Disposed

Krishna Prasad Singh v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

NGT14 Aug 2026Original Application No. 96/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An Ngt Eastern Zone bench disposed of an application seeking an injunction against sand mining in a river block due to alleged water flow impacts. The tribunal held the application was premature as no challenge was filed against the clearance and mining area details were verified under2025 guidelines.

What did the court decide?

The application was disposed of as premature without prejudice to availing of appropriate legal remedies.

Krishna Prasad Singh vs Ministry of Environment Forest and… — Writ and Judicial Review | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No.05

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONE BENCH, KOLKATA (THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING WITH HYBRID MODE)

¶3

Original Application No.96/2026/EZ (I.A. No.53/2026/EZ & I.A. No.103/2026/EZ)

¶4

Krishna Prasad Singh Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Union of India and Ors. Respondents

¶7

Date of hearing: 14.08.2026

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER HON’BLE MR. ISHWAR SINGH, EXPERT MEMBER

¶9

Applicant: Mr. Pankaj Bhagat, Advocate for the applicant (physically in PB).

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The applicant has filed the present application under section 14 read with section 18 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 seeking issuance of direction for conducting of annual environment audit by committee of three members including the local villagers as provided in the clause 6.3 of the Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020 and submit its report within reasonable period and issuance of appropriate directions restraining the respondents from permitting any mining over the sand block no. 18 situated over Morhar river at mauja Sonbarsa, District Gayaji and setting aside any order passed by the respondents for resumption of mining.

¶12

The applicant, being a resident of Surhni, Gayaji, a village nearby to the banks of river Morhar at Mauza Sonbarsa, District Gayaji has raised grievances regarding adverse environmental impact of mining on livelihood of the villagers and submitted that Government of Bihar floated tender for sand block no. 18 (Gaya Morhar-05) on Morhar river at mauza Sonbarsa, Block Paraiya, District Gayaji and respondent no.7 was

¶13

¶14

declared to be the highest bidder. Respondent no.7 completed the formalities and obtained environmental clearance issued in the year 2025 from respondent no.3 for commencing mining on the Morhar river at Sand Ghat No. 18 situated in Mauza Sonbarsa, District Gayaji. The applicant along with some other villagers captured the photographs which show that the river is flowing at the unusual rate even after the monsoon season had ended and the proposed mining area remained inundated till December 2025 and live river stream continued to flow even in the month of January 2026. The applicant has referred to judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others (2012) 4SCC 629, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, EIA Notification 2006, the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 and the Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020 and submitted that mining cannot be permitted in view of live water steam flowing through the proposed leased area and permitting mining in sand block no. 18 (Gaya Morhar-05) will be in utter violation thereof.

¶15

The original application was taken up for hearing on 05.05.2026, 14.07.2026 and 29.07.2026 on which dates adjournment was sought.

¶16

I.A. No.103/2026/EZ has been filed by the applicant for placing on record copies of letter no.3614 dated 17.12.2025, reply dated 18.12.2025, letter no. 3749 dated 24.12.2025, reply dated 29.12.2025 and letter no. 194 dated 13.01.2026.

¶17

In view of the reasons mentioned, I.A. No.103/2026/EZ is allowed and the above-mentioned documents are taken on record.

¶18

We have learned Counsel for the applicant and gone through the material on record.

¶19

¶20

In the present case the applicant has alleged sand block no. 18 (Gaya Morhar-05) on Morhar river at mauza Sonbarsa, Block Paraiya, District Gayaji is not fit for sand mining due to live river stream flowing through the proposed mining lease area. The It has not placed any material on record to show that any objection in this regard was taken at the time of preparation, publication and notification of the District Survey Report and/or at the time of public hearing at the time of grant of Environmental Clearance. The applicant did not file any original application challenging the District Survey Report or the Environmental Clearance. No doubt, the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 and the Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020 bar sand mining from river stream and mining area inundated by river flow but a perusal of (i) letter no. 3614 dated 17.12.2025 written by the Mining Development Officer, Gayaji to respondent no.7, (ii) reply dated 18.12.2025 written by respondent no.7 to the Mining Development Officer, Gayaji, (iii) letter no. 3749 dated 24.12.2025 written by the Mining Development Officer, Gayaji to respondent no.7, (iv) reply dated 29.12.2025 written by respondent no.7 to the Mining Development Officer, Gayaji and (v) letter no. 194 dated 13.01.2026 written by the Mining Development Officer, Gayaji to respondent no.7 placed on record by the applicant shows that in the present case entire mining area is not inundated by meandering of river and river stream is not flowing over the entire mining lease area particularly so as in letter no. 194 dated 13.01.2026 written by the Mining Development Officer, Gayaji to respondent no.7 it is mentioned that eastern part of the mining lease area was under some water but western part was dry and sufficient sand was available for mining. It may be observed here that respondent no.7 has not yet obtained consent to

¶21

¶22

establish/operate from BSPCB and these aspects can be looked into by BSPCB at the time of grant of consent to establish/operate. In case the applicant feels aggrieved by grant of consent to establish/operate the applicant will be entitled to avail legal remedies of filing appeal against the same before the State Appellate Authority/Revision before State Government.

¶23

It is evident from above discussed facts and circumstances of the case that the application is premature and is disposed of accordingly without prejudice to availing of appropriate remedies by the applicant in accordance with law.

¶24

A copy of this order may be sent to the Member Secretary, BSPCB by email for information/compliance.

¶25

Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM

¶26

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶27

Ishwar Singh, EM

¶28

August 14^th , 2026 Original Application No.96/2026/EZ (I.A. No.53/2026/EZ & I.A. No.103/2026/EZ) SN

¶29

Krishna Prasad Singh v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Prasad Singh v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

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

News Item Titled Largest Green Zone in South Bengal Jungle Mahal S Forest Cover Shrinks by More Than Half Study Appearing in the Telegraph Online Dated 05 06 2025 vs Central Pollution Control Board

Residents of Village Kagram Dakshin Para vs State of West Bengal

In Re 14 Cottah Mahisbathan Pond Turns Into Field Bmc Steps in Kolkata Wb vs Sate of West Bengal

Aryan vs State of Haryana

Asraf Ali vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

Rajiv Bhagelu Gupta vs District Collector Palghar

Haidar Ali vs State of Rajasthan

Subhas Datta vs State of West Bengal Notice through the Chief Secretary

Ankur Sharma vs State of West Bengal through the Chief Secretary

News Item Titled Largest Green Zone in South Bengal Jungle Mahal S Forest Cover Shrinks by More Than Half Study Appearing in the Telegraph Online Dated 05 06 2025 vs Central Pollution Control Board

Residents of Village Kagram Dakshin Para vs State of West Bengal

Krishna Prasad Singh vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Krishna Prasad Singh vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change