Deepak Kumar etc. Vs.
State of Haryana and Others etc.
Jurisdiction I.A. Nos.12-13 Of 2011 In Special Leave Petition (C) No.
19628-19629 Of 2009]
729-731/2011, 21833/2009, 12498- 499/2010, SLP (C) Cc. 16157/2011 & Cc
O R D E R
K. S. Radhakrishnan,
I.A. Nos. 12-13 of
2011 are allowed. SLP (C) Nos.12498-12499 of 2010 be detagged and be listed
after two weeks.
Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Haryana issued an auction notice
dated 3.6.2011 proposing to auction the extraction of minor mineral boulder, gravel
and sand quarries of an area not exceeding 4.5 hectares in each case in the
District of Panchkula, auction notices dated 8.8.2011 in the District of Panchkula,
Ambala and Yamuna Nagar exceeding 5 hectares and above, quarrying minor
mineral, road metal and masonary stone mines in the District of Bhiwani, stone,
sand mines in the District of Mohindergarh, slate stone mines in the District of
Rewari, and also in the Districts of Kurukshetra, Karnal, Faridabad and Palwal,
with certain restrictions for quarrying in the river beds of Yamuna, Tangri, Markanda,
Ghaggar, Krishnavati River basin, Dohan River basin etc. The validity of those
auction notices is under challenge before us, apart from the complaint of
illegal mining going on in the State of Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh.
the matter came up for hearing on 25.11.2011, we passed an order directing the CEC
to make a local inspection with intimation to MoEF, State of U.P., Rajasthan
and Haryana with regard to the alleged illegal mining going on in the States of
Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and also with regard to the areas identified for mining
in the State of Haryana and submit a report. We also directed the CEC to
examine whether there has been an attempt to flout EIA Notification dated 14.9.2006
by breaking the homogeneous area into pieces of less than 5 hectares. CEC was also
directed to examine whether the activities going on in that area have any
adverse environmental impact.
in response to our order, submitted a detailed report on 4.1.2012. However, the
report is silent with regard to the disturbing trend of serious illegal and unrestricted
upstream, in-stream and flood plain sand mining activities and the prevailing
degree of degradation of the sites and the environment, especially on the river
beds mentioned earlier. Report of CEC however states that the auction notice also
refer to mining leases of less than 5 hectares and hence no environmental
clearance need be obtained as per the MoEF notification dated 14.9.2006. No
light is also thrown on the question whether there has been, in fact, an
attempt to flout the notification dated 14.9.2006 by breaking the homogeneous
area into pieces of less than 5 hectares and the possible environmental or ecological
impact on quarrying of minor minerals.
Patwalia, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that CEC
report is silent about those aspects and also whether 1 km. distance has been 4maintained
between the mining blocks of less than 5 hectares. Learned counsel also
submitted that mining areas earmarked are at the foothills of fragile Himalayan
ranges known as Shivalik hills, which are spread over the Districts of
Panchkula, Ambala and Yamuna Nagar and the illegal and excessive mining has caused
serious environmental degradation and ecological impact, and no Environmental
Impact Assessment has ever taken place in areas earmarked for mining especially
on the river beds.
Gopal Subramaniam, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Haryana,
submitted that the State has taken adequate and effective precautions to maintain
1 km. separation between mining blocks of less than 5 hectares each and that the
auction notice dated 3.6.2011 itself has imposed strict restrictions on
quarrying in the river beds so also the auction notice dated 8.8.2011. Further,
it was pointed out that the notification dated 14.9.2006 would not apply for quarrying
minor minerals from areas of less than 5 hectares and therefore, no environmental
impact assessment needs to be undertaken either at the instance of the State
Government or the Project Proponent.
Mohan Jain, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the MoEF
submitted that the grant or allotment of mining licence/lease of smaller plots of
less than five hectares should not be encouraged from the environmental point
of view and that the applicability of EIA notification of 2006, has to be seen
in its letter and spirit so as to ensure environmental safeguards in place and implemented
for sustainable mining. Learned counsel also assured, if environmental
clearance is sought for covering a mining area of less than five hectares, the same
shall be immediately attended to and necessary clearance would be granted in
accordance with law.
have no materials before us to come to the conclusion that the removal of minor
mineral boulder, gravel, sand quarries etc. covered by the auction notices dated
3.6.2011 and 8.8.2011, in the places notified therein and also in the river beds
of Yamuna, Ghaggar, Tangri, Markanda, Krishnavati river basin, Dohan river basin
etc. would not cause environmental degradation or threat to the biodiversity, destroy
riverine vegetation, cause erosion, pollute water sources etc. Sand mining on
either side of the rivers, upstream and in-stream, is one of the causes for
environmental degradation and also a threat to the biodiversity.
Over the years, India's
rivers and Riparian ecology have been badly affected by the alarming rate of
unrestricted sand mining which damage the ecosystem of rivers and the safety of
bridges, weakening of river beds, destruction of natural habitats of organisms living
on the river beds, affects fish breeding and migration, spells disaster for the
conservation of many bird species, increases saline water in the rivers etc. Extraction
of alluvial material from within or near a streambed has a direct impact on the
stream's physical habitat characteristics.
include bed elevation, substrate composition and stability, in-stream roughness
elements, depth, velocity, turbidity, sediment transport, stream discharge and
temperature. Altering these habitat characteristics can have deleterious impacts
on both in-stream biota and the associated riparian habitat. The demand for
sand continues to increase day by day as building and construction of new
infrastructures and expansion of existing ones is continuous 7thereby placing
immense pressure on the supply of the sand resource and hence mining activities
are going on legally and illegally without any restrictions. Lack of proper planning
and sand management cause disturbance of marine ecosystem and also upset the ability
of natural marine processes to replenish the sand.
are expressing our deep concern since we are faced with a situation where the auction
notices dated 3.6.2011 and 8.8.2011 have permitted quarrying mining and removal
of sand from in-stream and upstream of several rivers, which may have serious environmental
impact on ephemeral, seasonal and perennial rivers and river beds and sand
extraction may have an adverse effect on bio-diversity as well.
Further it may also lead
to bed degradation and sedimentation having a negative effect on the aquatic life.
Rivers mentioned in the auction notices are on the foothills of the fragile Shivalik
hills. Shivalik hills are the source of rivers like Ghaggar, Tangri, Markanda
etc. River Ghaggar is a seasonal river which rises up in the outer Himalayas
between Yamuna and Satluj and enters Haryana near Pinjore, District Panchkula, which
passes through Ambala and Hissar and reaches Bikaner in Rajasthan. River
Markanda is also a seasonal river like Ghaggar, which also originates from the lower
Shivalik hills and enters Haryana near Ambala. During monsoon, this stream
swells up into a raging torrent, notorious for its devastating power, as also,
find that it is without conducting any study on the possible environmental
impact on/in the river beds and else- where the auction notices have been issued.
We are of the considered view that when we are faced with a situation where extraction
of alluvial material within or near a river bed has an impact on the rivers physical
habitat characteristics, like river stability, flood risk, environmental
degradation, loss of habitat, decline in biodiversity, it is not an answer to
say that the extraction is in blocks of less than 5 hectares, separated by 1
kilometre, because their collective impact may be significant, hence the necessity
of a proper environmental assessment plan. Possibly this may be the reason that
in the affidavit filed by the MoEF on 23.11.2011 along with the annexure-2 report,
the following stand has been taken:
"The Ministry is
of the opinion that where the mining area is homogenous, physically proximate end
on identifiable piece of land of 5 ha or more, it should not be broken into
smaller sizes to circumvent the EIA Notification, 2006 as the EIA Notification,
2006 is not applicable to the mining projects having lease area of less than 5 ha.
The Report of Committee on Minor Minerals, under the Chairmanship of the Secretary
(E&F) with representatives of various state Governments as members including
the State of Haryana and Rajasthan recommended a minimum lease size of 5 ha for
minor minerals for undertaking scientific mining for the purpose of integrating
and addressing environmental concerns.
Only in cases of
isolated discontinued mineral deposits in less than 5 ha, such mining leases may
be considered keeping in view the mineral conservation."Situations referred
to earlier prevail not only in the State of Haryana but also in the
neighbouring and other States of the country as well and those issues had come up
for serious deliberations before the Government of India, on various occasions.
of India was receiving various reports regarding the adverse impacts on
riverbeds and groundwater due to quarrying/mining of minerals. The Mines and
Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act 1957 empowers the State Governments
to make rules in respect of minor 10minerals. It was noticed that proposals for
mining of major minerals typically undergo environment impact assessment and environmental
clearance procedure, but due attention has not been given to environmental aspects
of mining of minor minerals.
Environmental Impact Assessment
Notification of 1994 did not apply to the mining of minor minerals, noticing that
minor minerals were brought under the ambit of the Environmental Impact Assessment
Notification of 2006 and as per the said notification mining of minerals with a
lease area of 5 hectares and above require prior environmental clearance. MoEF's
attention was drawn to several instances across the country regarding damage to
lakes, riverbeds and groundwater leading to drying up of water beds and causing
water scarcity on account of quarry/mining leases and mineral concessions granted
under the Mineral Concession Rules framed by the State Governments under Section
15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957.
MoEF noticed that
less attention was given on environmental aspects of mining of minor minerals since
the area was small, but it was noticed that the collective impact in a
particular area over a period of time might be significant. Taking note of those
aspects, MoEF constituted a Core Group under the Chairmanship of the Secretary (E&F)
to look into the environmental aspects associated with mining of minor
minerals, vide its order dated 24.03.2009. The terms of reference to the Group
were as under:
consider the environmental aspects of mining of minor minerals (quarrying as well
as river beds mining) for their integration into the mining process.
safeguard measures required to minimize the likely adverse impacts of mining on
environment with specific reference to impact on water bodies as well as
groundwater so as to ensure sustainable mining.
evolve model guidelines so as to address mining as well as environmental concerns
in a balanced manner for their adoption and implementation by all the mineral producing
States. The Group held its first meeting on 7.7.2009 and discussed the impact
that may be caused by quarrying/mining of minor minerals on riverbeds and ground
It was noticed that individual
mines of minor minerals being small in size may have insignificant impact, however,
their collective impacts, taking into consideration various mines on a regional
scale, is significantly adverse. It was, therefore, felt 12necessary to consider
various aspects since appropriate guidelines have to be issued on the basis of
the report of the Committee. The issues which were brought up for consideration
need to re-look the definition of minor mineral,
size of lease for adopting eco friendly scientific mining practices,
of mine approach for addressing and implementing EMP in case of small mines,
of mining to minimize adverse impact on hydrological regime,
of mine plan for minor minerals, similar to major minerals, and
of mined out area, post mine land use, progressive mine closure plan etc.
and inputs from various States and Experts were also invited so as to prepare a
report for consideration of the MoEF. Based on the discussion held and
subsequent inputs received, a draft report was prepared and circulated to all members
for their further inputs. Report was further discussed on 29.1.2010 for its finalization.
The observations/comments made during the meeting were incorporated in the report
and it was again circulated to all members for their consideration.
The report so circulated
was ultimately finalized. The decision taken by the MoEF affects generally the
mining of minor minerals including the riverbed mining throughout the country. For
an easy reference, we may extract the issues and recommendations made by the
MoEF, which are as follows:
"4.0 ISSUES AND
RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 Definition of Minor Mineral: The term minor mineral is
defined in clause (e) of Section 3 of MMDR Act, 1957 as "minor mineral
means building stones, gravel, ordinary clay, ordinary sand other than sand used
for prescribed purposes and any other material which the Central Government may,
by Notification in the Gazette of India declare to be a minor mineral". The
term `ordinary sand' used in clause (e) of Section 3 of the MMDR Act, 1957 has
been further clarified in rule 70 of the MCR, 1960 as "sand shall not be treated
as minor mineral when used for any of the following purposes namely:
of refractory and manufacture of ceramic,
of stowing in coal mines,
manufacture of silvicrete cement,
of sodium silicate and
of pottery and glass.
Additionally, the Central
Government has declared the following minerals as minor minerals:
pebbles used for ball mill purposes only,
kankar and limestone used in kilns for manufacture of lime used as building
and shale when used for building material,
used for making household utensils,
and sandstone when used for purposes of building or for making road metal and household
earth (used or filling or levelling purposes in construction or embankments,
roads, railways building).
It may thus be observed
that minerals have been classified into major and minor minerals based on their
end use rather than level of production, level of mechanization, export and import
etc. There do exist some minor mineral mines of silica sand and limestone where
the scale of mechanization and level of production is much higher than those of
industrial mineral mines. Further, in terms of the economic cost and revenue, it
has been estimated that the total value of minor minerals constitutes about 10%
of the total value of mineral production whereas the value of non metallic minerals
comprises only 3%.
It is, therefore, evident
that the operation of mines of minor minerals need to be subject to some regulatory
parameters as that of mines of major minerals. Further, unlike India there does
not exist any such system based on end usage in other countries for classifying
minerals into major and minor categories. Thus, there is a need to re-look at the
definition of "minor" minerals per se. It is, therefore, recommended
that Ministry of Mines along with Indian Bureau of Mines, in consultation with the
State Governments may re-examine the classification of minerals into major and
minor categories so that the regulatory aspects and environment mitigation
measures are appropriately integrated for ensuring sustainable and scientific mining
with least impacts on environment. 4.2 Size of the Mine Lease:
Area for grant of
mine lease varies from State to State. Maximum area which can be held under one
or more mine lease is 2590 ha or 25.90 sq.miles in Jammu & Kashmir.
Rajasthan prescribed a minimum limit of 1 ha for a lease. Maximum area prescribed
for permit is 50x50 m. In most of the States area of permit is not specified in
the rules. It has recently been observed by Punjab and Haryana High Court in its
order dated 15.5.2009 that State Government are apparently granting short term
permits by dividing the mining area into small zones in effect avoids
environmental norms. There is, thus a need to bring uniformity in the extent of
area to be granted for mine lease so as to ensure that eco friendly scientific
mining practices can be adopted.
It is recommended that
the minimum size of mine lease should be 5 ha. Further, preparation of
comprehensive mine plan for contiguous stretches of mineral deposits by the
respective State Governments may also be encouraged. This may suitably be
incorporated in the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 by Ministry of Mines.4.3
Period of Mine Lease: The period of lease varies from State to State depending on
type of concessions, minerals and its end use. The minimum lease period is one year
and maximum 30 years. Minerals like granite where huge investments are required,
a period of 20 years is generally given with the provisions of renewal. Permits
are generally granting for short periods which vary from one month to a maximum
one year. In States like Haryana, minor mineral leases are auctioned for a particular
Mining is considered to
be capital intensive industry and considerable time is lost for developing the
mine before it attains the status of fully developed mine. If the tenure of the
mine lease is short, it would encourage the lessee to concentrate more on rapid
exploitation of mineral without really undertaking adequate measures for
reclamation and rehabilitation of mined out area, posing thereby a serious threat
to the environment and health of the workers and public at large. There is
thus, a need to bring uniformity in the period of lease.
It is recommended
that a minimum period of mine lease should be 5 years, so that eco friendly
scientific and sustainable mining practices are adopted. However, under exceptional
circumstances arising due to judicial interventions, short term mining leases /
contracts could be granted to the State Agencies to meet the situation arising
there from.4.4 Cluster of Mine Approach for Small Sized Mines: Considering the
nature of occurrence of minor mineral, economic condition of the lessee and the
likely difficulties to be faced by Regulatory Authorities in monitoring the
environmental impacts and implementation of necessary mitigation measures, it may
be desirable to adopt cluster approach in case of smaller mine leases being operated
Further, these clusters
need be provided with processing/crusher zones for forward integration and minimizing
excessive pressure on road infrastructure. The respective State Governments / Mine
Owners Associations may facilitate implementation of Environment Management
Plans in such cluster of mines. 4.5 Requirement of Mine Plan for Minor Minerals:
At present, most of the State Governments have not made it mandatory for
preparation of mining plan in respect of minor minerals. In some States like Rajasthan,
eco friendly mining plans are prepared, which are approved by the State Mining Department.
The eco friendly mining plans so prepared, though conceptually welcome, are observed
to be deficient and need to be made comprehensive in a manner as is being done
for major minerals.
Besides, the aspects of
reclamation and rehabilitation of mined out areas, progressive mine closure plan,
as in vogue for major minerals could be introduced for minor minerals as well. It
is recommended that provision for preparation and approval of mine plan, as in the
case of major minerals may appropriately be provided in the Rules governing the
mining of minor minerals by the respective State Governments. These should
specifically include the provision for reclamation and rehabilitation of mined
out area, progressive mine closure plan and post mine land use. 184.6 Creation of
Separate Corpus for Reclamation / Rehabilitation of Mines of Minor Minerals: Mining
of minor minerals, in our country, is by and large unorganized sector and is
practiced in haphazard and unscientific manner. At times, the size of the
leasehold is also too small to address the issue of reclamation and rehabilitation
of mined outs areas. It may, therefore, be desirable that before the concept of
mine closure plan for minor minerals is adopted, the existing abandoned mines may
be reclaimed and rehabilitated with the involvement of the State Government. There
is thus, a need to create a separate corpus, which may be utilized for
reclamation and rehabilitation of mined out areas.
The respective State Governments
may work out a suitable mechanism for creation of such corpus on the `polluter
pays' principle. An organizational structure may also need to be created for
undertaking and monitoring these activities.4.7 Depth of Mining: Mining of minerals,
whether major or minor have a direct bearing on the hydrological regime of the area.
Besides, affecting the availability of water as a resource, it also affects the
quality of water through direct run of going into the surface water bodies and infiltration
/ leaching into groundwater. Further, groundwater withdrawal, dewatering of
water from mine pit and diversion of surface water may cause surface and sub
surface hydrologic systems to dry up.
An ideal situation
would require that quarrying should be restricted to unsaturated zone only above
the phreatic water table and should not intersect the groundwater table at 19any
point of time. However, from the point of view of mineral conservation, it may not
be desirable to impose blanket ban on mining operation below groundwater table.
It is, therefore, recommended that detailed hydro-geological report should be
prepared in respect of any mining operation for minor minerals to be undertaken
below groundwater table. Based on the findings of the study so undertaken and
the comments / recommendations of Central Ground Water Authority / State Ground
Water Board, a decision regarding restriction on depth of mining for any area should
be taken on case to case basis.4.8 Uniform Minor Mineral Concession Rules:
The economic value of
the minor minerals excavated in the country is estimated to contribute to about
9% of the total value of the minerals whereas the non metallic minerals
contribute to about 2.8%. Keeping in view the large extent of mining of minor minerals
and its significant potential to adversely affect the environment, it is recommended
that Model Mineral Concession rules may be framed for minor minerals as well and
the minor minerals may be subjected to a simpler regulatory regime, which is, however,
similar to major minerals regime. 4.9 River Bed Mining:4.9.1 Environment damage
being caused by unregulated river bed mining of sand, bazari and boulders is attracting
considerable attention including in the courts.
The following 20
recommendations are therefore made for the river bed mining. (a)In the case of mining
leases for riverbed sand mining, specific river stretches should be identified and
mining permits/lease should be granted stretch wise, so that the requisite safeguard
measures are duly implemented and are effectively monitored by the respective Regulatory
Authorities. (b)The depth of mining may be restricted to 3m/water level, whichever
is less. (c) For carrying out mining in proximity to any bridge and/or embankment,
appropriate safety zone should be worked out on case to case basis, taking into
account the structural parameters, locational aspects, flow rate etc. and no mining
should be carried out in the safety zone so worked out. 5.0 Conclusion: Mining of
minor minerals, though individually, because of smaller size of mine leases is perceived
to have lesser impact as compared to mining of major minerals. 21 However, the
activity as a whole is seen to have significant adverse impacts on environment.
It is, therefore,
necessary that the mining of minor minerals is subjected to simpler but strict regulatory
regime and carried out only under an approved framework of mining plan, which should
provide for reclamation and rehabilitation of the mined out areas. Further, while
granting mining leases by the respective State Governments "location of any
eco-fragile zone(s) within the impact zone of the proposed mining area, the linked
Rules/Notifications governing such zones and the judicial pronouncements, if any,
need be duly noted.
The Union Ministry of
Mines along with Indian Bureau of Mines and respective State Governments should
therefore make necessary provisions in this regard under the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and adopt
model guidelines to be followed by all States. " (emphasis supplied)The
report clearly indicates that operation of mines of minor minerals needs to be subjected
to strict regulatory parameters as that of mines of major minerals. It was also
felt necessary to have a re-look to the definition of "minor"
minerals per se. The necessity of the preparation of "comprehensive mines plan"
for contiguous stretches of mineral deposits by the respective State Governments
may also be encouraged and the same be suitably incorporated in the Mineral
Concession Rules, 1960 by the Ministry of Mines.
Further, it was also recommended
that States, Union 22Territories would see that mining of minor minerals is
subjected to simpler but strict regulatory regime and carried out only under an
approved framework of mining plan, which should provide for reclamation and rehabilitation
of mined out areas. Mining Plan should take note of the level of production,
level of mechanisation, type of machinery used in the mining of minor minerals,
quantity of diesel consumption, number of trees uprooted, export and import of
mining minerals, environmental impact, restoration of flora and host of other
matters referred to in 2010 rules.
A proper framework has
also to be evolved on cluster of mining of minor mineral for which there must be
a Regional Environmental Management Plan. Another important decision taken was that
while granting of mining leases by the respective State Governments, location
of any eco-fragile zone(s) within the impact zone of the proposed mining area,
the linked Rules/Notifications governing such zones and the judicial
pronouncements, if any, need to be duly noted.
Minister for (E & F) wrote DO letter dated 1st June, 2010 to all the Chief Ministers
of the States to examine the report and to issue necessary instructions for incorporating
23the recommendations made in the report in the Mineral Concession Rules for
mining of minor minerals under Section 15 of Mines and Mineral (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957. Following are the key recommendations re-iterated in the
a. "Minimum size of
mine lease should be 5 ha.
b. Minimum period of
mine lease should be 5 years.
c. A cluster approach to
mines should be taken in case of smaller mines leases operating currently.
d. Mine plans should be made
mandatory for minor minerals as well.
e. A separate corpus should
be created for reclamation and rehabilitation of mined out areas.
f. Hydro-geological reports
should be prepared for mining proposed below groundwater table.
g. For river bed mining,
leases should be granted stretch wise, depth may be restricted to 3m/water level,
whichever is less, and safety zones should be worked out.
h. The present classification
of minerals into major and minor categories should be re-examined by the Ministry
of Mines in consultation with the States."
Ministry of Mines, Govt. of India sent a communication No.296/7/2000/MRC dated 16.05.2011
called "Environmental aspects of quarrying and of minor minerals - Evolving
of Model Guidelines" along with a draft model guidelines calling for
inputs before 30. 06. 2011. Draft rules called Minor Minerals Conservation and Development
24Rules, 2010 were also put on the website. Further, it may be noted Section 15(1A)(i)
of the Act specifies the manner in which rehabilitation of flora and other vegetation,
such as trees, shrubs and the like destroyed by reasons of any quarrying or mining
operations shall be made in the same area or in any other area once selected by
the State Government, whether by way of reimbursement of the cost of
rehabilitation or otherwise by the persons holding the quarrying or mining
are of the view that all State Governments / Union Territories have to give due
weight to the above mentioned recommendations of the MoEF which are made in
consultation with all the State Governments and Union Territories. Model Rules of
2010 issued by the Ministry of Mines are very vital from the environmental, ecological
and bio-diversity point of view and therefore the State Governments have to
frame proper rules in accordance with the recommendations, under Section 15 of the
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.
of river sand, it is true, is an important economic activity in the country with
river sand forming a crucial raw material for the infrastructural development
and for the construction industry but excessive in-stream sand and gravel mining
causes the degradation of rivers. In-stream mining lowers the stream bottom of
rivers which may lead to bank erosion. Depletion of sand in the streambed and
along coastal areas causes the deepening of rivers which may result in
destruction of aquatic and riparian habitats as well. Extraction of alluvial material
as already mentioned from within or near a streambed has a direct impact on the
stream's physical habitat characteristics.
are of the considered view that it is highly necessary to have an effective
framework of mining plan which will take care of all environmental issues and also
evolve a long term rational and sustainable use of natural resource base and
also the bio-assessment protocol. Sand mining, it may be noted, may have an
adverse effect on bio-diversity as loss of habitat caused by sand mining will effect
various species, flora and fauna and it may also destabilize the soil structure
of river banks and often leaves isolated islands. We find that, taking note of those
technical, scientific and environmental matters, MoEF, Government of India, issued
various recommendations in March 2010 followed by the Model Rules, 2010 framed by
the Ministry of Mines which have to be given effect to, inculcating the spirit
of Article 48A, Article 51A(g) read with Article 21 of the Constitution.
State of Haryana and various other States have not so far implemented the above
recommendations of the MoEF or the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Mines before
issuing auction notices granting short term permits by way of auction of minor mineral
boulders, gravel, sand etc., in the river beds and elsewhere of less than 5 hectares.
We, therefore, direct to all the States, Union Territories, MoEF and the Ministry
of Mines to give effect to the recommendations made by MoEF in its report of
March 2010 and the model guidelines framed by the Ministry of Mines, within a period
of six months from today and submit their compliance reports.
Government also should take steps to bring into force the Minor Minerals
Conservation and Development Rules 2010 at the earliest. State Governments and
UTs also should take immediate steps to frame necessary rules under Section 15 of
the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 taking into consideration
the recommendations of MoEF in its Report of March 2010 and model guidelines framed
by the Ministry of Mines, Govt. of India. Communicate the copy of this order to
the MoEF, Secretary, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi, Ministry of Water Resources,
Central Government Water Authority, the Chief Secretaries of the respective States
and Union Territories, who would circulate this order to the concerned
in the meanwhile, order that leases of minor mineral including their renewal
for an area of less than five hectares be granted by the States/Union Territories
only after getting environmental clearance from the MoEF.
(Chandramauli Kr. Prasad)