Partly allowed

Gram Panchayat Galhri v. Union of India

NGT2 Apr 2026IA No. 226/2026 in Original Application No. 100/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants challenged auction notices for river desilting in Punjab, alleging commercial sand mining without environmental clearance. The Tribunal held that exemptions require non-commercial purpose, ordered strict compliance with sediment management guidelines, and dismissed pleas regarding parallel High Court jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Tender proceedings permitted subject to strict compliance with National Framework for Sediment Management, Sustainable Sand Mining Guidelines, and prior environmental clearance if desilting involves c

Gram Panchayat Galhri vs Union of India — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Court No. 1

¶2

Item Nos.1A to 1D

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

IA No. 161/2026, IA No. 226/2026, IA No. 227/2026 In

¶5

Original Application No. 100/2026

¶6

Gram Panchayat Galhri Applicant Versus

¶7

Union of India & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶8

WITH

¶9

Original Application No. 117/2026 (IA No 109/2026, IA No 225/2026, IA No 234/2026)

¶10

Daljeet Singh Applicant Versus

¶11

State of Punjab & Ors. Respondent(s) WITH

¶12

Original Application No. 152/2026 (IA No 145/2026, IA No 177/2026, IA No 232/2026)

¶13

Ajay Kumar Applicant Versus

¶14

Union of India & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶15

WITH

¶16

Original Application No. 169/2026

¶17

Gaurav Partap Singh Pathania Applicant

¶18

Versus

¶19

Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change & Ors. Respondent(s) Date of completion of hearing on IA and reserving of order: 27.03.2026 Date of pronouncement of order: 02.04.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER

¶20

Applicants: Ms. Nattasha Garg & Mr. Thakur Ankit Singh, Advs. for Applicant in OA 100/2026 Mr. Tarun Cummra, Ms. Satinder Kaur & Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Advs. for Applicant in OA 117/2026 Mr. Saurav Bhatia, Adv. for Applicant in OA 152/2026 Mr. L.S. Mann & Mr. Ojas Nirula, Advs. for Applicant in OA 169/2026

¶21

¶22

Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Upadhyay, Senior Advocate with Mr. Siddhant Sharma, Ms. Sheenu Priya, Ms. Mansi Bachani, Ms. Gitanjali Sanyal, Mr. Prabhav Pachory & Mr. Parantap Singh, Advs. for the State of Punjab Mr. Naveen Kumar, Adv. for MoEF&CC (Through VC) Mr. Tarun K. Sharma, Adv. for SEIAA, Punjab in OA 100/2026 & OA 152/2026 (Through VC)

¶23

ORDER

¶24

In these original applications, the tenders/auction notices issued by

¶25

the Government of Punjab, Department of Water Resources in pursuance to the decision contained in the order/notification dated 16.10.2025 for de-silting of 85 sites identified by the Department of Water Resources, Government of Punjab. Following 85 sites have been identified for de-silting of 187.14 crores CFT of silt and removal of riverbed material from the rivers

¶26

Ghaggar, Sutlej, Ravi, Beas, Siswan, Sarsa, etc.:

¶27

S. *No.*	*Name of Project*	*Name of* *District*	*QTY in CFT*
1.	Desilting of river Ghaggar in village Bhankarpur near Nachiketa to protect nearby abadies & agricultural land.	SAS Nagar	7881402
2.	Desilting of river Ghaggar in village Bhankarpur and Mirpur to protect nearby abadies & agricultural land.	SAS Nagar	1239390
3.	Desilting of river Ghaggar in village Shatabgarh and Bakarpur to protect nearby abadies & agricultural land.	SAS Nagar	6508904
4.	Desilting of river Ghaggar in village Ambala to protect nearby abadies & agricultural land.	SAS Nagar	11739357
5.	Desilting of river Ghaggar in village Karali to protect nearby abadies & agricultural land.	SAS Nagar	4237200
6.	Desilting of river Ghaggar in village Hansala to protect nearby abadies & agricultural land.	SAS Nagar	26482500
7.	Desilting of river Ghaggar in village Tiwana to protect nearby abadies & agricultural land.	SAS Nagar	6192870
8.	Desilting of river Ghaggar in village Surat Mandi to protect	SAS Nagar	5995224

¶28

¶29

	nearby abadies & agricultural land
9.	. Desilting of river Sutlej in Agampur village to protect nearby abadles & agricultural _land of Village Agampur _	Rupnagar	5370651
10.	Desilting of river Sutlej in Harshabela village to protect nearby abadies & agricultural land of Village Harshabela	Rupnagar	17372520
11.	Desilting of river Sutlej in Burj village to protect nearby abadies & agricultural land of Village Burj	Rupnagar	4766850
12.	Desilting of River Ravi between RD 60000 to 128000 to increase water carriage capacity of River in District Pathankot	Pathankot	4237200
13.	Desilting of River Ravi between RD 45000 to 60000 to increase water carriage capacity of River in District Pathankot	Pathankot	2118600
14.	Desilting of River Sutlej in village Meowal opp. Meowal-Mausahib complex at RD 24000 to 27000/2R to protect nearby abadies & agricultural land at right side of Sutlej River.	Jalandhar	13246570
15.	Desilting of river Sutlej in village Sangowal -2 opp. Sangowal Phillaur complex to protect nearby abadies & agricultural land in right side of Sutlej River.	Jalandhar	9613775
16.	Desilting of river Sutlej in village Kania Hussaini opp. Lohgarh complex to protect nearby abadies & agricultural land in right side of Sutlej River.	Ludhiana	4809348
17.	Desilting of river Sutlej opp. Mirzapur complex to protect nearby abadies & agricultural land in right side of Sutlej River.	SBS NAGAR/Ludhi ana	12485616
18.	Desilting of river Sutlej opp. Burj Tehal Dass complex to protect nearby abadies & agricultural land in right side of Sutlej River	SBS NAGAR/Ludhi ana	19067400
19.	. Desilting of river Sutlej opp. Tajowal Complex to protect nearby abadies & agricultural land in right side of Sutlej River.	SBS NAGAR/Ludhi ana	12033648
20.	Desilting of River Sutlej opp. Auliapur Complex -2 to save abadies and Agriculture lands	SBS Nagar/Rupnag _ar _	14830200

¶30

¶31

	of village Auliapur, Dhangerpur Malakpur
21.	. Desilting of River Sutlej opp. Rail Majra Complex to save abadies and agriculture lands of village ADB Tajowal and Zirdapur.	SBS Nagar/Rupnag ar	2118600
22.	Desilting of river Sutlej at village Thammuwal and village Rampur in Thamuwal Complex -2 to protect nearby abadies & agricultural land in right side of Sutlej River.	Jalandhar	19914840
23.	Desilting of river Sutlej in Opposite RD 177000-178000 village mandala Channa, to protect nearby abadies & Jagricultural land in right side of Sutlej River.	Jalandhar/Fer ozpur area	3142590
24.	Desilting of river Beas D/s RD 45250 of Satma singh advance bandh no. 1 U/S Goindwal Sahib Bridge	Kapurthala/ Tarantaran	158895000
25.	Desilting of river Beas In b/w rd 1170000 and 152000 to	Kapurthala	29660400
26.	save the nearby villages Desilting of river Beas RD 40000 of Satma singh advance bandh no. 1 (desal) to save the nearby villages	Kapurthala/ Tarantaran	127116000
27.	Desiiting of river Satluj b/w RD 10000 to 13000 D/s of Harike Headworks-2 to protect nearby abadies & agricultural land in rightsideofSutlej River.	Tarn Taran	24363900
28.	Desilting of river Satluj b/w RD 32000 TO 39000 D/s of Harike Headworks to protect nearby abadies & agricultural land in right side of Sutlej River.	Tarn Taran	18008100
29.	Desilting of river Beas u/s of Harike Headworks to protect nearby abadies & agricultural land	Tarn Taran	7415100
30.	Desilting of River Sutlej in between RD 39580-42300 of 4L (Khairabet Complex) to protect nearby abadies & agricultural land in Left side of Sutlej River.	Ludhiana	11992123
31.	Desilting of River Sutlej in between RD 1000-11760 of 4L (Seed Fam-1 Complex) to protect nearby abadios & agricultural land in Left side of Sutlej River.	Ludhiana	16534248
32.	Desilting of River Sutlej in between RD 65000-66000 of 4L (Manewal Complex) to protect	Ludhiana	1611074

¶32

¶33

	nearby abadies & agricultural landin LeftsideofSutlej River
33.	. Desilting of river sutlej in Village Sasrali-2 to protect nearby abadies & agricultural land	Ludhiana	23580018
34.	Desilting of river sutlej in Village Kasabad to protect nearby abadies & agricultural land	Ludhiana	22298265
35.	Desilting of river sutlej in Village Garhi Fazil, Jhunglan, Sekhowal-2 to protect nearby abadies & agricultural land	Ludhiana/SBS Nagar	39458925
36.	Desilting of River Budhki from RD 22000-24900 to save abadies and cultivated land village khairabad, District _Ropar _	Rupnagar	55448338.18
37.	Desilting of Siswan river from RD 1680 to 2670 and 30000 to 4410 meters (excluding forest reach) by constructing a cunnette width of 200 feet and strengthening bundhs to cesign specifications to protect Villages Khijarpur, Mauzdiapur, Khalilpur, Ranga, Chupki, and Karkhana Bela from floods in the upcoming monsoon season 2025 and for disposal of surplus material.	Rupnagar	28248000
38.	Desilting of Sarsa Nadi to save abadies and cultivated land of Villages Kotbala, Aaspur, Majri, Awankot, Taraf, District Ropar from RD 0 to RD 10500.	Rupnagar	15714927.36
39.	Desilting of river Sutlej from village in between Bella karkhana to phassa to protect nearby abadies & agricultural land of tehsil Chamkaur sahib _indistt ropar _	Rupnagar	351334500
40.	Desilting of mehngrowal choe near village takhni, bassi wahid and chak gujran	Hoshiarpur	706200
41.	Desilting of chabbewal choe near village chak sadhu, Dhirowalandbassijamalkhan	Hoshiarpur	1059300
42.	Desilting and removal of riverbed material from Village Dharmkot pattan to Mansura to eliminate drainage congestion and protect nearby residential areas and agricultural lands from potential flooding and erosion.	Gurdaspur	26482500

¶34

¶35

43.	Desilting on right side of River Sutlej near Village Hastan Kalan in District Fazilka	Fazilka	9710250
44.	Desilting on right side of River Sutlej near Village Kawanwali and Mahatam Nagar in District Fazilka	Fazilka	2648250
45.	Desilting and removal of riverbed material from Village chak ram sahai to eliminate drainage congestion and protect nearby residential areas and agricultural lands from potential flooding and erosion.	Gurdaspur	10593000
46.	Desilting of river siswan near village slamipur, Malakpur and Bahalpur to increase its water carriage capacity	SAS Nagar	9894180.8
47.	Desilting of River Satluj near village Wara kaliroun (left side) _Tehsil zira Distt Ferozepur _	Ferozepur	22068750
48.	Desilting of River Satluj near village Wara kaliroun (Right _side) Tehsilzira Distt Ferozepur _	Ferozepur	24717000
49.	Desilting of River Satluj near village Ruknewala kalan teh zira	Ferozepur	15448125
50.	Desilting of River sutlej near village Bundala & chak khanna (Right Side)	Ferozepur/Mog a	26508982.5
51.	Desilting of River sutlej near village chakk khanna (left side)	Ferozepur	12358500
52.	Desilting and removal of riverbed material from Village chechian chorian to eliminate drainage congestion and protect nearby residential areas and agricultural lands from potential flooding and erosion.	Gurdaspur	12711600
53.	Desilting and removal of riverbed material from Village sidhpur to eliminate drainage congestion and protect nearby residential areas and agricultural lands from potential flooding and erosion.	Gurdaspur	35310000
54.	Desilting and removal of riverbed material from Village Gulelra to eliminate drainage congestion and protect nearby residential areas and agricultural lands from potential flooding and erosion.	Gurdaspur	5649600
55.	Desilting and removal of riverbed material from Village bhainipaswal to eliminate	Gurdaspur	4519680

¶36

¶37

	drainage congestion and protect nearby residential areas and agricultural lands from potential flooding and erosion.
56.	Desilting and removal of riverbed material from Village Mochpur to eliminate drainage congestion and protect nearby residential areas and agricultural lands from potentialfloodinganderosion	Gurdaspur	10593000
57.	. Desilting and removal of riverbed material from Village fattu barkat to eliminate drainage congestion and protect nearby residential areas and agricultural lands from potential flooding and erosion.	Gurdaspur	8474400
58.	Desilting and removal of riverbed material from Village Bahadurpur Rajoa to eliminate drainage congestion and protect nearby residential areas and agricultural lands from potential flooding and erosion.	Gurdaspur	14124000
59.	Desilting and removal of riverbed material from Village Rampur Talwara to eliminate drainage congestion and protect nearby residential areas and agricultural lands from potential flooding and	Gurdaspur	14124000
	erosion.
60.	Desilting and removal of riverbed material from Village toor/Raji beli to eliminate drainage congestion and protect nearby residential areas and agricultural lands from potential flooding and erosion.	Gurdaspur	11299200
61.	Desilting and removal of riverbed material from Village Marara to eliminate drainage congestion and protect nearby residential areas and agricultural lands from	Gurdaspur	7062000
	potential floodinganderosion.
62.	"Desilting and removal of riverbed material from Village kishanpur/moth sarai to eliminate drainage congestion and protect nearby residential areas and agricultural lands	Gurdaspur

¶38

¶39

	from potential flooding and erosion.
63.	Desilting and removal of riverbed material from River Ghaggar to eliminate drainage congestion and protect nearby residential areas and agricultural lands Near village Bhallanwara, tehsil _Sardulgarh, Distt, Mans_a	Mansa	1059300
64.	Desilting and removal of riverbed material from River Ghaggar to climinate drainage congestion and protect nearby residential areas and agricultural lands Near village Phoss Mandi and Mirpur khurd, tehsil Sardulgarh, Distt. Mansa	Mansa	1059300
65.	Desilting and removal of riverbed material from River Ghaggar to eliminate drainage congestion and protect nearby residential areas and agricultural lands Near steel foot bridge city and tehsil	Mansa	1059300
	Sardulgarh, Distt, Mansa
66.	Desilting of River Ghaggar to protect nearby residential areas and agricultural lands D/S of bridge at RD 304700 in village Dhingana and Bhagwaanpur Hingna, Ahlupur Tehsil Sardulgarh, Distt. Mansa	Mansa	1977360
67.	Desilting of River Ghaggar to protect nearby residential areas and agricultural lands in village Sardulewala Tehsil Sardularh Distt Mansa	Mansa	2118600
68.	_g, . _ Desilting and removal of riverbed material from River Beas to eliminate drainage congestion and protect nearby residential areas and agricultural lands Near village Motia Chakki and Beas Confluence), tehsil Mukerian, _Distt, Hoshiarpur _	Hoshiarpur	932184
69.	Desilting and removal of riverbed material from River Beas to eliminate drainage congestion and protect nearby residential areas and agricultural lands Near village Mehtabpur, tehsil Mukerian, _Distt, Hoshiarpur _	Hoshiarpur	1959705
70.	Desilting and removal of riverbed material from River Beas to eliminate drainage	Hoshiarpur	6228684

¶40

¶41

	congestion and protect nearby residential areas and agricultural lands Near village Kalota, tehsil Mukerian, Distt, _Hoshiarpur _
71.	Desilting and removal of riverbed material from River Beas to eliminate drainage congestion and protect nearby resident al areas and agricultural lands Near village Chat, tehsil Mukerian, Distt, _Hoshiarpur _	Hoshiarpur	2891889
72.	Desilting and removal of riverbed material from River Beas to eliminate drainage congestion and protect nearby residential areas and agricultural lands Near village Chakwal tehsil Mukerian, Distt, _Hoshiarpur _	Hoshiarpur	3495690
73.	Desilting and removal of riverbed material from River Beas to eliminate drainage congestion and protect nearby residential areas and agricultural lands Near village Terkiana-Bhikhowal, tehsil _Dasuya Distt Hoshiarpur _	Hoshiarpur	9395991
74.	,, Desalting and removal of riverbed material from River Beas to eliminate drainage congestion and protect nearby residential areas and agricultural lands Near village Begpur, tehsil Dasuya, Distt, _Hoshiarpur _	Hoshiarpur	1504206
75.	Desilting and removal of riverbed material from River Beas to eliminate drainage congestion and protect nearby residential areas and agricultural lands Near village Passi bet, tehsil Dasuya, Distt, _Hoshiarpur _	Hoshiarpur	4449060
76.	Desilting and removal of riverbed material from River Beas to eliminate drainage congestion and protect nearby residential areas and agricultural lands Near village Zahidpur, tehsil Dasuya, Distt, _Hoshiarpur _	Hoshiarpur	3887631
77.	Desilting and removal of riverbed material from River Beas to eliminate drainage congestion and protect nearby _residential _ areas and	Hoshiarpur	4904559

¶42

¶43

	agricultural lands Near village Chak-suleman, tehsil Dasuya. _Distt. I Hoshiarpur _
78.	Desilting and removal of riverbed material from River Beas to eliminate drainage congestion and protect nearby residential areas and agricultural lands Near village Mewa Maini, tehsil Dasuya, _Distt, Hoshiarpur _	Hoshiarpur	56693736
79.	Desilting and removal of riverbed material from River Beas to eliminate drainage congestion and protect nearby residential areas and agricultural fands Near village Bhaini Mirza Khan, tehsil	Hoshiarpur	45263889
	_Tanda, Distt, Hoshiarpur _
80.	Desilting and removal of riverbed material from River Beas to eliminate drainage congestion and protect nearby residential areas and agricultural lands Near village Abdullapur, tehsil Tanda. Distt, _Hoshiarpur _	Hoshiarpur	51153597
81.	Desilting and removal of riverbed material from River Beas to eliminate drainage congestion and protect nearby residential areas and agricultural lands Near village Phatta Kulla, tehsil Tanda, _Distt Hoshiarpur _	Hoshiarpur	76862808
82.	, Desilting and removal of riverbed material from River Beas to eliminate drainage congestion and protect nearby residential areas and agricultural lands Near village Rara & Ganduwal, tehsil _Tanda, Distt, Hoshiarpur _	Hoshiarpur	114658632
83.	Desilting and removal of riverbed material from River Beas to eliminate drainage congestion and protect nearby residential areas and agricultural lands Near village Tahli, tehsil Tanda, Distt, _Hoshiarpur _	Hoshiarpur	45984213
84.	Desilting of River Ghaggar at upstream and downstream of Sarala Syphon to provide the smooth passage of Storm water _flowing in River Ghaggar _	Patiala	522720
85.	Desilting of Pachisdara Nallah _at RD60000 village Kharajpur _	Patiala	248684

¶44

¶45

near NHAI bridge at Rajpura to save nearby abadies and agricultural land.

¶46

In the OA No. 100/2026, the tenders/auction notices dated 19.12.2025, 02.01.2026, 03.01.2026 and 05.01.2026 are under challenged. In OA No. 152/2026, the tenders/auction notices dated 18.10.2025, 02.01.2026 and 07.02.2026 are under challenged. In OA No. 117/2026, the tender/auction notice dated 17.10.2025 is under challenged. In OA No. 169/2026 in addition to raising the issue of commercial mining in the name of desilting the applicant has also challenged Clause-6 of the Notification dated 15.01.2016 issued by the Respondent No. 1 -MoEF&CC.

¶47

The Applicants have challenged the above auction notices by raising the following plea:

¶48

A. The impugned auction notices are systematic attempt of the State for large scale extraction of sand, bajri and soil under the misleading nomenclature of desilting.

¶49

B. Such desilting has direct and irreversible consequences on river morphology, ground water recharge, flood safety, agricultural fertility and the ecological balance of entire river.

¶50

C. The extraction of riverbed material in the name of desilting is being done for commercial purposes. The permit quantified extraction of cubic feet, fixation of reserve prices and bid values, commercial disposal of sale of extracted material, recovery of royalty-linked amounts, deposits towards DMF/EMF and execution through private contractor selected on highest bidder basis establish that the impugned auction notices are for extraction of riverbed material for commercial

¶51

¶52

purposes and it is not a bonafide and genuine desilting exercise for flood mitigation.

¶53

D. The State is using the concept of desilting to facilitate commercial extraction of minor minerals valued at approximately INR 187 crores.

¶54

E. The tenders do not merely permit removal of obstructive silt from active channels, but they quantify extraction volumes, monetise sediment embed royalty economics, provide for landowner compensation and incentivise mechanised excavation within compressed time limit which is dehors the concept of desilting for flood mitigation purposes, instead it is a revenue-oriented mining regime in the name of desilting.

¶55

F. It is a colourable exercise of power that treats rivers, floodplains and fertile agricultural lands as a source of saleable mineral wealth

¶56

G. The impugned notices have been issued without obtaining prior environmental clearance under the EIA Notification, 2006 though the impugned notification permit extraction and sale of minor minerals.

¶57

H. Issuance of tenders first and pursuing of environmental and forest approval thereafter amounts to impermissible ex-post facto clearance by fait accompli, which has been repeatedly condemned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the National Green Tribunal.

¶58

I. The impugned auction notices are in violation of the provisions of the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 and the Enforcement & Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020. These guidelines do not treat sand mining as removal of riverbed material as a routine administrative

¶59

¶60

activity, but as an environmentally sensitive operation requiring strict scientific and procedural safeguards, such as, preparation and finalisation of district survey report identifying river stretches, replenishment studies to ascertain permissible quantities, carrying capacity evaluation, cumulative impact analysis of multiple sites within the same river stretch, geo-referenced demarcation of sites with precise coordinates, depth restrictions and environmental clearance. Ignoring these aspects, the State of Punjab has directly issued the impugned auction notices/tenders.

¶61

J. The scientific study conducted by the IIT, Ropar has disclosed that sand and bajri in Punjab rivers are largely nonreplenishing or replenish at rates far lower than volumes proposed for extraction by the State. The quantities permitted to be extracted in the impugned tender notices are grossly disproportionate to the natural replenishment capacity of the rivers which will alter river morphology by deepening riverbeds, disconnecting rivers from their floodplains, destabilising embankments and bridge foundations and disrupting natural groundwater recharge processes which will lead to increased flow velocity, aggravated downstream flooding and long-term ecological collapse of river systems in Punjab.

¶62

K. The tender schedules in the impugned auction notices permit execution of desilting/mining work during the monsoon season which is expressly prohibited under the Sustainable Sand Mining Guidelines, 2016 and EMGSM-2020.

¶63

L. The impugned tender notices do not disclose latitude - longitude coordinates, KML files, geo-referenced maps, precise

¶64

¶65

site boundaries or depth limits of the proposed desilting/mining locations, but vaguely gives khasra numbers without specifying the nature of land, i.e., riverbed, floodplain, agricultural land, village commons, etc. and without specifying actual area and extent of excavation proposed which facilitates contractors to expand excavation beyond intended areas and encroach upon the agricultural fields and flood plains.

¶66

M. There is no scientific definition of silt provided, nor any protocol prescribed to distinguish silt from sand or bajri. The provision for payment of landowner compensation at approximately INR 2 per cubic foot reflects compensation rates payable in lawful commercial mining operations. Simultaneously, royalty notified at INR 3.50 per cubic foot vide notification dated 30.04.2025 is effectively embedded within the tender economics through reserve prices and bid structures. Such financial arrangements have been embedded in the auction exercise as a deliberate attempt to camouflage royalty recovery and bypass compliance with mining laws.

¶67

N. The scheme titled “ Mera Khet, Meri Ret / Jisda Khet, Ohdi Ret ” was adopted as a one-time flood relief measure, strictly limited to restoration of agricultural lands affected by floods and to be executed by landowners themselves. The scheme has expired on 31.12.2025 and the requisite exercise has already been taken place. Therefore, these auction notices are merely an exercise of commercial extraction of sand from the riverbed bypassing the regulatory mechanism.

¶68

The above issues gain significance because OA No. 100/2026 has been filed by the Gram Panchayat Galhri which is representing the villages located downstream of the riverine, floodplain and drainage covered by the

¶69

¶70

impugned tender/auction notices. It is disclosed that residents of these villages are predominantly agriculturists and will be directly affected if any irreversible ecological harm in the name of desilting is done to the riverine system. Under the Panchayati Raj framework, the Village Panchayat has the responsibility of protecting the village commons, water bodies and natural resources.

¶71

The Tribunal having regard to the issue involved in the OA and considering the earlier orders passed on the issue had passed the following interim order on 11.02.2026 in OA No. 100/2026:

¶72

“10. Till the next date of hearing though the tender proceedings will proceed but the work of desilting will not be commenced without the leave of the Tribunal.”

¶73

Similar interim orders were passed in the connected OA’s also.

¶74

The above interim order passed on 11.02.2026 was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the State of Punjab in Civil Appeal No. 2493/2026 which was disposed of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the order dated 26.02.2026 without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter permitting the State to mention all the facts before the Tribunal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had passed the following order on 26.02.2026 in Civil Appeal No. 2493/2026:

¶75

“1. The State of Punjab is in appeal before us against an interlocutory order dated 11.02.2026 passed by the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (in short, the “Tribunal”). Vide this order, the Tribunal has issued interim directions that, though the tender proceedings will proceed, the work of desilting will not be commenced without the leave of the Tribunal. This order is challenged in the backdrop that on an earlier occasion, a purported PIL was filed before the High Court in which an ad interim stay against the desilting process was obtained, but after the facts were brought to the notice of the High Court, the stay order was vacated on 19.09.2025, even though the PIL proceedings are still pending before the High Court. In a way, it is alleged that there is an attempt at forum shopping to stall the desilting process initiated by the State.

¶76

¶77

2. We have heard learned Senior Counsel for the State of Punjab.

¶78

3. In view of the liberty granted in paragraph 10 of the impugned order, it seems to us that the appellant–State should firstly approach the Tribunal seeking: (i) preponement of the hearing; and (ii) vacation of stay.

¶79

4. The State will be well advised to mention all the facts in its application, including the previous attempt to secure a stay from the High Court in PIL proceedings. Owing to the nature of urgency, coupled with the plea that the desilting exercise for the dredging of rivers/dams/water bodies is already ongoing, we request the Tribunal to pass an appropriate order on the State’s application as early as possible and preferably within a week from the date of its filing.

¶80

5. We, however, hasten to add that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits at this stage.

¶81

6. Liberty is granted to the appellant to approach this Court again, if so required, after the passing of orders by the Tribunal.

¶82

7. The appeal is disposed of with liberty as aforesaid.”

¶83

Preliminary Objection:- Jurisdictional Issue

¶84

The Counsel for State of Punjab has raised the preliminary objection that PIL No. 130/2024 and PIL No. 184/2025 (O&M) and connected PILs involving the same issue are pending before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, therefore, the Tribunal should not exercise the parallel jurisdiction. In support of such a plea, learned Counsel for the State of Punjab has placed reliance upon the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the matter of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Raghu Ramakrishna Raju Kanumuru (M.P) dated 01.06.2022 passed in Civil Appeal No. 45224524/2022.

¶85

Opposing the said preliminary objection, the submission of Counsel for the Applicant is that those PILs are in respect of old auction notices which have already been worked out and it is a fresh exercise which has been undertaken by the State of Punjab and none of the auction notices which are under challenge in these OAs are subject matter of challenge before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

¶86

¶87

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties on the issue of preliminary objection, it is noticed that the Applicants in these original applications have challenged the auction notices which have been issued in pursuance to the decisions/notification dated 16.10.2025 for desilting of 85 sites identified by the Department of Water Resources, Govt. of Punjab. It is the admitted position on record that none of the auction notices issued in pursuance to the decision/notification dated 16.10.2025 in respect of 85 sites are subject matter of challenge in any of the writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The State of Punjab in the IA No. 226/2026 filed in OA No. 100/2026 has admitted this position by pleading as under:

¶88

“2. That pursuant to the queries raised in the present proceedings, the Respondent seeks to place the following factual information on record:

¶89

i. With respect to 85 tenders released by the Government of Punjab through the Irrigation and Waterworks Department:

¶90

a. Out of the total 85 tenders, 47 tenders have been floated and 38 tenders are yet to be floated.

¶91

b. All the floated tenders have been issued after 19.09.2025, i.e., after the Order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab in Sehajpreet Singh v. Union of India [CWP-PIL-184-2025 (O&M)].

¶92

c. Out of 85 sites, no site overlaps with CWP-PIL-184-2025. However, 5 number sites of PIL 184 of Jalandhar district are proposed to be allocated to NHAI on nomination basis. However, the same are kept on hold in compliance with the orders passed by the Hon'ble NGT. With respect to the status of tenders in light of the stay Orders passed by the Hon’ble NGT.

¶93

a. Out of the said 85 sites, 32 tenders were opened prior to the stay Orders dated 11.02.2026, 17.02.2026 and 26.02.2026 passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal.

¶94

b. 38 tenders are yet to be floated and 15 tenders are yet to be opened.

¶95

c. It is further submitted that Letter of Acceptance (LOA) for 1 site was issued inadvertently, however, no work has

¶96

¶97

been executed at the said site in view of the orders of this Hon’ble

¶98

ii. With respect to the stage of tender processes:

¶99

a. 15 tenders are yet to be opened.

¶100

b. 7 tenders have reached the stage where rates have been approved and are presently at the agreement stage.

¶101

c. It is submitted that no separate agreements are executed for disposal of desilted material, as the process of disposal forms part of the Detailed Project Report (DPR), on the basis of which the tenders have been invited.

¶102

iii. With respect to utilisation of tender monies:

¶103

a. At present, the tender monies are being deposited in the State Treasury.

¶104

b. It is submitted that flood protection works are presently being carried out across the State at Government cost, and the revenue generated from desilting tenders is intended to supplement/support the expenditure incurred by the State on such flood protection works.

¶105

iv. With respect to compliance of Sustainable Sand Management Guidelines, 2023:

¶106

It is submitted that all Detailed Project Reports (DPRs) pertaining to the desilting works have been prepared and approved in accordance with the guidelines issued under the National Framework for Sediment Management, 2023.”

¶107

The issue raised in these original applications by the Applicant is that by the impugned auction notices, the State is intending to do the desilting work for the commercial purposes without obtaining prior environmental clearance in terms of the EIA Notification, 2006 which is not permissible in law. Since none of these auction notices are under challenge before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, therefore, pendency of the writ petitions/PILs challenging the earlier auction notices will not come in the way of hearing of the present OAs, even though the earlier auction notices were also challenged on the ground.

¶108

It is also noticed that the writ petitioner in the connected OA No. 169/2026 had earlier filed CWP-PIL No. 255/2024 challenging the action

¶109

¶110

of the State and the Notification dated 15.01.2016 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh and the Division Bench of the High Court by the order dated 24.01.2025 had declined to interfere on merits and relegated the petitioner to avail his remedy before the NGT by observing as under:

¶111

“xxx ……………………………….xxx………………………………………xxx 2. After having heard learned counsel for the rival parties at length on the question of admission, this Court is of the considered view that the above said subject relates to the issue of environment and disputes arising out of interpretation of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Rules framed there-under. The causes arising out of the enforcement of any legal right relating to environment, including any of the enactments mentioned in Schedule I of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, lie within exclusive domain of the National Green Tribunal ('NGT', for brevity) to be adjudicated.

¶112

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon decision of the Apex Court in the case of L Chandra Kumar v. UOI, reported in 1997 (3) SCC 261, to contend that the power of judicial review is not ousted even when the NGT is functional in respect of environment matters.

¶113

4. There is no dispute as regards the law laid down by Apex Court in L Chandra Kumar's case (supra), but the propriety demands that when an expert body created by the statute, i.e. NGT, is functional, this Court in its limited power of judicial review should not entertain the issues pertaining to environment, which exclusively lie within domain of the NGT.

¶114

5. In view of the above, this Court declines to interfere on merits and relegates the petitioner to avail his remedy before the NGT.

¶115

6. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.”

¶116

The Applicant has also pointed out that the CWP No. 33185/2025 was filed by one of the aggrieved persons with the action of the State objecting to the desilting was permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the Tribunal recording that the similar issues are already engaging the attention of the NGT. That apart, undisputedly such an issue falls within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal covered by the scheduled enactment specially the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 under which the EIA Notification, 2006 has been issued.

¶117

¶118

Thus, we are of the view that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to examine the issue involved in these OAs and the pendency of the PILs before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana involving different auction notices for other periods will not come in the way of examining the issue raised at the instance of the present Applicant.

¶119

IA No. 161/2026 and IA No. 226/2026:

¶120

After the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the State of Punjab had filed IA No. 161/2026 seeking vacating/modification of the interim order dated 11.02.2026. The Respondents No. 3 to 9 - concerned authorities of State of Punjab thereafter have filed IA No. 226/2026 seeking permission to bring on record the additional documents.

¶121

That the pleadings in the OA have not been complete till now, therefore, IA No. 161/2026 filed in OA No. 100/2026 with the prayer to vacate/suitably modify the interim direction dated 11.02.2026 is being decided by this order.

¶122

The EIA Notification, 2006:

¶123

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on the perusal of the record, it is noticed that the Applicant has raised a serious issue relating to compliance of the environmental norms. Mining within or near riverbed effects the stream’s physical characteristics, such as channel geometry, bed elevation, substratum composition and stability. Therefore, there is a strict regulatory mechanism for controlling the sand mining.

¶124

The EIA Notification, 2006 was issued under the provision of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 providing for prior environment impact assessment and environmental clearance (EC) in respect of the projects and activities which were covered in schedule to the notification. Mining of mineral is one of the activities which is covered by the EIA notification. The capital dredging

¶125

¶126

inside and outside the ports, harbours and channels are covered by virtue of clause-7(e) of Schedule to the EIA notification and only the maintenance dredging is exempted. Clause-7(e) of Schedule to the Notification provides

¶127

as under:

¶128

(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)
7(e)	“Ports, harbours, break waters, dredging.”	≥ 5 million TPA of cargo handling capacity (excluding fishing harbours)	< 5 million TPA of cargo handling capacity and/or ports/ harbours ≥10,000 TPA of fish handling capacity	V “General Condition shall apply. Note: 1. Capital dredging inside and outside the ports or harbors and channels are included; 2. Maintenance dredging is exempt provided it formed part of the original proposal for which Environment Management Plan (EMP) was prepared and environmental clearance _obtained.” _

¶129

19. Under the last column of above clause 7(e) only maintenance dredging is exempted.

¶130

Clause-I(a) of the Schedule to the EIA Notification covers mining of minerals and mining lease area of 50 hectare or more falls in category-A and 5 hectares to 50 hectares falls in category-B for requirement of EC. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Deepak Kumar vs. State of Haryana & Ors. , reported in (2012) 4 SCC 629 has mandated prior environmental clearance for mining of minor minerals irrespective of area of mining lease to regulate mining of minor minerals with a view to provide procedure and authority for grant of environmental clearance for sand mining.

¶131

¶132

By virtue of the amendment notification Appendix-X has been added in EIA Notification, 2006 providing for the detailed procedure for preparing the DSR which is the pre-requisite for permitting sand mining. The strict regulatory regime under the EIA Notification, 2006 has been provided for sand mining to prevent illegal extraction of sand as it has serious effect on the river ecology.

¶133

The EIA Notification, 2006 was also amended and Appendix-IX incorporated providing for the cases which are exempted from requirement of prior environmental clearance. Clause-7 of Appendix-IX states that:

¶134

“7. dredging and de-silting of dams, reservoirs, weirs, barrages, river and canals for the purpose of their maintenance, upkeep and disaster management are exempted”.

¶135

The above clause grants exemption to dredging and desilting of dams, rivers, etc. for the limited purpose of “maintenance, upkeep and disaster management”. It does not permit any kind of commercial sand mining or desilting or dredging for the commercial purposes.

¶136

Sustainable Sand Mining Guidelines, 2016 :

¶137

The Sustainable Sand Mining Guidelines, 2016 have been issued by the MoEF&CC which provide the relevant consideration to be kept in mind for sand and gravel mining. If these guidelines lay emphasis on prudent management of river resources prescribe the following process:

¶138

“The Processes under the Guidelines:

¶139

(a) Identification of areas of aggradation / deposition where mining can be allowed; and identification of areas of erosion and proximity to infrastructural structures and installations where mining should be prohibited. Use of satellite imagery for identifying areas of sand deposit and quantity be done.

¶140

(b) Calculation of annual rate of replenishment and allowing time for replenishment after mining in area.

¶141

(c) Identifying ways of scientific and systematic mining. (d) Identifying measures for protection of environment and ecology.

¶142

¶143

(e) Determining measures for protection of bank erosion.

¶144

(f) A bench mark (BM) with respect to mean sea level (MSL) should be made essential to inmining channel reaches (MCR). Below which no mining shall be allowed.

¶145

(g) Identifying steps for conservation of mineral.

¶146

(h) Permanent gauging facilities (for discharge and sediment both) should be made compulsory for the sites having excessive mining in consultation with Central Water Commission or any competent State Agency.

¶147

(i) Implementing safeguards for checking illegal and indiscrete mining.”

¶148

The SSMG-2016 provide for following relevant consideration to be kept in mind for sand and gravel mining:

¶149

“Following considerations should be kept in mind for sand / gravel mining:

¶150

a) Parts of the river reach that experience deposition or aggradation shall be identified first. The Lease holder/ Environmental Clearance holder may be allowed to extract the sand and gravel deposit in these locations to manage aggradation problem.

¶151

b) The distance between sites for sand and gravel mining shall depend on the replenishment rate of the river. Sediment rating curve for the potential sites shall be developed and checked against the extracted volumes of sand and gravel.

¶152

c) Sand and gravel may be extracted across the entire active channel during the dry season.

¶153

d) Abandoned stream channels on terrace and inactive floodplains be preferred rather than active channels and their deltas and flood plains. Stream should not be diverted to form inactive channel.

¶154

e) Layers of sand and gravel which could be removed from the river bed shall depend on the width of the river and replenishment rate of the river.

¶155

f) Sand and gravel shall not be allowed to be extracted where erosion may occur, such as at the concave bank.

¶156

g) Segments of braided river system should be used preferably falling within the lateral migration area of the river regime that enhances the feasibility of sediment replenishment.

¶157

h) Sand and gravel shall not be extracted within 200 to 500 meter from any crucial hydraulic structure such as pumping station, water intakes, and bridges. The exact distance should be ascertained by the local authorities based on local situation. The cross-section survey should cover a minimum distance of 1.0 km

¶158

¶159

upstream and 1.0 km downstream of the potential reach for extraction. The sediment sampling should include the bed material and bed material load before, during and after extraction period. Develop a sediment rating curve at the upstream end of the potential reach using the surveyed cross- section. Using the historical or gauged flow rating curve, determine the suitable period of high flow that can replenish the extracted volume. Calculate the extraction volume based on the sediment rating curve and high flow period after determining the allowable mining depth.

¶160

i) Sand and gravel could be extracted from the downstream of the sand bar at river bends. Retaining the upstream one to two thirds of the bar and riparian vegetation is accepted as a method to promote channel stability.

¶161

j) Flood discharge capacity of the river could be maintained in areas where there are significant flood hazard to existing structures or infrastructure. Sand and gravel mining may be allowed to maintain the natural flow capacity based on surveyed crosssection history.

¶162

k) Alternatively, off-channel or floodplain extraction is recommended to allow rivers to replenish the quantity taken out during mining.

¶163

l) The Piedmont Zone (Bhabhar area) particularly in the Himalayan foothills, where riverbed material is mined, this sandy-gravelly track constitutes excellent conduits and holds the greater potential for ground water recharge. Mining in such areas should be preferred in locations selected away from the channel bank stretches.

¶164

m) Mining depth should be restricted to 3 meter and distance from the bank should be 3 meter or 10 percent of the river width whichever less.”

¶165

The Sustainable Sand Mining Guidelines, 2016 contains in detail the riverbed mining recommendations, off-Channel or Floodplain Extraction Recommendations, the extraction methods, the reclamation plans. For convenience only the sub-heads of these recommendations are noted

¶166

below:

¶167

“1. River Bed Mining Recommendations:

¶168

a) Permit Mining Volume Based on Measured Annual Replenishment.

¶169

b) Establish an Absolute Elevation below Which No Extraction May Occur (Minimum Enveloped Level or Redline).

¶170

c) Limit River Bed Extraction Methods to Bar Skimming.

¶171

d) Extract Sand and Gravel from the Downstream Portion of the Bar.

¶172

e) Concentrate Activities to Minimise Disturbance.

¶173

f) Review Cumulative Effects of Sand and Gravel Extraction.

¶174

¶175

g) Maintain Flood Capacity. h) Establish a Long-term Monitoring Program. i) Minimise Activities That Release Fine Sediment to the River.

¶176

j) Retain Vegetation Buffer at Edge of Water and Against River Bank.

¶177

k) The River Bed mining should only be allowed during the dry season.

¶178

l) An Annual Status and Trends Report.

¶179

2. Off-Channel or Floodplain Extraction Recommendations

¶180

a) Floodplain Extraction should be set back from the Main Channel

¶181

b) The maximum depth of Floodplain Extraction should remain above the Channel Thalweg

¶182

c) Side Slopes of Floodplain Excavation Should Range from 3:1 to 10:1

¶183

d) Place Stockpiled Topsoil above the 25-year Return Period or ARI Level

¶184

e) Floodplain Pits Should Be Restored to Wetland Habitat or Reclaimed for Agriculture

¶185

f) Establish a Long-term Monitoring Program

¶186

g) An Annual Status and Trends Report

¶187

3. Extraction Methods

¶188

The important methods of sand and gravel mining operations are as below:

¶189

a) Bar scalping or skimming b) Dry-Pit Channel Mining

¶190

c) Wet-Pit Channel Mining d) Bar Excavation

¶191

e) Channel-wide River bed Mining

¶192

4. Reclamation Plans Reclamation

¶193

plans should include:

¶194

a) A baseline survey consisting of existing condition crosssection data: Cross-sections must be surveyed between two documented endpoints set back from the top of bank, and elevations should be referenced to bench mark;

¶195

b) The proposed mining cross-section data should be plotted over the baseline data to illustrate the vertical extent of the proposed excavation;

¶196

c) The cross-section of the replenished bar should be the same as the baseline data. This illustrates that the bar elevation after the bar is replenished will be the same as the bar before extraction;

¶197

d) A planimetric map showing the aerial extent of the excavation and extent of the riparian buffers;

¶198

e) A planting plan developed by a plant ecologist familiar with the flora of the river for any areas such as roads that need to be restored;

¶199

f) A monitoring plan: The appropriate reclamation plans can turn river-bed and floodplain sand and gravel mining operations into something perceived by the public as desirable.”

¶200

¶201

For permitting the sand mining it is prerequisite to have the replenishment study and District Survey Report. Thus, for sand mining the EIA Notification, 2006 also applies and environmental clearance is necessary. Appendix-X to the EIA Notification, 2006 contains procedure for preparation of district survey report and Appendix-XI provides the procedure for environmental clearance for mining of minor minerals including cluster. Hence, if the Court comes to the conclusion that in the garb of dredging and desilting the State of Punjab while issuing the impugned auction notices has in fact adopted a route for commercial sand mining bypassing the regulatory mechanism of prior environmental impact assessment and environmental clearance then such an exercise would be a colourable exercise of power impermissible in law.

¶202

The SSMG, 2016 separately provide for the desilting of reservoirs, barrages, lakes, canals, etc. to the following effect:

¶203

“These structures are generally in possession and maintenance of Irrigation Department / Minor Irrigation Department / PHED of State Governments. The dams and reservoirs can be a significant source of sand. Many such structures are silted and their water holding capacity has gone down considerably. In some instances to compensate for silted capacity raising of height of dam or construction of new structures is proposed which further leads to submergence of new areas of agricultural field and forests. Taking up desilting of such projects can serve dual purpose of increasing the water holding capacity and making available the sand for other usage. In some States the Irrigation Department is permitted to use it for the departmental works free of charge and balance can be disposed of in market after paying the due royalty. A detailed study is required to be carried out to verify economic viability and environmental sustainability before contemplating dredging of storage reservoirs for sand / gravel mining.

¶204

The de-silting of reservoir, dredging for upkeep and maintenance of structures, channels and averting natural disasters will not be treated as mining for the purpose of environmental clearance.

¶205

The Ministry of Water Resources (MoWR) view on desiltation from flood control point of view is as follows:

¶206

A multidisciplinary Committee (Mittal Committee) under the chairmanship of Dr. B.K. Mittal, former Chairman, Central Water Commission was constituted by MoWR, vide letter dated 08.10.2001 to identify cause and extent of siltations in rivers, suggest measures

¶207

¶208

to minimize siltation, examine as to whether desilting is a technically feasible means to minimize magnitude of flood in rivers, suggest appropriate technology/ methods of desilting of rivers, propose a realistic operational programme in a time bound manner and other related aspects. The committee studied in respect of few sites on Ganga, Brahmputra, Godavari, Krishna etc., and inter-alia concluded that:

¶209

i) Siltation in river is not pronounced and alarming;

¶210

ii) Desilting of rivers for flood control is not an economically viable solution;

¶211

iii) Dredging in general has been found to be inadequate and should not be resorted to, particularly in major rivers;

¶212

iv) There are, of course, some locations such as tidal rivers, confluence points with narrow constrictions and the like which can be tackled by desilting after thorough examination and techno-economic justification;

¶213

v) Selective dredging is suggested depending upon local conditions; and

¶214

vi) Desilting of rivers can marginally minimize the magnitude of floods and be effective only for a short period.

¶215

Thus, desilting in general is not feasible technically, due to several reasons like non-sustainability, non- availability of vast land required for disposal of dredged material etc. This cannot be viewed in isolation of other approaches to manage floods. Desilting of rivers in vulnerable reaches may be suggested based on model study, if it is found techno-economically viable. For navigation purposes, the river reaches in the water ways path may be dredged to have minimum depth of water.”

¶216

The above guidelines mainly provide for desilting and dredging of dams and reservoirs. It specifically notes that the siltation in river is not pronounced and alarming and desilting of rivers for flood control is not an economically viable solution and dredging should not be resorted to, particularly in major rivers.

¶217

National Framework for Sediment Management :

¶218

The Government of India, Ministry of Jal Shakti has also issued National Framework for Sediment Management (NFSM). Clause 2.2 of NFSM relates to the sediment management in river and provide for as many as nine principles which are required to be followed for sediment management of Indian rivers as under:

¶219

¶220

“ 2.2 Sediment Management in Rivers

¶221

The following basic principles should be followed for sediment management of Indian rivers:-

¶222

1. Sediment management should become a part of integrated river basin management plan. Regular sediment budgeting for all basins should be done especially which are affected by heavy siltation problem.

¶223

2. Removal of sediments from river bed may help in channelization of river flow during the lean season and improve the navigability, but will not have any considerable effect on flood levels.

¶224

3. There is natural deposition of sediments upstream of any barrage, but this attains equilibrium after few years. Desiltation in upstream of a barrage may be taken for channelization of stream flow. However proper operation of Gates should be ensured for reducing sediment deposition in the upstream of the Barrages/Wier.

¶225

4. Urbanization and infrastructure development works like buildings, roads, embankments etc. require large amount of sediment. The quantity of sediment removed in such cases from the river shall be limited to the extent to which it does not harm the ecology of river or gainfully utilized in developmental works, whichever amount is less. Exploitable quantity should be determined "a-priori" and the reach should be monitored for excessive exploitative practices.

¶226

5. There is a need to pursue the de-siltation/dredging schemes with utmost care backed by scientific study, including simulations through mathematical and/or physical model study at appropriate scales and employing consistent formulations applicable to the given site. Mathematical and/or physical model study is exempted for dredging/desiltation carried out for navigation purpose by Inland Waterways Authority of India.

¶227

6. If necessary, permanent observation stations may be opened for collecting data such as cross-section, hydrological observation etc. This should be coupled with periodic monitoring of various morphological changes with space technology such as formation of shoals, meandering tendency of the river, effect of construction of hydraulic structures, damages to the bank, effect of afforestation/ deforestation and tectonic occurrences. Data sharing mechanism is to be established in case of an inter-state river.

¶228

7. Different approaches of sediment management may be resorted to in rivers depending upon the stages of the river. The details of the same, along with some other management strategies are given in Annexure-II.

¶229

8. Sediment management action must follow best practices to minimize damage to the environment and river morphology. Restriction details for de-siltation/dredging are placed at Annexure-III.

¶230

¶231

9. In case, if it is not possible to utilise sediment removed by dredging/de-silting of rivers; a proper utilisation/disposal plan needs to be prepared, with the consideration that it does not create any environmental, ecological and social issues.”

¶232

The above clause clearly states that removal of sediments from riverbed will not have any considerable effect on flood levels. It further cautions that the quantity of sediment removed from the river should be limited to the extent which does not harm the ecology of the river or can be gainfully utilised in development work whichever is less and desilting/dredging schemes should be backed by scientific study.

¶233

The Clause 2.2.1 of the NFSM clearly states that desilting of rivers for flood control is not economically viable solution and dredging should not be resorted to particularly in major river. Clause 2.2.1 of the NFSM reads as under:

¶234

“ 2.2.1 Effect of De-siltation in Reducing Floods

¶235

In general, de-silting of rivers does significantly affect flood levels. In this regard, it is mentioned that the Mittal Committee was constituted by the erstwhile Ministry of Water Resources in the year 2001, under the Chairmanship of Dr. B.K. Mittal, Former Chairman, Central Water Commission. The main objectives of the Committee were to identify the cause and extent of siltation in rivers, to suggest measures to minimize siltation, to examine as to whether de-silting is a technically feasible means to minimize magnitude of floods in rivers, to suggest appropriate technology/ methods of de-silting of rivers, to propose a realistic operational programme in a time-bound manner and other related aspects. The findings/recommendations of the Committee were as follows:

¶236

(i) De-silting of rivers for flood control is not an economically viable solution;

¶237

(ii) Dredging in general has been found to be inadequate and should not be resorted to, particularly in major rivers;

¶238

(iii) There are, of course, some locations such as tidal rivers, confluence points with narrow constrictions and the like which can be tackled by de-silting after thorough examination and techno-economic justification;

¶239

(iv) Selective dredging is suggested depending upon local conditions; and

¶240

(v) De-silting of rivers can marginally minimize the magnitude of floods and be effective only for a short period.

¶241

¶242

However, selective need-based dredging of certain reaches of rivers coupled with structural and non-structural measures may be considered in order to protect habitation, agriculture land, airports, industrial and institutional installations etc.”

¶243

Clause 2.2.3 of the NFSM recognises the possibility of extracting sand from sediment and possibility of revenue generation in such cases.

¶244

Clause-4 of NFSM provides for environmental and social safeguards noting that desilting of existing reservoirs is associated with environment and social risk. Accordingly, it requires a proper feasibility report alongwith environment management plan to dispose the silt. Clause-4 of the NFSM reads as under:

¶245

“4.0 ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIAL SAFEGUARDS

¶246

Dredging and de-silting of dams, reservoirs, weirs, barrages, rivers and canals for purpose of their maintenance, upkeep and disaster management is exempted from environment clearance as per S.O.141(E) of MoEF&CC dated 15th January, 2016. However, reservoir sediment management methods such as by-passing, flushing or de-silting of existing reservoirs are associated with environment & social risks and impacts, which are to be identified based on interventions proposed and locational sensitivity, if any, such as dam/reservoir located in protected area, reservoirs notified as wetlands/bird sanctuaries, etc. and some of the above interventions would involve creation of new infrastructures. In such cases all statutory clearances will be required. Wild life clearance would be applicable if reservoir is in a notified protected area. For structural intervention for sediment by-passing in existing dams or any other activity, if the land required is forest land, diversion of forest land would attract forest clearance process as per Forest Conservation Act, 1980.

¶247

For the de-siltation activity, a proper Feasibility Report along with Environment Management Plan to dispose the silt is required to be prepared as per the guidelines provided in the "Handbook for Assessing and Managing Reservoir Sedimentation", CWC,2019. "Operational Procedures for Assessing and Managing Environmental Impacts in Existing Dam Projects", Central Water Commission, November 2020 with competent level approval of MoEF&CC, can be referred for the environmental and social safeguard issues related to de-silting in the existing dams in context of various statutory and regulatory norms.”

¶248

Clause-5 of the NFSM relates to disposal of dredged/desilted material and provides that appropriate sediment disposal plan should be a part of feasibility report and the dredged material should be disposed of

¶249

¶250

as per the approved Environment Management Plan. Clause-5 of NFSM

¶251

provides as under:

¶252

“ 5.0 DISPOSAL OF DREDGED/DESILTED MATERIALS

¶253

a) The proposal for de-siltation/ dredging activities shall be prepared as per applicable guidelines and prior approval may be taken from concerned agencies to ensure hassle free implementation. River gravels/sands/silts are valuable resource and could be used gainfully in construction works, including housing, roads, embankment and land reclamation activities.

¶254

b) Appropriate sediment disposal plan shall be a part of Feasibility Report along with applicable Environment and Social safeguards. Dredged material shall be disposed as per the approved Environmental Management Plan. It should not contaminate any water body, adverse impact to the flora and fauna existing adjacent to the disposal site(s) etc.

¶255

c) Desilted material should not be used for filling up of wetlands and water bodies including oxbow lakes, as these are important for recharging ground water and providing base flow in rivers during lean season.

¶256

d) In the case of de-silting of reservoirs, regarding applicability and procedures for Environment Clearance, Forest Clearance and Wildlife Clearance, activity listed at Sl. No.18, Table 2.2, can be referred in the “Operational Procedures for Assessing and Managing Environmental Impacts in Existing Dam Projects” CWC, November, 2020. This referred guideline has the competent level approval of MoEF&CC.

¶257

e) NOC from State Pollution Control Board (SPCB)/Union Territory Pollution Control Committee (UTPCC) as well as concerned local authorities is required in advance for disposal site for disposal of dredged materials. Requirement of NOC from State/Union Territory Pollution Control Board and from local authorities for disposal of dredged material is exempted for dredging carried out for navigation purpose by Inland Waterways Authority of India.”

¶258

The details and manner of appraisal of the proposal is provided in Clause-7 of the NFSM as under:

¶259

“ 7.0 APPRAISAL OF THE PROPOSAL

¶260

7.1 Regarding Environmental Clearance of project other than desilting of reservoirs, “Procedure for Environmental Clearance for Mining of Minor Mineral including Cluster”, as enumerated in appendix XI of MOEF&CC Gazette notification no. S.O. 141 (E) dated 15.01.2016 (as amended from time to time) may be followed; including the exemptions. The exemption given in Appendix XI of MOEF&CC Gazette notification regarding dredging and de-silting of dams, reservoirs, weirs, barrages, river and canals will be applicable for purpose of

¶261

¶262

annual/routine maintenance/upkeep and disaster management only.

¶263

7.2 There are instances of sediment removal from dams/rivers for different purposes and activities like for commercial purposes, restoration of storage capacity of reservoirs, channelization of rivers, etc. Such activities generally do not fall under regular maintenance/ upkeep or disaster management and will be governed by this national framework for sediment management.

¶264

7.3 The detailed procedure for appraisal, environmental & other clearances and monitoring of the proposals of sand and gravel mining has been described in the “Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016” of MoEF&CC”.

¶265

Further, the detailed Guidelines for de-silting of reservoirs, its applicability and procedures for Environment Clearance, Forest Clearance, and Wildlife Clearance, activity listed at Sl. No.18, Table 2.2, in the “Operational Procedures for Assessing and Managing Environmental Impacts in Existing Dam Projects” CWC, November, 2020 may also be referred.

¶266

7.4 For de-silting/ dredging of sediment from rivers/ reservoirs; comprehensive DPR may be prepared by the State Authority/ Project authority/ PSU/private company etc. A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) may be constituted by concerned State for appraisal and approval of the DPR for the technoeconomic viability. Concerned regional Chief Engineer of CWC or his representative should be included as one of members of the State TAC. Suggested composition of State TAC is enclosed at Annexure-VI.”

¶267

The above provision shows that the exemption given in Appendix-XI of the EIA Notification regarding dredging, desilting, etc. is applicable for the purpose of annual/routine maintenance/upkeep of disaster management only, but such exemption is not applicable if sediment removal from the dams, rivers is for commercial purposes.

¶268

The NFSM also contains the general guidelines for carrying out desilting/ dredging work in its Annexure-2 concerning approach for sediment management of rivers. These guidelines require preparation of DPR and clearly stipulate that dredging for desilting of Indian rivers should be adopted only in exceptional circumstances. It requires study of navigative impact on ecology and environment due to desilting. It also requires the State to ensure that all the silt removed from the river should

¶269

¶270

be utilised in some work in association with concerned State Government. Hence, the use of sediments for commercial purpose and its sale in the open market may not be permissible in terms of these guidelines. It also required finalisation of modus-operandi for sediment disposal before carrying out the dredging, formulation of suitable and sustainable action plan for sediment disposal as also EIA study in terms of the Notification dated 15.06.2016 to avoid damage to ecology. These guidelines as provided in NFSM are as under:

¶271

“ General Guidelines for carrying out de-siltation/dredging work :

¶272

(i) A study of the river reach may be selected for de-siltation/ dredging by appropriate mathematical and/ or physical model studies by employing consistent practices. Based on the outcome, the DPR may be prepared.

¶273

(ii) Dredging for de-silting of Indian rivers may be adopted only in exceptional circumstances or when no other sustainable alternative is available. However, dredging for maintaining the necessary draft for maintaining the navigation may be done as and where required. However, it shall be ensured that such dredging does not cause any considerable pollution to river water and not harm flora and fauna.

¶274

(iii) The de-silting of any river reach needs to be justified bringing out clearly the flooding caused due to siltation along with technical comparisons of the alternative flood mitigation measures with “do nothing” or “proposed de-silting/ dredging” being other options. It should invariably be associated with sediment flux studies and morphological studies to confirm no significant adverse effect on downstream or upstream reach of the river including the safety and effectiveness of river crossings, water intakes, existing river bank / flood protection measures, etc. Post dredging, sediment flux studies should also be carried out to quantify the amount of silt likely to be deposited in future i.e. Sediment modelling studies for the river may be done before taking up any such project.

¶275

(iv) Negative impact on ecology and environment due to de-silting may also be studied along with other studies and should be invariably made a part of DPR.

¶276

(v) The quantity of sediments needed to be removed from rivers is usually very high. Since it may not be easy to find lands for silt disposal, therefore it should be ensured that all silt removed from river should be utilized in some works in association with concerned state government.

¶277

(vi) The proposal for de-siltation/ dredging work should also contain environmentally acceptable, practically possible silt disposal/

¶278

¶279

utilisation plan. River gravels/sands/silts are valuable resource and could be used gainfully in construction works, including housing, roads, embankment and reclamation works. Since it is very difficult to find lands for silt disposal therefore it should be ensured that all silt removed from river is utilized in some works in association with concerned state governments. However, in the critical cases where it becomes necessary to remove the silt for free flow of water or protection of any installation, action may be taken up with the prior approval of the committee.

¶280

(vii) Under no circumstances, disposal should create any contamination of water bodies, harmful to the flora and fauna existing adjacent to the disposal sites or disposed material should come back into the river again.

¶281

(viii) Desilted material should not be used for filling up of wetlands and water bodies including oxbow lakes, as these are important for recharging the ground water and providing base flow in rivers during lean season.

¶282

(ix) The modus operandi for sediment disposal should be finalized before carrying out dredging. No project should be executed before formulating a suitable and sustainable action plan for sediment disposal and be preceded by EIA Study, as per MoEF& CC notification dated 15.01.2016 to avoid damage to ecology. The methodology to be adopted (say use of dredgers etc.) should be clearly laid down in the proposal so that its co-relation with the environmental hazards can be made.

¶283

(x) Normally, funds required for dredging projects are enormous. Before embarking on a major de-silting operation in any of the rivers, the financial implications may be discussed in detail.

¶284

(xi) The dredging/de-siltation/mining activities thereby disturbing the river regime may result into some adverse impacts, i.e., (a) River bed degradation; (b) Bank erosion; (c) Channel widening; (d) Lowering of water surface elevations in the river channel; (e) Lowering of water table elevations adjacent to the river; (f) Reduction in the structural integrity of bridges, pipelines, jetties, barrages, weirs, foundations supporting high tension lines, existing bank protection works and other man-made structures; and (g) Loss of environmental values resulting from (a) through (e). Restrictions as presented in Annexure III need to be enforced before planning and executing any dredging/ de-silting / mining activities. These restrictions may be modified only after proper study and monitoring the effects of dredging / de-silting / mining.”

¶285

A bare reading of the above general guidelines for carrying out desilting/dredging work clearly reveal that these guidelines have been carefully drafted and since no commercial dredging and desilting is permitted, therefore, requirement of environmentally acceptable and practically possible silt disposal/utilisation plan has been incorporated

¶286

¶287

and it has been provided that the modus-operandi for sediment disposal should be finalised before carrying out dredging and financial implication should be disclosed in detail. Clause (xi) clearly mentions the possible adverse impacts of dredging/desilting/mining activities upon the river regime, therefore, these adverse impacts are required serious consideration when the allegation of colourable exercise of dredging/desilting for extracting the sand for commercial purpose is made.

¶288

Commercial Mining :

¶289

The next issue required consideration for deciding the IA is, if by the impugned auction notices, the exercise of dredging/desilting of rivers is being done for commercial purposes.

¶290

To substantiate allegation of commercial extraction of sand/silt by the auction notices, Counsel for the Applicant has referred to the auction notices and has pointed out that by these auction notices, the bidder is required to submit bid security and there is a reserve price and bid values fixed and the auction notice provide for commercial disposal by way of sale of extracted material, recovery of royalty linked amount and deposit towards DMF/EMF and selection of highest bidder. He submits that if it was not a commercial exercise, the bidder would not have paid these amounts to the State and he would not have been permitted to sell it in the open market.

¶291

It has also been pointed out that in terms of the NFSM, the DPR is required to be prepared and only the DPR in respect of one area, i.e., desilting of river Sutlej in Village Auliapur has been placed on record. Referring to the following clauses of the DPR it has been submitted by Counsel for the Applicant that even this DPR suggest that in the name of desilting/dredging the State has indulged in the commercial mining of the

¶292

¶293

sediment and sand. In this regard, Counsel for the Applicant has pointed

¶294

out the following clauses of the DPR:

¶295

“ Detail of Site And Disposal Plan:

¶296

The Site is in Auliapur Complex of 1-R Bandh of River Sutlej, Nawanshar Drainage Sub Division, SBS Nagar Drainage Division. The GPS co-ordinates of the site is 31°0′43.27"N, 76°16'19.46"E at RD 62500/3L. The contract would be on a lumpsum basis. However, for the purpose of calculations, the reserve price rate @Rs.5 per cubic foot would be taken in the bid domain. The desilted material is to be disposed-off by the contractor.

¶297

The bidder may undertake at site visit to desilting site to ascertain the site conditions, location, site access/transport route, communication, weather, availability of power, and any other connected activities for satisfactory completion of the works. The bidder shall satisfy himself about above aspects before submission of bid. No claim whatsoever shall be entertained later. A drone survey will also be conducted after the completion of work. The purpose of the drone survey is to maintain check over the site so as to ensure that no extra quantity of material can be excavated other than desilted material. Also, regular checks will be made to ensure no contamination to the water course is done.

¶298

xxx ………………………………..xxx……………………….………………xxx

¶299

Techno economic Viability :

¶300

This work of desilting of Sutlej River in Between RD 62500-64500 of 3L Dhussi Bandh will make river to flow away from the 1-R Bandh (Nawanshar Side) and try to make River in between two bandhs presently which are curvy due to meandering action. It will also increase the water carrying capacity of the river section. The desilted material will be owned and disposed-off by the contractor himself so no departmental expenses will be done. The desilting site is in Tehsil Balachaur and in this area new expressway construction work is going on. So, it will facilitate to provide the material to these construction sites. Also, the amount collected from the desilted material will be deposited in the Government treasury facilitating the revenue of Government. Therefore, the project is techno economically viable.”

¶301

It has further been pointed out by Counsel for the Applicant that in terms of the provision in techno economic viability, the amount collected from desilted material is required to be deposited in the government treasury facilitating the revenue of the government, but as per the other clauses of the DPR and the auction/tender notice the contractor becomes the owner of silt/de-silted sediment and sand and is permitted to sale it in the open market.

¶302

¶303

During the course of hearing, the Counsel for the Applicant has also handed over the affidavit of Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab dated 29.01.2026 and filed in OA No. 553/2024 before the NGT in the matter of News item titled "From Ropar to Hoshiarpur via HP 30-km detour as illegal mining damages bridge" appearing in The Indian Express dated 10.04.2024 , wherein the Chief Secretary has taken the plea that the desilting material will open one more legal source for sale and processing of minerals in open market. The stand of the Chief Secretary, State of Punjab in that affidavit is as under:

¶304

“The Department of Water Resources Punjab has identified 85 desilting sites in the State of which 66 de-silting sites comprising of 6,93,69,948.7 Sq. feet area and 51,03,00,227 cft of material, are being auctioned out. This de-silted material shall open one more legal source for sale and processing of minor minerals in the open market.”

¶305

The above material indicates that the desilting is being done for the commercial purposes.

¶306

At this stage, it will be relevant to refer to the judgments which do not permit desilting/dredging of dams, lakes, rivers, etc. for commercial purposes.

¶307

Judicial Pronouncements:

¶308

The issue if exemption granted under the EIA Notification, 2006 to dredging and desilting of dams is applicable when it involves sand/silt mining, i.e., when sand/silt is sold for commercial purpose, instead of limiting the dredging/desilting for maintenance, upkeep and disaster management as stipulated in the SSMG-2016, came up for consideration before the Southern Zonal Bench of the NGT in the OA No. 142/2022(SZ) in the matter of Sarvabhoum Bagali vs. State of Karnataka & Ors . The Tribunal has considered in detail the requirement of EIA Notification and SSMG and, thereafter, held that when there is sand mining involved for

¶309

¶310

commercial purpose, the environmental clearance is necessary. The

¶311

Tribunal, therefore, held that:

¶312

“29. If that be so, the work order specifically states that silt mixed with sand is available and the same can be extracted from the silt in the backwaters as identified by the District Sand Monitoring Committee and the sand available in the silt can be sold at the rate fixed by the Government after transporting the same to the stockyard and sand available in the stockyard should be transported with mineral dispatch permit in vehicles fixed with GPS. So, the work order itself is very clear that in the garb of dredging and desilting, sand mining is being done and already it is being defined as to what is mining operation. When there is sand mining involved for commercial purpose and as stated by the SEIAA prior Environmental Clearance is required and the 5th respondent should be permitted only after obtaining an Environmental Clearance preceded by the necessary approvals, mining lease etc. In spite of the same, the SEIAA remains as a mute spectator.”

¶313

48. The Tribunal accordingly had disposed of the OA No. 142/2022(SZ)

¶314

by the order dated 23.03.2023 by directing as under:

¶315

“32. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that:

¶316

(i) The work order issued on 27.11.2020 in favour of the 5th respondent is in violation of EIA Notification, 2006 as the said activity requires prior Environmental Clearance.

¶317

(ii) Dredging and desilting of dams is not exempted from obtaining prior Environmental Clearance as the sand is being extracted for commercial purpose.

¶318

(iii) It is open to the 1^st respondent to apply for a prior Environmental Clearance as contemplated under EIA Notification, 2006 for sand mining while involving in the dredging and de-silting activities by following the procedure.

¶319

(iv) The respondents can proceed with their activity only after obtaining proper Environmental Clearance for the dredging and de-silting in Adhyapadi and Shamburu Dams.

¶320

(v) Till such time Environmental Clearance is obtained the 5^th respondent is restrained from carrying on the activity pursuant to the work order dated 27.11.2020.

¶321

(vi) The de-siltation/extraction of sand from silt for sale undertaken is held as illegal.

¶322

(vii) A penalty of Rs.50 crores is to be paid by the Irrigation Department, Government of Karnataka to Central Pollution Control Board and the said amount will be utilised for pollution abatement in river stretches with priority to stretches in and around Bengaluru.

¶323

¶324

(viii) In spite of the orders of the National Green Tribunal holding repeatedly that Environmental Clearance is required when de-silted material is used for commercial purpose, the current orders of the District Collector is in gross violation of the same for which the Chief Secretary is directed to issue orders to Collectors to follow all the rules and regulations scrupulously and strictly instruct them that desilting/dredging of water bodies/rivers/reservoirs/waterways shall not be permitted without the prior Environmental Clearance when the desilted/dredged material be it silt, sand or any other mineral is sold either to the public or for Government projects.”

¶325

The above order of the Tribunal was subject matter of challenge in Civil Appeal (Diary) No. 48593/2023 in the matter of State of Karnataka & Anr. vs . Sarvabhoum Bagali & Ors. before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has only stayed direction (vii) of the operative part of the order relating to imposition of penalty of Rs. 50 crores. Hon’ble Supreme Court while issuing notice in Appeal has passed the following order on 15.12.2023:

¶326

“Delay condoned.

¶327

Issue notice, returnable on 26^th February 2024.

¶328

Prima facie, we are of the view that at the instance of the State, challenge to clause (viii) of the operative part of the impugned judgment cannot be entertained. However, we stay the operation of clause (vii) of the operative part of the impugned judgment.”

¶329

The Hon’ble Supreme Court subsequently while disposing of the IA No. 12104/2024 filed in the pending Civil Appeal No. 3610/2024 by the order dated 14.05.2024 had permitted the Applicant to sell the desilted material by holding the public auction because the material was already desilted even before passing the impugned order dated 23.03.2023 by the Tribunal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had accordingly passed the order dated 14.05.2024 in Civil Appeal No. 8193/2023 clarifying as under:

¶330

“ IA No. 12104/2024 in C.A. No. 3610/2024

¶331

The applicant cannot be permitted to privately sell the desilted material excavated in terms of orders dated 27st November, 2020. We permit the applicant to sell 23,340 MT of desilted material by holding a public auction conducted by adopting a fair and transparent method. The public auction shall be conducted under the supervision of the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district and the sale proceed shall be deposited in this Court.

¶332

¶333

We make it clear that before actually completing the sale, the Deputy Commissioner after examining the entire process shall certify in writing that the entire auction process has been conducted in a fair and reasonable manner. Application is accordingly disposed of.

¶334

After the amount is deposited in this Court, the same shall be deposited in an interest bearing Fixed Deposit with any Nationalized Bank. We will pass order regarding disbursement/ investment of the said amount after the Registry submits a report regarding the deposit. We make it clear that we are passing this order as we are informed that the material has been desilted even before the impugned order dated 23rd March, 2023 was passed.

¶335

Application is disposed of.

¶336

Auction may be completed within a period of one month from today.”

¶337

The above Civil Appeal pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the order of the Tribunal in the matter of Sarvabhoum Bagali (supra) is in operation, except direction (vii) of the said order concerning the levy of penalty.

¶338

Counsel for the Applicant has also pointed out that the subsequent order of the Central Zonal Bench of the Tribunal dated 24.11.2023 in OA No. 6/2023(CZ) in the matter of Dinesh Bothra vs. Union of India & Ors ., wherein the issue of desilting of dams without preparation of DSR and without obtaining the EIA clearance was involved and the directions for obtaining prior environmental clearance under EIA Notification, 2006 was issued, was subject matter of challenge in Civil Appeal No. 7992/2023 in the matter of M/s. N.G. Gadhiya vs. Dinesh Bothra & Ors., wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court initially granted stay, but subsequently that stay has not been continued.

¶339

It has also been pointed out that in OA No. 123/2022(SZ) in the matter of Gottimukkala Suresh Reddy & Ors. vs. The District Collector & DLSC, Chairman & Ors . and in connected matters, the Southern Zonal Bench of NGT had passed the common order dated 03.01.2024 in a matter concerning NIT for extraction and transportation of sand claiming to be

¶340

¶341

exempted under exempted category being sand sourced in the process of desilting of sand under the check-dams and had directed obtaining of environmental clearance. This order was subject matter of challenge in Civil Appeal Nos. 8624-8628/2024 in the matter of Secretary, Mines & Geology Department vs. Gottimukkala Suresh Reddy & Ors., wherein initially by order dated 13.08.2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court while issuing notice had stayed the operation of the order of the Tribunal, but subsequently by order dated 13.08.2024 Secretary, Mines & Geology Department was directed to maintain account of material removed from the stockpile and by the order dated 27.01.2025 had directed the Secretary, Mines & Geology Department to file status report in terms of the order dated 13.08.2024.

¶342

In the present OA, in pursuance to the impugned tenders no mining has been started till now. Therefore, judgment of the Southern Zonal Bench of the Tribunal in the matter of Sarvabhoum Bagali (supra), except direction (vii), therein need to be complied with.

¶343

It is also worth noticed that in the matter of Nobel M. Paikada vs Union of India & Ors . in OA No. 190/2020 the challenge was raised to the notification dated 28.03.2020 amending EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006 by substituting Appendix-IX of the EIA Notification, 2006 and exempting certain activities from requirement of obtaining environmental clearance wherein Clause-7 was as under:

¶344

“7. Dredging and de-silting of dams, reservoirs, weirs, barrages, river and canals for the purpose of their maintenance, upkeep and disaster management shall be subject to the compliance of environmental safeguards issued in this regard from time to time.¹ ”

¶345

The Tribunal, while passing the order dated 28.10.2020, in OA No. 190/2020 had observed that blanket exemption must be balanced by

¶346

1 Para substituted vide S.O. 3840(E) dated 30th August, 2023

¶347

¶348

sustainable development concept and in respect of item 7, safeguards are required to be incorporated in terms of disposal of dredged material. Accordingly, the Tribunal had disposed of the OA by directing/observing as under:

¶349

“8. The second issue is exemption from requirement of EC for extraction or sourcing or borrowing of ordinary earth for the linear projects such as roads, pipelines, etc and for dredging and desilting of dams, reservoirs, weirs, barrages, river and canals for the purpose of their maintenance, upkeep and disaster management. It is possible to take a view that the EC can be exempted for these situations on account of assessment already made or for extraction of earth for linear project but such blanket exemption must be balanced by sustainable development concept. The exemption should strike balance and instead of being blanket exemption, it needs to be hedged by appropriate safeguards such as the process of excavation and quantum. Similarly, in respect of item 7, safeguards are required to be incorporated in terms of disposal of dredged material. These aspects are not shown to have been considered and the reply does not provide any explanation thereon. Learned counsel for the MoEFCC is also unable to provide any justification why these aspects be not addressed and incorporated in the notification for ensuring sustainable development concept which is required to be enforced by this Tribunal under section 20 read with section 15 of the NGT Act, 2010.

¶350

9. We accordingly dispose of this petition by directing the MoEFCC to revisit the impugned notification in the light of the above observations within three months.”

¶351

The above order was subject matter of challenge in Civil Appeal Nos. 1628-1629/2021 in the matter of Nobel M. Paikada vs UOI & Ors , the Hon’ble Supreme Court while disposing of the Appeal had held as under:

¶352

“30. We are not entertaining a challenge to item 7 of the impugned notification. As none of the respondents have challenged the impugned notification, they will have to implement the directions issued in terms of the paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment regarding item 7.”

¶353

Therefore, the direction of the Tribunal regarding item 7 of AppendixIX of EIA notification is required to be complied with.

¶354

Three Pre-Requisites of Interim Relief :

¶355

Now, the Tribunal is required to consider the basic parameters for

¶356

grant of interim relief such as prima-facie case, balance of convenience and

¶357

¶358

irreparable injury. So far as the prima-facie case is concerned, the above analysis clearly demonstrates that the Tribunal has consistently held that the de-silting/dredging of dams, rivers, etc. for commercial purposes is not exempted under Clause-7 of the Appendix-IX to the EIA Notification, 2006. For such commercial dredging/desilting, the prior environmental impact assessment is necessary since such desilting/dredging may have a serious adverse impact on the river ecology and environment. In the present case, no such prior environment impact assessment has been done nor any environmental clearance has been obtained. That apart, various provisions of the SSMG-2016 and the NFSM quoted above have not been shown to be complied with before issuing the impugned auction notices. So far as the SSMG-2016 is concerned, nothing has been pointed out in respect of identification of deposit or aggregation, no DSR has been prepared and no replenishment study has been pointed out on the basis of which the quantum of desilting/dredging or extraction of sand has been determined. So far as the NFSM is concerned, no thorough examination and technoeconomic justification has been pointed, no feasibility report has been shown, no environment management plan to dispose the silt has been referred to and only the DPR of one site has been pointed out that also contains the contradictory provision about the disposal of the silt.

¶359

That apart, a justification has been put forth before the Tribunal by the State that desilting/dredging of rivers is necessary to avoid the floods, but the NFSM clearly states that the removal of sediments from riverbed will not have any considerable effect on flood levels and desilting of rivers for flood control is not an economically viable solution.

¶360

The NFSM in Clause 2.2.1(ii) clearly states that the dredging in general should not be resorted to in major rivers. Hence, prima-facie the

¶361

¶362

action of the State appears to be contrary to the NFSM also. Thus, we find that the applicant has prima-facie case in their favour.

¶363

So far as the balance of convenience is concerned, it is already stated that dredging/desilting of river has not been approved as an effective exercise under the NFSM, but it has in fact been discouraged. Therefore, in the meanwhile, if such an exercise is allowed to be carried out in an uncontrolled manner for the commercial purposes, the same will not be in the interest of safeguarding the rivers of the State. On the contrary, it may cause irreversible damage to river ecology in the State. Therefore, the issue of balance of convenience and irreparable injury is in favour of the applicants.

¶364

Modified Interim Directions:

¶365

Thus, in the circumstances of the case noted above, we modify the interim order passed on 11.02.2026 in OA No. 100/2026 and permit the State authorities to take further action in pursuance to the impugned tender notices subject to the strict compliance of the following:

¶366

(1). All the conditions stipulated in the National Framework for Sediment Management will be strictly complied with by the State before proceeding further with the impugned tenders.

¶367

(2). The directions issued in the order of the Southern Zonal Bench of the NGT dated 23.03.2023 in OA No. 142/2022(SZ) in the matter of Sarvabhoum Bagali (supra), (except direction no. (vii) which has been stayed by Hon’ble Supreme Court), will be duly complied with by the Respondent - State of Punjab and its authorities before proceeding with the impugned auction notices.

¶368

(3). The Respondent - State of Punjab and its authorities will ensure compliance of the SSMG-2016 in case of extraction of sand.

¶369

¶370

(4). The Respondent - State of Punjab and its authorities will proceed with the impugned auction notices only if they ensure the dredging/desilting/extraction of sand for non-commercial purposes.

¶371

We make it clear that we have examined the merits of the controversy at this stage only for the limited purpose of deciding IA No. 161/2026 and observations made on merit in this order are tentative in nature.

¶372

IA No. 161/2026 is accordingly disposed of.

¶373

IA No. 227/2026 has been filed by the Respondents No. 3 to 9 for exemption from filing the clear legible copies of the documents and IA No. 226/2026 has been filed for bringing additional documents on record. On due consideration, these IA’s are allowed.

¶374

Counsel for the parties are directed to complete the pleadings within two weeks.

¶375

List for hearing on 15.04.2026.

¶376

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶377

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶378

April 02, 2026 IA No. 161/2026, IA No. 226/2026, IA No. 227/2026 In Original Application No. 100/2026 and other connected matters dv

¶379

Gram Panchayat Galhri v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gram Panchayat Galhri v. Union of India

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

Ms God Gift Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs Haryana State Pollution Control Board

Ajad Kuraishi vs Central Pollution Control Board

Varun vs Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi

Ia No. 31/2026 in Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 32/2024 of Saroj Mishra Aged 56 Years S/O N. Mishra vs 1. State of Odisha Represented through Addl Chief Secretary of Department of Forest Environment and Climate Change

Deepank Kumar Sharma vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Manav Uthaan Manch through Its Authorised Signatory Hemant Kumar Madhavdas Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra

Mukesh Gaikwad S/O Shri Shivaji Gaikwad vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change through Deputy Director General of Forests

Society Fdevelopment of Human Resource vs State of Haryana

Ms God Gift Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs Haryana State Pollution Control Board

Ms God Gift Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs Haryana State Pollution Control Board

Ajad Kuraishi vs Central Pollution Control Board

Sheesh Pal vs State of Haryana

Sunil Verma vs Punjab Pollution Control Board

Gram Panchayat Galhri vs Union of India