15.05.2025 को स्र्थलीय ननिीक्षण ककया गया।

¶186

ननिीक्षण के दौिान नशकायिी पत्र में उझल्लझखि ग्राम नौढया ििहाि , पिगना ि िहसील बािा जनपद प्रयागिाज में सा० बालू का खनन होिे नहीं पाया गया औि न ही कोई ऐसे नचन्ह ही पाये गये झजससे यह प्रिीि होिा हो कक उक्त क्षेत्र में साधािण बालू का खनन कायफ ककया गया हो। ग्राम नौकडया में यमुना नदी के खण्ड संख्या- 05 में साधािण बालू का खनन पट्टा कदनांक 09.11.2020 से कदनाक 08.11.2025 िक के नलए मे० पािाल गंगा एसोनसएट्स पा० श्री नागेन्र बहादुि नसंह पुत्र श्री र्िेह बहादुि नसंह ननिासी ग्राम गोिी , ि० पुियाखास , र्थाना-औद्योनगक क्षेत्र , किछना , प्रयागिाज के पक्ष में स्िीकृि / ननष्पाकदि है , पिन्िु ििफमान में पयाफििण स्िच्छिा प्रमाण पत्र के अभाि में खनन कायफ प्रनिबझन्धि है।

¶187

उक्त के अनिरिक्त नशकायिी प्रार्थफना पत्र में उझल्लझखि ग्राम मझियािी यमुना नदी के खण्ड संख्या- 06 का भी ननिीक्षण ककया गया। ग्राम मझियािी में साधािण बालू खण्ड संख्या- 06 में कदनांक 14.11.2023 से 13.11.2028 िक के नलए मे० िािा इण्टिप्राईजेज प्रो० श्री चन्रजीि कुशिाहा पिा- 51 आि०के० पुिम , हिेनलया आिास विकास , िूसी , प्रयागिाज के पक्ष में खनन पट्टा स्िीकृि/संचानलि है। ननिीक्षण के दौिान स्िीकृि खनन प ट्टा क्षेत्र में खनन कायफ होिा हुआ पाया गया। खनन क्षेत्र में लगे सभी सीमा स्िम्भ सही झस्र्थनि में पाये गये िर्था िे विज िर्था पी०टी० जेड० कैमिा भी लगा हुआ एिं संचानलि पाया गया। ननिीक्षण के दौिान नलये गये र्ोटोग्रार् ननम्न प्रकाि हैं :-

¶188

X X X X

¶189

प्रश्नगि प्रकिण में िहसील बािा क्षेत्रान्िगफि अिैध खनन के सम्बन्ध में र्थाना लालापुि में दजफ प् र म सूचना रिपोटफ संख्या- 0082 कदनांक 12.11.2024, संख्या- 0003 कदनांक 02.01.2024 ि संख्या- 0007 कदनांक 30.01.2024 में हुई कायफिाही के सम्बन्ध में पत्र संख्या- 149/ खननज / 2025-26 कदनांक 30.04.2025 द्वािा र्थानाध्यक्ष लालापुि , प्रयागिाज से आख्या मांगी गयी र्थी. झजसके अनुपालन में र्थानाध्यक्ष लालापुि के पत्र कदनांक 02.05.2025 द्वािा आख्या उपलब्ध किायी गयी है , जो ननम्न प्रकाि है:-

¶190

1. मु 0 अ 0 सं 0-03/2024 धािा 4/21 खान एिं खननज विकास एिं विननयमन अनध० 1957 ि 3(1)/58/72(1) उ०प्र० उप-खननज परिहाि ननयमािली 2021 कदनांक 02.01.2024 को खान ननिीक्षक श्री िैभि कुमाि सोनी द्वािा अज्ञाि व्यवक्तयों के विरुद्ध ग्राम नौकडया ििहाि में यमुना नदी के घाट पि नािों के माध्यम से खनन कि अिैध रूप से बालू डम्प किने ि ट्रैक्टि के माध्यम से बालू के अिैध परििहन के सम्बन्ध में मुकदमा पंजीकृि किाया गया र्था। मुकदमा उपिोक्त की वििेचना/जााँच के बाद आिोप प्रमाझणि होने पि आिोप पत्र संख्या- 56/2024 कदनांक 29.08.2024 को माननीय न्यायालय प्रेवषि की जा चुकी है।

¶191

2. मु०अ०सं०- 07/2024 धािा 4/21 खान एिं खननज विकास एिं विननयमन अनध० 1957 ि 3(1)/58 उ०प्र० उप खननज परिहाि ननयमािली 2021 कदनांक 30.01.2024 को खान ननिीक्षण श्री िैभि कुमाि सोनी द्वािा पट्टाधािक सहािा एग्री प्रोडक्स प्रा० नल० प्रबन्ध ननदेशक ननलूिी िमेश द्वािा यमुना नदी के ककनािे खण्ड सं 0-04 ( ग्राम सेमिी) िकबा 8.00 हे० में पट्टा स्िीकृनि क्षेत्र के बाहि भािी मशीने लगाकि अिैध रूप से बालू का खनन कि मागफ के दोनो ििर् एकवत्रि किने के सम्बन्ध में मुकदमा पंजीकिण किाया गया र्था। मुकदमा उपिोक्त की वििेचना/जॉच के बाद आिोप प्रमाझणि होने पि आिोप पत्र सं 019/2024 कदनांक 28.03.2024 को माननीय न्यायालय प्रेवषि की जा चुकी है।

¶192

O.A.No.1108/2024 Ram Kumar Shukl Vs. State of UP & Ors. 16

¶193

3. मु०अ०सं०- 82/2024 धािा 3/58/72 उ०प्र० उप-खननज परिहाि ननयमािली 2021 ि 4/21 खान एिं खननज विकास एिं विननयमन अनध० 1957 ि धािा 3/5 लोक सम्पवि क्षनि ननिािण अनध० 1984 कदनांक 12.11.2024 को खान ननिीक्षण श्री िैभि कुमाि सोनी द्वािा मझियािी आमद घायल यमुना नदी से अज्ञाि नाविकों द्वािा नदी जलधािा से बालू खनन ि बालू ठम्प किने के संबंध में मुकदमा पंजीकृि किाया गया र्था। ििफमान में झजसकी वििेचना प्रचनलि है। जल्द ही आिोपीगणों को प्रकाश में लाकि आिश्यक विनधक कायफिाही की जायेगी। ”

¶194

Mr. Mukesh Verma, learned counsel for respondent no. 2-Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh, instead of filing of response, filed copy of letter dated 19.05.2025 (pages no. 439 to 468 of the paper book) sent by the Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh to the District Magistrate, Prayagraj enclosing therewith copy of Enquiry Report dated 20.05.2025, the relevant part of which has been reproduced above.

¶195

Additional reply dated 20.05.2025 (pages no.469 to 476 of the paper book) was filed by respondent no. 6. The relevant part of the additional reply dated 20.05.2025 is reproduced below:-

¶196

“ADDITIONAL REPLY/RESPONSE ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT No. 6/ M/S. TARA ENTERPRISES BY ITS PROPRITOR CHANDERJEET KUSHWAHA

¶197

X X X X

¶198

3. That Answering Respondent/PP again for the sake of Repetition said that During Earlier inspection, whatever illegal mining, machine marks etc. were found on the banks of river Yamuna in village Naudiya, Amiliya which is about One Kilometer away from the Approved Mining Area of Answering Respondent (PP). Answering Respondent has nothing to do with this illegal mining because it was difficult to carry out any operation (mining etc.) due to water logging in the river bed on the access road to the mining area, it was impossible to reach the mining site without a boat, mining work was not started by PP till the movement of vehicles in the mining area could be smooth, due to which the mine was closed. It is also informed to this Hon’ble Court that probably people of villages Audhan, Durgapur etc. located in district Kaushambi, Tehsil Chayal, which are located to the north of the river bed, People of these villages often go to visit Masurian Mata Temple in village Naudiya and Amiliya using tractors etc. to reach the boat in the main stream of the river for darshan.

¶199

4. That, the boundary pillars installed earlier in the approved area get destroyed due to flood in the river during the monsoon

¶200

O.A.No.1108/2024

¶201

Ram Kumar Shukl Vs. State of UP & Ors.

¶202

¶203

season (months of July, August, September 2024). It is relevant to mention here that before starting the mining operation again, boundary pillars are installed according to the fixed geocoordinates. Mining operation had not started till the date of inspection, hence the boundary pillars were not installed at that time. Now before starting the mining operation, the boundary pillars were Installed/ located by PP and mining operation has been started in leased area only since 07.01.2025. It is also relevant to mention that digital Processing of Entire leased area has been conducted and Display Board was also installed with all relevant information.

¶204

5. It is very relevant to mention here again that PP was not aware that mining cannot be done without obtaining CTO and neither was any restriction given to PP by the Mining Department in this regard, hence, in the absence of information, after the lease deed was executed on 14.11.2023, PP started mining operation seven days later on 21.11.2023. In this, no illegal action was taken by PP to intentionally damage the environment. PP received the CTO of the above mining area on 12.12.2023. This was the only occasion when PP has violated any Norms.

¶205

In reference to the above, it is respectfully submitted that a notice bearing number N-24604/C-2/Air-728/25 was issued by the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) on 24.02.2025, imposing an environmental compensation for a period of 28 days, i.e., from 14.11.2023 to 12.12.2023, upon the Project Proponent. It is pertinent to submit that PP commenced mining operations only on 21.11.2023, which was seven (7) days after the execution of the lease deed dated 14.11.2023. Despite this, said notice erroneously imposes a penalty for the entire 28-day period, thereby including seven (7) days during which no mining activity was undertaken by the PP. Accordingly, the imposition of environmental compensation for the period prior to 21.11.2023 is factually incorrect and unjustified, and a formal objection has been submitted by the PP before the UPPCB seeking rectification of the same. Furthermore, it is brought to the kind attention of this Hon’ble Court that due to inadvertence and lack of requisite information, mining operations were carried out in the subject area without obtaining the requisite Consent to Operate (CTO). Upon realization, the PP is ready and Willing to deposited a fine of ₹2,10,000/- calculated at the rate of ₹10,000/- per day for the said period of non-compliance, in good faith and without prejudice to its rights.

¶206

6. That on the Last Hearing on 28.04.2025 this Hon’ble Court has Directed to the Answering Respondent to Installed the 360. Degree PTZ Camera. Answering Respondent has asked to the Vendor of the PTZ Camera to Installed the same but till date it has not been installed as those Cameras were not available with vendor. Answering Respondent Undertake to Installed those Camera/s as soon as it is available to the Vendor.

¶207

7. That answering Respondent is taking the Water From the Water Tank of local Vendor for Using the water in Plants and Trees. PP

¶208

O.A.No.1108/2024

¶209

Ram Kumar Shukl Vs. State of UP & Ors.

¶210

¶211

is also taking drinking Water from the Local Vendor for drinking Purpose.

¶212

8. That answering Respondent is saying that he is not violating any environmental laws and also not violating any Terms and Conditions Imposed by the Mining Department/EC Conditions. PP is not using any heavy machines for mining, they are using Semi Mechanised Machines. It is also said that PP is not involved of any Illegal Mining as the answering Respondent has already Explained in Earlier Paras of this response.

¶213

9. That the Answering Respondent respectfully submits that the present application is liable to be dismissed, as the Applicant is allegedly engaged in the business of sand mining and trade, either directly or through affiliated entities. This material fact has been wilfully suppressed by the Applicant from this Hon’ble Court. Notably, on the previous date of hearing, i.e., 25.03.2025, when specifically queried by this Hon’ble Court regarding his occupation, the Applicant misrepresented himself as a farmer and social worker. However, the Applicant is reportedly involved in multiple cases pertaining to illegal mining and unauthorized sand trading. These facts, once substantiated, cast serious doubt on the bona fides of the Applicant and indicate a mala fide intent behind the filing of the present Letter Petition.”

¶214

The applicant did not appear before this Tribunal in the course of hearing except on 25.03.2025 and the applicant did not file any objection to the Report of the Joint Committee, Enquiry Reports filed by respondents no. 2 and 3 and replies filed by respondents no. 4, 5 and 6.

¶215

We have heard arguments addressed by Ms. Priyanka Swami, learned Counsel for respondent no.1, Mr. Mukesh Verma and Vatsala Tripathi, learned Counsels for respondents no.2 and 3, Ms. Parkhi Singh and Ms. Soni Singh, learned Counsels for respondent no.4, Mr. Amit Shukla, learned Counsel for respondent no.5 and Mr. Ajay Singh and Himanshu Shukla, learned Counsels for respondent no.6 and we have gone through the material on record carefully.

¶216

In their arguments, learned counsels for the respondents have reiterated the factual and legal submissions made in their respective replies/reports.

¶217

O.A.No.1108/2024

¶218

Ram Kumar Shukl Vs. State of UP & Ors.

¶219

¶220

In State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Uday Education and Welfare Trust and another, reported as 2022 Live Law (SC) 868 , Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that before litigant is permitted to knock the door of the justice by way of public interest litigation his credentials and bonafides must be tested.

¶221

In its reply, respondent no. 6 has submitted that the Applicant, Ram Kumar Shukla, is not a social worker as claimed and he along with his son, is engaged in illegal sand mining activities for personal profit. The applicant has been involved in lodging frivolous complaints against various individuals for the purpose of harassment and blackmail. Multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) have been registered against the Applicant in connection with the sand mining business and related tenders. In particular, FIR No. 339 dated 09.09.2022 has been registered at Police Station Sarai Akil, District Kaushambi, U.P. under Sections 386 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and FIR No. 47 dated 19.02.2023 has been registered at Police Station Pipari, District Kaushambi, U.P. under Sections 406, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. These facts cast serious doubt on the bona fides of the Applicant and indicate a mala fide intent behind the filing of the present Letter Petition.

¶222

In the facts and circumstances, there appear to be reasonable grounds to doubt the credentials and bonafides of the applicant in filing of the present application.

¶223

However, it may be added here that in the present case allegations have been made regarding illegal mining in villages Nodhia and Amaliyaat regarding which FIRs have also been registered by the Police. The averments made in the original application raise substantial

¶224

O.A.No.1108/2024

¶225

Ram Kumar Shukl Vs. State of UP & Ors.

¶226

¶227

questions relating to environment arising out of implementation of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 specified in Schedule-I of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. This Tribunal cannot lose sight of the fact that right to life includes within its sweep right to clean and healthy environment which cannot be denied and has to be protected and implemented in the fullest measure by all the instrumentalities of the State and the Project Proponents. Cognizance of questions relating to environment arising out of implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I to the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 can be taken by the Tribunal suo motu as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha (2021) SCC Online SC 897 . We are of the considered view that this Tribunal is not only empowered but is in fact duty bound to adjudicate upon the substantial questions related to environment involved in the present case.

¶228

In view of the above discussed factual and legal perspective of the case, the present original application cannot be conclusively said to be mala-fide and is not liable to be dismissed on ground of being malafide and the substantial environmental questions raised in the present case have to be adjudicated upon on the basis of the material placed/ produced before this Tribunal.

¶229

In the present case, the applicant has raised the following grievances in the Original Application:-

¶230

(i) Mining lessee Mr. Chanderjeet Kushwaha is carrying on illegal mining in village Nodhia Tarhar Tehsil-Bara, District-Prayagraj through JCB, poclain and boat;

¶231

O.A.No.1108/2024

¶232

Ram Kumar Shukl Vs. State of UP & Ors.

¶233

¶234

(ii) Mr. Chanderjeet Kushwaha has been granted mining lease in village Majhiyari, Block-6, Pargana, Tehsil, District Prayagraj but he is illegally carrying on mining in Nodhia Tarhar Tehsil-Bara, District-Prayagraj;

¶235

(iii) Mining can be carried out on one side of the river but Mr. Chanderjeet Kushwaha is carrying on mining on both sides of the river in district Prayagraj and District Kaushambi through boat and poclain; and,

¶236

(iv) As per directions issued by this Tribunal and the mining rules, mining is permissible upto the depth of 3 meters but Mr. Chanderjeet Kushwaha is carrying on mining beyond 3 meters through the depth of 7-8 meters.

¶237

With respect to the allegations of illegal mining, the Joint Committee has observed in its report that illegal mining was carried out on the bank of River Yamuna near border of villages Nodhia and Amaliyaat 01 km away from leased area and marks of machines were observed on the bank of distributary of river in village Majhiyari. Photographs of signs of illegal mining on the bank and marks observed during visit were enclosed with the report. The Mining Inspector informed the Joint Committee that FIR was lodged on 12.11.2024 for illegal mining against unknown persons and copy of the FIR was enclosed with the report. In its reply, respondent no. 6 has submitted that respondent no. 6 has nothing to do with the illegal mining in villages Nodhia and Amaliyaat. In his Enquiry Report, respondent no. 3-District Magistrate, Prayagraj has mentioned that SHO Police Station, Lalapur submitted report giving the following information with respect to FIR No. 0082 dated 12.11.2024, FIR No. 0003 dated 02.01.2024 and FIR No. 0007 dated 30.01.2024:-

¶238

O.A.No.1108/2024

¶239

Ram Kumar Shukl Vs. State of UP & Ors.

¶240

¶241

“ प्रश्नगि प्रकिण में िहसील बािा क्षेत्रान्िगफि अिैध खनन के सम्बन्ध में र्थाना लालापुि में दजफ प् र म सूचना रिपोटफ संख्या- 0082 कदनांक 12.11.2024, संख्या- 0003 कदनांक 02.01.2024 ि संख्या- 0007 कदनांक 30.01.2024 में हुई कायफिाही के सम्बन्ध में पत्र संख्या- 149/ खननज / 2025-26 कदनांक 30.04.2025 द्वािा र्थानाध्यक्ष लालापुि , प्रयागिाज से आख्या मांगी गयी र्थी. झजसके अनुपालन में र्थानाध्यक्ष लालापुि के पत्र कदनांक 02.05.2025 द्वािा आख्या उपलब्ध किायी गयी है , जो ननम्न प्रकाि है:-

¶242

मु 0 अ 0 सं 0-03/2024 धािा 4/21 खान एिं खननज विकास एिं विननयमन अनध० 1957 ि 3(1)/58/72(1) उ०प्र० उप-खननज परिहाि ननयमािली 2021 कदनांक 02.01.2024 को खान ननिीक्षक श्री िैभि कुमाि सोनी द्वािा अज्ञाि व्यवक्तयों के विरुद्ध ग्राम नौकडया ििहाि में यमुना नदी के घाट पि नािों के माध्यम से खनन कि अिैध रूप से बालू डम्प किने ि ट्रैक्टि के माध्यम से बालू के अिैध परििहन के सम्बन्ध में मुकदमा पंजीकृि किाया गया र्था। मुकदमा उपिोक्त की वििेचना/जााँच के बाद आिोप प्रमाझणि होने पि आिोप पत्र संख्या- 56/2024 कदनांक 29.08.2024 को माननीय न्यायालय प्रेवषि की जा चुकी है।

¶243

मु०अ०सं०- 07/2024 धािा 4/21 खान एिं खननज विकास एिं विननयमन अनध० 1957 ि 3(1)/58 उ०प्र० उप खननज परिहाि ननयमािली 2021 कदनांक 30.01.2024 को खान ननिीक्षण श्री िैभि कुमाि सोनी द्वािा पट्टाधािक सहािा एग्री प्रोडक्स प्रा० नल० प्रबन्ध ननदेशक ननलूिी िमेश द्वािा यमुना नदी के ककनािे खण्ड सं 0-04 ( ग्राम सेमिी) िकबा 8.00 हे० में पट्टा स्िीकृनि क्षेत्र के बाहि भािी मशीने लगाकि अिैध रूप से बालू का खनन कि मागफ के दोनो ििर् एकवत्रि किने के सम्बन्ध में मुकदमा पंजीकिण किाया गया र्था। मुकदमा उपिोक्त की वििेचना/जॉच के बाद आिोप प्रमाझणि होने पि आिोप पत्र सं 0- 19/2024 कदनांक 28.03.2024 को माननीय न्यायालय प्रेवषि की जा चुकी है।

¶244

मु०अ०सं०- 82/2024 धािा 3/58/72 उ०प्र० उप-खननज परिहाि ननयमािली 2021 ि 4/21 खान एिं खननज विकास एिं विननयमन अनध० 1957 ि धािा 3/5 लोक सम्पवि क्षनि ननिािण अनध० 1984 कदनांक 12.11.2024 को खान ननिीक्षण श्री िैभि कुमाि सोनी द्वािा मझियािी आमद घायल यमुना नदी से अज्ञाि नाविकों द्वािा नदी जलधािा से बालू खनन ि बालू ठम्प किने के संबंध में मुकदमा पंजीकृि किाया गया र्था। ििफमान में झजसकी वििेचना प्रचनलि है। जल्द ही आिोपीगणों को प्रकाश में लाकि आिश्यक विनधक कायफिाही की जायेगी। ”

¶245

Section 23C of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 empowers the State government to make rules for preventing illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals and in exercise thereof the Government of Uttar Pradesh has framed the Uttar Pradesh Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and

¶246

O.A.No.1108/2024

¶247

Ram Kumar Shukl Vs. State of UP & Ors.

¶248

¶249

Storage) Rules, 2018. However, it was observed that there were large number of illegal mining cases in the country. In some cases, many of the officers lost their lives while executing the duties for curbing illegal mining incidents. MoEF&CC issued Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 which provided for Monitoring System for Sustainable Sand Mining (at pages 64 to 66 thereof) and laid down detailed procedure for monitoring of sand mining or river bed mining. In consideration of various orders/directions issued by this Tribunal in matters pertaining to illegal sand mining and also based on the reports submitted by expert committees and investigation teams, MoEF & CC issued Enforcement & Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020 supplemental to the existing Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016. Enforcement & Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020 provide (at pages 48 to 63 thereof) for Monitoring Mechanism and made detailed provisions regarding illegal mining including action to be taken to achieve deterrence against illegal mining.

¶250

In O.A. No. 360/2015 titled National Green Tribunal Bar

¶251

Association Vs. Virender Singh (State of Gujarat) this Tribunal referred to some of the significant orders passed from time to time regarding illegal mining in tabular format as under:-

¶252

Sl *No.*	*Party Name*	*Date of* *orders*	*Particulars*
1	OA No. 173/2018 Sudarsan Das v. State of West Bengal & Ors.	04.09.2018	Inter alia directing revision of monitoring mechanism by the MoEF&CC.
2	OA No. 44/2016 Mushtakeem v. MoEF&CC & Ors.	05.09.2018
3	OA No. 186 of 2016 Satendra Pandey Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change & Anr	13.09.2018	Inter alia disapproving dispensing with requirement of public hearing and requiring evaluation by DEIAA.

¶253

O.A.No.1108/2024

¶254

Ram Kumar Shukl Vs. State of UP & Ors.

¶255

¶256

4	ΟΑ 606/2018, Compliance of Municipal Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016	16.01.2019	Requiring the Chief Secretaries to monitor the subject of unregulated and unscientific sand mining
5	Ο.Α. No. 360/2015, National Green Tribunal Bar Association V. Virender Singh (State of Gujarat)	05.04.2019	Inter alia consideration of scale of compensation and revised monitoring mechanism
6	OA No. 44/2016 Mushtakeem v. MoEF&CC & Ors.	19.02.2020	Inter alia modifying the mechanism for release of vehicles
7	OA No. 360/2015 National Green Tribunal Bar Association V. Virender Singh (State of Gujarat)	17.08.2020	Inter alia considering the scale of compensation proposed by the CPCB
8	O.A. No. 40/2020, Pawan Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors.	14.10.2020	Inter alia engagement of experts from NABT/QCCI for preparation of DSR/
9	O.A. No. 726 of 2018 Rupesh Pethe v. State of M.P. & Ors.,	04.11.2020	replenishment study

¶257

In O.A. No. 360/2015 titled National Green Tribunal Bar Association Vs. Virender Singh (State of Gujarat) vide order dated 26.02.2021, this Tribunal laid down scale of amount to be recovered for release of seized vehicles and scale of environmental compensation for illegal mining on polluter pays principle and issued the following directions:-

¶258

“ Enforcement of Monitoring Mechanism and review by the Chief Secretary at State level and Secretary MoEF&CC at National level

¶259

27. We direct all the States/UTs to strictly follow the SSMG-2016 read with EMGSM-2020 reinforced by mechanism for preparation of DSRs (in terms of directions of this Tribunal dated 14.10.2020 in Pawan Kumar, supra and 04.11.2020 in Rupesh Pethe, supra), Environment Management Plans, replenishment studies, mine closure plans, grant of EC (in terms of direction dated 13.09.2018 in Satendra Pandey, supra), assessment and recovery of compensation (as per discussion in Para 25), seizure and release of vehicles involved in illegal mining (in terms of order dated 19.02.2020 in Mushtakeem, supra), other safeguards against violations, grievance redressal, accountability of the designated officers

¶260

O.A.No.1108/2024 Ram Kumar Shukl Vs. State of UP & Ors.

¶261

¶262

and periodical review at higher levels. As already noted, EMGSM-2020 contemplates extensive use of digital technology, including remote sensing.

¶263

28. We further direct that periodic inspection be conducted by a five-members Committee, headed and coordinated by the SEIAA and comprising CPCB (wherever it has regional office), State PCB and two expert members of SEAC dealing with the subject. Where CPCB regional office is not available, if MoEF&CC regional office is available, its Regional Officer will be included in the Committee. Where neither CPCB nor MoEF&CC regional office exists, Chairman, SEIAA will tie up with the nearest institution of repute such as IIT to nominate an expert for being included in the Committee. Such inspection must be conducted at least thrice for each lease i.e. after expiry of 25% the lease period, then after 50% of the period and finally six months before expiry of the lease period for midway correction and assessment of damage, if any. The reports of such inspections be acted upon and placed on O.A.No.160/2022 Ompal & Ors v. State of UP & Ors. website of the SEIAA. Every lessee, undertaking mining, must have an environment professional to facilitate sustainable mining in terms of the mining plan and environmental norms. This be overseen by the SEIAA. Environment Departments may also develop an appropriate mobile App for receiving and redressing the grievances against the sand mining, including connivance of the authorities and also a mechanism to fix accountability of the concerned officers. Recommendations of the Oversight Committee for the State of UP quoted earlier may be duly taken into account.

¶264

The mechanism must provide for review at the level of the Chief Secretary at least once in every quarter, in a meeting with all concerned Departments in the State. The Chief Secretary UP may ensure further action in the light of the report of the Oversight Committee.

¶265

Similarly, at National level, such review needs to be conducted atleast once in a year by the Secretary, Environment in coordination with the Secretaries Mining and Jalshakti Ministries the CPCB.

¶266

Publication of Annual Reports

¶267

29. We further direct all the States/UTs to publish their annual reports on the subject and such annual reports may be furnished to MoEF&CC by 30th April every year giving status till 31st March. First such report as on 31.03.2022 may be filed with the MoEF&CC by all he States/UTs on or before 30.04.2022. The report may also be simultaneously

¶268

O.A.No.1108/2024

¶269

Ram Kumar Shukl Vs. State of UP & Ors.

¶270

¶271

posted on the website of the Environment Department of the States/UTs. Based on such reports, MoEF&CC may consider supplementing its Guidelines from time to time. The MoEF&CC may prepare a consolidated report considering the reports from the States/UTs and publish its own report on the subject, preferably by 31st May every year. Interaction at National Level

¶272

30. We direct the Secretary MoEF to convene a meeting in coordination with the CPCB and Mining and Jalshakti Ministries of Central Government and such other experts/individuals at National level and representatives of States within three months for interaction on the subject which may be followed by such meetings being convened by the Chief Secretaries in all States in next three months. Holding of such meetings will provide clarity on enforcement strategies and help protection of environment.”

¶273

In State of NCT of Delhi vs. Sanjay, (2014) 9 SCC 772 Hon’ble Supreme Court held that dishonestly removing sand and gravel, which is the property of the State, from the river beds without consent constitutes a distinct offence under Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and on receipt of the police report, the Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction can take cognizance of the said offence without awaiting the receipt of complaint that may be filed by the authorised officer for taking cognizance in respect of violation of various provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

¶274

The jurisdiction of this Tribunal to deal with such matters came to be considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases including MC

¶275

Mehta vs. Union of India (2004) 12 SCC 118 , Mantri Tech zone Pvt. Ltd. vs. Forward foundation & others (2019) 18 SCC 494 and the

¶276

Director General (Road Development) National Highways Authority of India vs. Aam Aaadmi Lokmanch & others (2021) 11 SCC 566 decided on 14.07.2020 and Hon’ble Supreme Court held that wherever environment and ecology are being compromised and jeopardized, this

¶277

O.A.No.1108/2024

¶278

Ram Kumar Shukl Vs. State of UP & Ors.

¶279

¶280

Tribunal can apply Section 20 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 for taking restorative measures in the interest of environment.

¶281

In Goa Foundation vs. Union of India & Ors (2014) 6 SCC 590 it was observed that mining was required to be regulated not only by the Mining department but also by the PCBs under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and by the MoEF&CC under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

¶282

It is evident from above discussion that monitoring mechanism and remedial measures have already been provided to prevent and control illegal mining but the monitoring mechanism is not completely set up and remedial measures are not faithfully implemented in the State of Uttar Pradesh.

¶283

Neither the Police nor the Mining department seems to have given any information to UPPCB and no proceedings for imposition of environmental compensation and reclamation/rehabilitation of illegally mined land seem to have been taken. When environmental compensation is payable by mining lease holders for any illegal mining beyond/in violation of terms of lease and proceedings are taken for imposition of environmental compensation on them, how the aspects of imposition of environmental compensation on persons indulging in illegal mining and reclamation/rehabilitation of illegally mined sites can be ignored.

¶284

It may be observed here that the proceedings for imposition and realization of environmental damage compensation do not originate from and are not dependent on criminal proceedings. In fact the same originate from and are dependent on illegality of mining and transportation and derive their jurisdiction, validity and authority from

¶285

O.A.No.1108/2024

¶286

Ram Kumar Shukl Vs. State of UP & Ors.

¶287

¶288

the environmental laws including the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Mines And Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Rules made thereunder and the directions given by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and this Tribunal. There is no valid justification for not initiating the same. The UPPCB is directed to prepare SOP for the same and issue instructions within three months from the receipt of a copy of this order to all its Regional Officers for initiating and concluding the proceedings for imposition of environmental compensation in all cases of illegal mining and transportation in accordance with law.

¶289

With respect to the mining in mining area of M/s Tara Enterprises, Manjhiyari village, it may be observed that mining lease was granted for the period from 19.05.2022 to 18.05.2027, EC was granted on 04.05.2023 and CTO was granted on 12.12.2023. The project proponent excavated total 159859 m³ of sand from 04.05.2023 to 30.06.2024. On inspection on 06.12.2024, the Joint Committee constituted by this Tribunal made the following observations regarding EC & CTO conditions, Mining Plan, Mining guideline etc.:-

¶290

a) The PP has yet not conducted the digital processing of the entire lease area so far.

¶291

b) During the visit, no pillar was found in the lease area.

¶292

c) The PP has not carried out the hydro-geological study.

¶293

d) During the visit, temporary pathway for transportation of standard weigh brides and PTZ camera were not found in site area of river bank.

¶294

e) No display board with mining lease information was available on site.

¶295

O.A.No.1108/2024

¶296

Ram Kumar Shukl Vs. State of UP & Ors.

¶297

¶298

f) The temporary camp, toilets and hand pump were not found in the site.

¶299

However, these observations have to be considered in the context that the project proponent carried out mining activity till 30.06.2024 and was to commence mining activity after the water level on the distributory river beds decreased and the lease area was demarcated. In its reply, respondent no. 6 has mentioned that the boundary pillars were installed/located by it and the mining operation was started since 07.01.2025.

¶300

It may be observed here that pursuant to inspection dated 21.02.2025 (pages no. 226-227 of the paper book), UPPCB issued show cause notice dated 24.02.2025 for imposition of amount of Rs.2,80,000/as environmental compensation for violation from 14.11.2023 to 12.12.2023 in accordance with the methodology adopted by the CPCB.

¶301

In its reply, respondent no. 6 has pleaded the imposition of environmental compensation by UPPCB to be factually incorrect and unjustified but deposited the amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- with UPPCB in good faith and without prejudice to its right.

¶302

In the present case, the Joint Committee constituted by this Tribunal made the following recommendations:-

¶303

“4. Recommendations:

¶304

Based upon the above field observations, Joint Committee recommends as below:

¶305

1. Mining Department should take necessary action against illegal mining activities found near the border of village Nodhia- Amaliyaon river bank of Yamuna and ensure that no illegal mining takes place in Yamuna River.

¶306

O.A.No.1108/2024

¶307

Ram Kumar Shukl Vs. State of UP & Ors.

¶308

¶309

2. The use of heavy machinery and boats which can be used for in-stream mining should not be allowed near the river. Stringent action should be taken against any persons found carrying out illegal mining, obstructing flow of the river, and keeping heavy machinery and lifter boats near the river.

¶310

¶311

4. Mining Department and UPPCB should ensure proper compliance of Sustainable Sand Mining Guideline, 2020.”

¶312

We consider it appropriate that the above recommendations should be implemented by respondents no. 2, 5 and 6 in letter and spirit.

¶313

Directions by the Tribunal

¶314

In view of the above, the present original application is disposed of with the following directions:-

¶315

(i) The respondent no. 1 (State of U.P. through Additional Chief Secretary, Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of Uttar Pradesh), respondent no. 2 (Director, Mines and Geology, Government of Uttar Pradesh) and respondent no. 5 (Member Secretary, UPPCB) are directed to look into/verify implementation of the Monitoring System for Sustainable Sand Mining at pages 64 to 66 of the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 and Monitoring Mechanism at pages 48 to 63 of the Enforcement & Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020 and implementation of the directions given by Hon’ble Supreme Court and also by this Tribunal particularly the directions given by this Tribunal in O.A. no. 360/2015 titled National Green Tribunal Bar Association Vs. Virender Singh

¶316

(State of Gujarat) vide order dated 26.02.2021 and ensure (a) implementation of appropriate measures for monitoring of transportation

¶317

O.A.No.1108/2024

¶318

Ram Kumar Shukl Vs. State of UP & Ors.

¶319

¶320

of mineral from mining area to end-user, such as essential security features, check posts, CCTV camera, GPS tracking etc., and for regular surveillance of the sand mining reaches and constitution of district level task force for this purpose, as outlined in Chapter 7 and 9 respectively, of the Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining 2020 and (b) appropriate mechanism for taking strict punitive action against the persons and vehicle involved in illegal mining in the area under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and directions issued by this Tribunal vide order dated 26.02.2021 in O.A. 360 of 2015, titled National Green Tribunal Bar Association Vs. Virender Singh (State of Gujarat) in terms of penalty and environmental compensation;

¶321

(ii) Respondents no. 2, 5 and 6 are directed to implement the recommendations made in its report by the Joint Committee constituted by this Tribunal;

¶322

(iii) The UPPCB is directed to prepare, within three months from the receipt of a copy of this order, SOP for imposition and realization of environmental damage compensation from persons found to have carried out illegal mining/ transportation or to be involved in illegal mining/transportation and to issue instructions to all its Regional Officers for imposition of environmental compensation in all cases of illegal mining/transportation in accordance with law; and (iv) The Regional Officer, UPPCB, Prayagraj is directed to take, within three months from the receipt of a copy of this order, requisite action for imposition of environmental damage compensation on persons found to have carried out illegal mining/ transportation or to be involved in illegal mining/transportation against whom FIR has been registered/charge sheet has been filed for illegal mining.

¶323

O.A.No.1108/2024

¶324

Ram Kumar Shukl Vs. State of UP & Ors.

¶325

¶326

Action Taken Reports may be filed by the Member Secretary, UPPCB and the Regional Officer, UPPCB, Prayagraj, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before Ld. Registrar General of this Tribunal, who is directed to place the matter before the Bench, if further orders are considered to be necessary.

¶327

A copy of this order may be sent to the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, the Member Secretary, UPPCB, the Director, Mines and Geology, Uttar Pradesh and the District Magistrate, Prayagraj by email for requisite compliance.

¶328

Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM

¶329

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶330

November 06^th , 2025 R

Ram Kumar Shukl vs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kumar Shukl vs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babulal Sahu vs State of Rajasthan

K Ramamoorthy vs the Chief Secretary and 10 Others

National Nature Society vs Principal Secretary Department of Mines Petroleum

Alina Reji vs

Jagvir Singh vs

R Manikandan vs Collectorate

Kaka Ashok vs Central Pollution Control Board

News Item Titled "Salt-Pan Encroachments in Rivers Caused Flood: Vilathikulam Residents" Appearing in the Express News Service Dated 28.12.2023 vs Environment and Forest Department Govt of Tamil Nadu

Prasher Dev Sharma vs

Simagamsetti Venkata Surya Bhaskara Rao vs

Janardan Dugrakoti vs

Surndra and Ors. vs

Harpal Singh vs

Tribunal on Its Own Motion vs