Disposed

Pramod v. State of Uttar Pradesh

NGT16 Apr 2026IA No. 73/2025 in Original Application No. 90/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal disposed of an application challenging sand mining permissions in Uttar Pradesh. Addressing reliance on Supreme Court precedents regarding the absence of replenishment studies, the Tribunal noted the leases had expired and the issue was settled. It relied on a Ministry report to prohibit mining in the upstream of Hathnikund Barrage, citing environmental risks and no-min

What did the court decide?

Application disposed without granting further relief; parties directed to abide by MoEF&CC committee recommendations regarding mining prohibitions.

Pramod vs State of Uttar Pradesh — Land Acquisition | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No. 07

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 90/2020 (IA No 73/2025)

¶5

Pramod Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Uttar Pradesh Respondent(s)

¶8

Date of hearing: 16.04.2026

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER HON’BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER

¶10

Applicant: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Mr. Shashwant Kaushik & Mr. Kanchan Kumar, Advs. for Applicant Respondents: Ms. Suhasini Sen & Ms. Masooma Rizvi, Advs. for MoEF & CC Mr. Ankit Verma, Adv. for the State of UP Ms. Priyanka Swami, Adv. for SEIAA, UP Mr. Vanshdeep Dalmia & Ms. Anisha Jain, Advs. for R - 9

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This original application has been listed in compliance of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 02.09.2024 passed in Civil Appeal No. 1659/2022.

¶13

In the OA applicant had raised grievance about illegal sand mining in district Saharanpur by alleging that the sand mining was allowed without conducting replenishment study as required by the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2020. The applicant had also raised the issue that the mining sites were within 1 km. from Kalesar National Park U.P. Elephant Reserve wherein mining was prohibited by MoEF&CC by order dated 08.08.2019. The applicant had also raised the issue that the mining was prohibited in upstream of Hathnikund Barrage in Saharanpur.

¶14

The Tribunal had initially disposed of the original application by order dated 06.04.2021 by issuing the following directions :-

¶15

¶16

“6. Learned counsel for the State fairly stated that replenishment study may be now allowed to be conducted. He is also unable to oppose the submission that no mining in upstream of Hathnikund Barrage be permitted in view of opinion of FRI.

¶17

7. Accordingly, we direct that replenishment study may now be got conducted by the State, in accordance with the earlier orders of this Tribunal within three months and further mining be allowed consistent with the replenishment study. Till such study is carried out, mining may be suitably restricted. No mining be allowed upstream of Hathnikund Barrage in villages Mayapur and Rehna unless permissibility of such mining is found to be conducive to the environment and there is valid ground to ignore the opinion of the FRI.”

¶18

The above order was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1659/2021.

¶19

Pending the Civil Appeal the order dated 25.03.2022 was passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court directing the MoEF&CC to examine the issue of permissibility of mining in upstream of Hathnikund Barrage in village Mayapur and Rehna. The interim order so passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 25.03.2022 in Civil Appeal No. 1659/2022 was as under :-

¶20

“….. Respondent No.2 is directed to examine whether mining can be allowed upstream of Hathnikund Barrage in villages Mayapur and Rehna and file an affidavit to that effect….”

¶21

Subsequently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 02.09.2024 had disposed of the appeal by remitting the matter back to the

¶22

¶23

Tribunal for fresh adjudication after taking into account the affidavit of the MoEF&CC filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also considering the respective contention raised by the parties.

¶24

The Hon’ble Supreme Court had specifically directed the Tribunal to go into the question as to whether the mining lease were within the restricted area and therefore the mining would be barred/prohibited. The order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 02.09.2024 was as under:-

¶25

“CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1659 OF 2022

¶26

Upon this Court’s notice and direction, an affidavit has been filed by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.

¶27

In view of the said affidavit, we are inclined to remit the matter to the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, for a fresh adjudication on merits. The said adjudication will take into account the aforesaid affidavit as well as the contentions and issues raised by the parties, including respondent no. 1, Pramod, who was the applicant before the NGT.

¶28

To cut short the delay, parties are directed to appear before the NGT on 14.10.2024, when the next date of hearing will be fixed.

¶29

All pleas, rights and contentions of the parties are left open.

¶30

The NGT will specifically go into the question as to whether or not the mining leases are within the restricted area and, therefore, the mining would be barred/prohibited. The question of replenishment study will also be examined.

¶31

¶32

The present appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

¶33

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

¶34

It has been pointed out that in the original application the notices dated 01.11.2019 and 04.03.2020, in pursuance to which the mining sites were auctioned, are under challenge and the consequential environmental clearance dated 27.05.2020 and cluster certificate dated 12.03.2020 issued to the private respondents are questioned.

¶35

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that no replenishment study was done before taking the impugned action or preparing the DSR, therefore, DSR is not valid and any action taken on that basis is also illegal.

¶36

In support of such a submission, he has placed reliance upon the paragraph 29 to 33 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union Territory of J&K vs. Raja Mujjafar Bhatt reported in AIR 2025 SC 4031.

¶37

Learned counsel has submitted that the issue has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the absence of the replenishment study renders the DSR fundamentally defective.

¶38

Learned counsel for the State referring to the order dated 25.01.2023 passed in OA No. 403/2022 has submitted that the issue concerning the replenishment study before preparing the draft survey report for Saharanpur Riverbed Mining, 2022 is concluded and before preparing the draft report the replenishment study was done.

¶39

Having examined the record we find that such a replenishment study for preparation of the draft survey report of 2022 has no applicability in the present case because in the present matter the issue relates to the impugned notices issued in the year 2019 & 2020 much prior to the preparation of draft DSR 2022.

¶40

¶41

It is not in the dispute that the impugned notices were issued without replenishment study. Hence, the said issue is quietly covered by the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court noted above. Even otherwise the said issue has lost its relevance now because it has been pointed that the mining leases in question have already expired and the two mining leases which had started the mining work were stayed by the order of the Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation.

¶42

The next issue which has been raised relates to permissibility of sand mining in the upstream of the Hathnikund Barrage. For considering this issue, counsel for the parties have referred to and relied upon the counter affidavit of the MoEF&CC dated 06.07.2022 filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1659/2022. Alongwith the said counter affidavit the compliance report dated 29.04.2022 was enclosed. The said report was furnished before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in compliance of the interim direction dated 25.03.2022 as quoted above.

¶43

The said report reveals that the following three mining sites were examined by the committee constituted by MoEF&CC –

¶44

i. Village Mayapur, Gata No. 14/1, measuring 3.10 Ha. on Badshahibaghrav River.

¶45

ii. Village Rehna, Plot No. 179/2 measuring 3.75 Ha. On Gasrarav River.

¶46

iii. Village Raina on River Yamuna, lot No. 3, Plot No. 3 measuring 8.05 ha.

¶47

The committee had found that the first two sites were down stream of the Hathnikund Barrage whereas, the 3^rd site was upstream of Hathnikund Barrage. The committee had also found that the mining cannot be permitted in the upstream of Hathnikund Barrage. The observations of the committee in this regard are as under :-

¶48

¶49

“On the basis of site inspection of the area of Hathinikund barrage in villages Mayapur and Rehna on 22.04.2022 and the as per submitted document by Regional Officer, UPPCB, Saharanpur, following observations are made:

¶50

i. As per observations during site visit, it was found that mining lease granted at village Mayapur on Badshahi bagro river and village Rehna-Plot No. 179/2 measuring 3.75 hectare on Gaisaro river do not fall in upstream of Hathinikund Barrage. However, mining lease granted at village Rehna on river Yamuna, lot no. 3, plot no. 3 measuring 8.05 hectares falls on the upstream of the Hathnikund barrage. The river Badshahi bagro and Gaisaro were observed as the seasonal rivers, which were found dry during the site visit, however river Yamuna is a perennial river. Therefore, river bed mining activities at seasonal river may be allowed in village Mayapur.

¶51

ii. As per Geo-coordinates mentioned in granted EC of village Rehna on river Yamuna, lot no. 3, plot no. 3 measuring 8.05 hectares, Google earth imagery and DSS analysis has been done (Photograph 1) and it has been noticed that distance of Kalesar Wild life Sanctuary is within 1 km from the mining site (914 m approx.). As per Sustainable Sand Mining Guidelines (SSMG), 2016 mining is prohibited within 1 Km area from the protected areas (National Park, Wildlife Sanctuaries). The mining site is within the 10 km range from the interstate boundary of the Haryana and UP states.

¶52

iii. A river island was also observed during site inspection near to the above mining sites. Similarly, As per Google earth imagery and DSS analysis; the island is about 171.0 AR hacture and observed at a distance of 816 mt. from mining site. Further, Shivalik Forest blocha boundary is about 319.48 mt. from the mining site.

¶53

iv. As per Ministry Gazetted Notification No. S.O. 1766 52.S.O. 1485 (22.04.2016) the arca around the Kalesar National Park and Kalesar Wildlife Sanctuary are declared as Ecosensitive zone in the State of Haryana. Hence, mining may not be allowed to that area.

¶54

¶55

v. On the subject of mining in the upstream of Hathinikund barrage (Hathinikund barrage is Wetland Winter Migratory Avian Biodiversity point), it is inspected and found that it mining activity may not be allowed at the above mining sites, as it is within 1 Km from Eco-sensitive zone. The place is at the intersection of foothill of Shivalik Range and Yamuna River bed, which is rich in flora and fauna. If the mining activity is permitted, the habitat will be disturbed which is already fragmented due to construction of canal and Khara Hydro power Project. The canal has already restricted the movement of animals. The mining activity will be responsible for destroying the biological and ecological activity of both flora and fauna.

¶56

vi. River plays a most important role in the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem. River Bed Mining is the major mining activity for destroying and imbalance of terrestrial and aquatic biota. Mining activity in the above three sites started without conducting replenishment study as per required under the sustainable sand mining management guidelines, 2020.

¶57

vii. As per MoEF &CC Survey report published in 2018 on Tigers Co-predators & Prey in India 2018, it was indicated that with tiger supplementation planned for western Rajaji, it is important to ensure that this tiger reserve becomes a source to repopulate the Shivalik forest division of Uttar Pradesh and Kalesar Wildlife sanctuary (WLS) of Haryana as forest connectivity is currently contiguous along the Shivalik hills from Western Rajaji to Kalesar WLS and into Himachal Pradesh. However, if tiger occupancy is to be encouraged in this empty landscape of about 700 km², restorative inputs are required to curtail poaching of prey, illegal timber extraction and livestock grazing. The village of Kalesar in Haryana, Bahral in Himachal Pradesh and Rehna in Uttar Pradesh are all expanding along the banks of the Yamuna with agriculture and urban sprawl threatening to choke the narrow corridor for wildlife (and potentially tigers).”

¶58

¶59

The committee has made the following recommendations :-

¶60

i. “Mining in the upstream of Hathnikund barrage (Hathnikund barrage is Wetland Winter Migratory Avian Biodiversity point), may not be allowed as the mining site of village Rehna on river Yamuna, lot no. 3, plot no. 3 measuring 8.05 hectares is within 1.0 Km from the declared Eco-sensitive zone (Kalesar National Park and Kalesar Wild life Sanctuary), in which mining activities is prohibited as per SSMG, 2016 vide order dated 08.08.2019.

¶61

ii. River bed mining (RBM) and subsequent transportation of the mineral would certainly destroying and imbalance of terrestrial & aquatic biota in fragile ecosystem of Shivalik hills.

¶62

iii. RBM mining specially in village Rehna may also be restricted the movement of wild animal including elephant, tiger in Shivalik area.”

¶63

In view of the above recommendations the mining in the upstream of Hathnikund Barrage cannot be allowed.

¶64

This report is not disputed by counsel of any of the parties, therefore, the parties will abide by the recommendations made by the committee and the state authorities especially will duly take into account and comply with the above recommendations while allotting the mining leases.

¶65

Original Application is accordingly disposed off.

¶66

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶67

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶68

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶69

April 16, 2026 Original Application No. 90/2020 PN

¶70

Pramod v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod v. State of Uttar Pradesh

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

Suo Moto Letter Petition by Mr Ram Singh Khara Titled Parsdhusan Ko Lekar Gramino Ka Bada Faishla Kaiyon Ne Bacchon Ko Nahi Bheja School Dated 12TH December 2025 vs State of Rajasthan

Suo Moto Letter Petition by Mr Ram Singh Khara Titled Parsdhusan Ko Lekar Gramino Ka Bada Faishla Kaiyon Ne Bacchon Ko Nahi Bheja School Dated 12TH December 2025 vs State of Rajasthan

Suresh Rawat & Villagers vs Union of India through Its Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change (Moef&Cc)

Suresh Rawat & Villagers vs Union of India through Its Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change (Moef&Cc)

Kanahi Ram Patel vs Union of India

Kanahi Ram Patel vs Union of India

K. Saravanan vs the Tamil Nadu Coastal Zone Management Authority Rep by Its Member Secretary

Jitender Gautam Pawar vs the State of Maharashtra through Maharashtra Pollution Control Board

Anil Sharma S/O Ram Kumar Sharma vs State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority Uttar Pradesh

Ashish Jain vs Public Works Department

News Item Titled "We Can Smell It Even Inside Our Homes,: Southeast Delhi Localities Choke on Garbage" Appearing in the Indian Express Dated 12.06.2025 vs

Haider Ali vs Union of India

Pramod vs State of Uttar Pradesh

News Item Titled "Arsenic Found in Groundwater in 25 States Fluoride in 27 States: Gov" Appearing in Hindustan Dated 30.11.2023 vs