District Survey Report Without Replenishment Study Is Untenable: Supreme Court Upholds NGT Set‑Aside Of Sand‑Mining Clearances

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar heard appeals by the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir, the National Highways Authority of India and a project proponent challenging an order of the National Green Tribunal that set aside environmental clearances granted for sand mining in three blocks near Srinagar. The appeals concerned whether environmental clearances could be granted in the absence of a District Survey Report (DSR) containing a proper replenishment study as mandated by the amended EIA regime and sand‑mining guidelines.

The Court summarised that the statutory and regulatory framework, read with binding guidelines and precedent, required a scientific replenishment study to underpin any DSR and that a DSR lacking such a study was legally deficient. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court further noted that the Jammu & Kashmir Expert Appraisal Committee and the SEIAA erred in proceeding to recommend and grant clearances after recording that the DSR “is not being formulated as per the guidelines” and that mere restriction of mining depth to one metre could not substitute for the statutory requirement of replenishment data. The judgment also quoted the Court’s earlier concern in Deepak Kumar that “Sand mining on either side of the rivers, upstream and instream, is one of the causes for environmental degradation and also a threat to the biodiversity.”

Background The dispute arose after a project proponent engaged by the National Highway Authority of India sought environmental clearances for three sand‑mining blocks to procure material for a bypass project around Srinagar. The Jammu & Kashmir Expert Appraisal Committee initially rejected the proposals on grounds of over‑exploitation and a DSR that lacked replenishment data. After a “Fit for Mining Certificate” from the Geology and Mining Department, the proponent re‑applied; the J&K EAC recommended the projects while recording that the DSR required revision to include replenishment data, and the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority granted ECs on 19.04.2022 subject to a three‑year validity and a restriction to a maximum mining depth of one metre “in view non‑availability of replenishment data in the DSRs.”

A person interested in the environment filed an appeal before the NGT challenging grant of the ECs on multiple grounds including the absence of a DSR prepared in line with Appendix X to the EIA Notification and the Sustainable Sand Mining and Enforcement Guidelines (2016, 2020). The NGT allowed the appeal and set aside the clearances. The Supreme Court upheld the NGT’s order, dismissed the civil appeals and found that the compromise by permitting limited depth mining without replenishment data was unacceptable. The Court recorded agreement with the NGT’s finding that “under EIA 2006 as amended by notifications dated 15.01.2016 and 25.07.2018, there is no exception in respect of preparation of DSR.”

The judgment reviewed the statutory framework (Environment (Protection) Act, EIA Notification 2006 and its 2016 amendments introducing Para 7(iii) and Appendix X), the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines 2016 and Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines 2020, and precedent including Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana. The Court upheld the NGT’s direction that the J&K Pollution Control Board take action on alleged violations of EC conditions (notably condition 53 prohibiting heavy machinery) after giving the project proponent an opportunity to be heard. The appeals were dismissed and parties were directed to bear their own costs. The bench recorded counsel’s statement that the project was complete and no further clearance was required.

Case Details: Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8055 OF 2022 (2025 INSC 1025) Case Title: Union Territory of J & K (Previously State of Jammu & Kashmir) & Anr. v. Raja Muzaffar Bhat & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Narender Hooda (Senior Counsel for the project proponent) For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the reported text.