# M/S Anandeshwar Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd v. The State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 3 ILRA 913
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-08
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 15023 of 2024
- **Bench:** Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Jayant Banerji
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-anandeshwar-agro-foods-pvt-ltd-v-the-state-of-u-p-ors-42449
- **Pages:** 23

## Headnote

A. Mining Law - Mining of replenished
sand - Sustainable mining - U.P. Minor
Mineral (Concession) Rules, 2021 - Rule
42h(1), Rules 10, 17 of Chapter II, Rule
23 of Chapter IV, Rules, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41,
42, 45 of Chapter V - If the post-monsoon
replenishment study does not reflect
adequate replenishment in the manner
and to the extent envisaged in the
EMGSM-2020, no mining can be permitted
in the area pertaining to the mining lease.
Due and timely payment of installments under
the terms of a mining lease is based on winning
existing minerals for which the lease is granted
which corresponds to the quality and quantity
contemplated in the DSR and the replenishment
studies,
particularly,
the
post-monsoon
replenishment study. For want of adequate
replenishment of the mineral or non- availability
of mineral in the requisite quantity in various
other parts of the area for which lease has been
granted, neither can any mining activity be
permitted nor, consequently, can any claim for
installments be sustained unless there is actual
replenishment or availability. It is for these
circumstances that preparation of proper DSR
and conducting audit assumes importance.
(Para 50)

B.
The
EMGSM-2020
guidelines
recommends that it is imperative to have
a study of replenishment of material
during the defined period to minimize the
adverse impact arising out of sand mining
in a given river stretch. The EMGSM-2020
guidelines provides that the excavation
will be limited to estimated replenishment
estimated with consideration of other
regulatory provisions. (Para 42)

Therefore, the fact that the second postmonsoon replenishment study dated 8.1.2024
reflects replenishment of 16380 cubic meters of
sand available for mining purpose has to be
read in light of the location where this
deposit/replenishment has taken place in the
given river stretch. Then, it has to be
ascertained in the light of EMGSM-2020,
whether such replenishment is minable. (Para
43)

C. There appears to be an effort to extract
revenue
from
mining
operations
for
benefit of the State exchequer without
empathy and consideration of ecology,
and sustainable mining, which aspects
have to be balanced with the imperatives
of development and earnings for the State
exchequer. (Para 47)

The respondents seem to be quite oblivious of
the importance of proper replenishment, the
mining plan and the DSR when they seek to
raise demands and make claims without
addressing the ecological concerns that are
reflected in the EMGSM-2020 guidelines that
also address the aspect of sustainable mining.
(Para 44, 45)

D. The terms of the lease-deed cannot
override the aforesaid Notification of
2016, the SSMMG-2016, EMGSM-2020
guidelines and the Act and Rules. (Para 48)

No doubt, there is a contract, the lease-deed,
entered into between the respondents and the
petitioner, the terms of which bind them both.
However, in case no adequate replenishment
takes place even after water of river recedes
down,
then
any
advance
payment
of
installments by the petitioner would result in
serious loss to it which eventuality is neither
contemplated in the lease deed nor in the Rules,

## Text

_Characters 0–39,730 of 72,285. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39730 for what follows._

3 All. M/S Anandeshwar Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
913
15. There is no material to dispute
reasons assigned in the chart and details
referred above and once there are no vacant
posts, claim of petitioners cannot be
accepted.

16. The Supreme Court has
reiterated in Sudesh Kumar Goyal vs.
State of Haryana and others, 2023 INSC
842 : (2023) 10 SCC 54 that even a
selected candidate has no indefeasible right
of appointment and there must be a
timeline to conclude a process and in
present case, recruitment process was
initially initiated in 2013 i.e. about 12 years
ago and last supplementary select list was
published in 2018 i.e. 7 years ago and to
continue such process after so many years
could
not
be
reasonable.
Relevant
paragraph of Sudesh Kumar (supra) is
quoted below :-

"18. In
view
of
the
reasoning given by the respondents
for appointing only 13 selected
candidates leaving the appellant
who was at Sl. No. 14, we are of
the opinion that the respondents
have justified the appointments and
have not acted in an arbitrary
manner. The respondents have
acted fairly and logically without
any malice against the appellant.
Thus, on the touchstone of the
decision cited on behalf of the
appellant himself, we do not find
any arbitrariness on the part of the
respondents.
Therefore,
the
decision of the Division Bench of
the High Court is not liable to be
disturbed on the above count, more
particularly when the appellant
has not acquired any indefeasible
right to be appointed because he
qualified in the selection process.
20. This apart, as may be
noticed that the procedure for
selection of superior/higher judicial
service
officers
by
direct
recruitment from the Bar was
initiated by the Punjab and Haryana
High Court way back in the year
2007 and now we are in the year
2023 meaning thereby that 16
years have passed by in between.
It would be a travesty of justice to
keep open the selection process
for such a long time and to direct
at
this
stage
to
make
any
appointment on the basis of a
selection process initiated so far
back. For this additional reason
also, we do not deem it proper to
interfere
with
the
impugned
judgment
and
order
[Sudesh
Kumar Goyal v. State of Haryana,
CWP No. 16211 of 2009 sub
nom Keshav Kaushik v. State of
Haryana, 2010 SCC OnLine P&H
5043] of the High Court."

17. Accordingly, present bunch of
writ petitions are dismissed.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 913
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.03.2012

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE JAYANT BANERJI, J.

Writ C No. 15023 of 2024

M/S Anandeshwar Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd.
 ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
914 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sr Advocate, Sri Utkarsh Prasad

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Mining Law - Mining of replenished
sand - Sustainable mining - U.P. Minor
Mineral (Concession) Rules, 2021 - Rule
42h(1), Rules 10, 17 of Chapter II, Rule
23 of Chapter IV, Rules, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41,
42, 45 of Chapter V - If the post-monsoon
replenishment study does not reflect
adequate replenishment in the manner
and to the extent envisaged in the
EMGSM-2020, no mining can be permitted
in the area pertaining to the mining lease.
Due and timely payment of installments under
the terms of a mining lease is based on winning
existing minerals for which the lease is granted
which corresponds to the quality and quantity
contemplated in the DSR and the replenishment
studies,
particularly,
the
post-monsoon
replenishment study. For want of adequate
replenishment of the mineral or non- availability
of mineral in the requisite quantity in various
other parts of the area for which lease has been
granted, neither can any mining activity be
permitted nor, consequently, can any claim for
installments be sustained unless there is actual
replenishment or availability. It is for these
circumstances that preparation of proper DSR
and conducting audit assumes importance.
(Para 50)

B.
The
EMGSM-2020
guidelines
recommends that it is imperative to have
a study of replenishment of material
during the defined period to minimize the
adverse impact arising out of sand mining
in a given river stretch. The EMGSM-2020
guidelines provides that the excavation
will be limited to estimated replenishment
estimated with consideration of other
regulatory provisions. (Para 42)

Therefore, the fact that the second postmonsoon replenishment study dated 8.1.2024
reflects replenishment of 16380 cubic meters of
sand available for mining purpose has to be
read in light of the location where this
deposit/replenishment has taken place in the
given river stretch. Then, it has to be
ascertained in the light of EMGSM-2020,
whether such replenishment is minable. (Para
43)

C. There appears to be an effort to extract
revenue
from
mining
operations
for
benefit of the State exchequer without
empathy and consideration of ecology,
and sustainable mining, which aspects
have to be balanced with the imperatives
of development and earnings for the State
exchequer. (Para 47)

The respondents seem to be quite oblivious of
the importance of proper replenishment, the
mining plan and the DSR when they seek to
raise demands and make claims without
addressing the ecological concerns that are
reflected in the EMGSM-2020 guidelines that
also address the aspect of sustainable mining.
(Para 44, 45)

D. The terms of the lease-deed cannot
override the aforesaid Notification of
2016, the SSMMG-2016, EMGSM-2020
guidelines and the Act and Rules. (Para 48)

No doubt, there is a contract, the lease-deed,
entered into between the respondents and the
petitioner, the terms of which bind them both.
However, in case no adequate replenishment
takes place even after water of river recedes
down,
then
any
advance
payment
of
installments by the petitioner would result in
serious loss to it which eventuality is neither
contemplated in the lease deed nor in the Rules,
2021. Therefore the contention sought to be
made that payment of installment should
be made by the petitioner and eMM-11
forms be uploaded to the extent of carried
forward quantity of minerals which could
not have been mined in the preceding
months till March 2024, is fallacious. (Para
46)

The petitioner could not have been forced to
mine the relatively meagre amount of 16380
cubic meters of replenished sand that was
reflected in the last replenishment study report
submitted by the petitioner without ascertaining
whether the replenishment that had taken place
in the stretch of land/river was such that mining
of the same could be permitted in the backdrop
3 All. M/S Anandeshwar Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
915
of sustainable mining. There is no DSR shown to
have been prepared. (Para 51)

Since, steps have been taken by the State
Government for fresh auction of the mining area
that was granted to the petitioner, the petitioner
is not liable to deposit any installment after the
stoppage of mining operations for the period
from 1.7.2023 onwards. If any amount has been
deposited/recovered/confiscated by/against the
petitioner, the same shall be refunded within a
period of one month from today along with
simple interest @ 9% per annum calculated
from
the
date
of
such
deposit/recovery/confiscation
till
the
actual
payment. (Para 54)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Dharmendra Kumar Singh Vs St. of U. P.,
(2021) 1 SCC 93 (Para 6)

2. M/s Planet Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs The St. of Har. &
ors., Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C)
Nos. 19619-19620/2017 (Para 6)

3. Vipul Tyagi Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Writ-C No.
17258 of 2020 (Para 6)

4. Ranjana Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Writ-C
No. 32486 of 2019 (Para 6)

5. Anjani Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Original
Application No. 557 of 2017 (Para 14)

6. Deepak Kumar & ors. Vs St. of Har. & ors.,
(2012) 4 SCC 629 (Para 24)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
seeking quashing of the demand notice/ order
dated 19.2.2024 and the order cancelling the
mining lease dated 27.2.2024 both passed by
the District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat. Also
under challenge is the order of 18.4.2024
passed by the Special Secretary, Geology and
Mining,
U.P.
in
Revision
No.
33(R)/G&M/(U.P)/2024, M/s. Anandeshwar
Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. District Magistrate,
Kanpur Dehat (Annexure-1 to the writ
petition) filed by the petitioner whereby his
revision has been rejected. A further prayer
seeks direction to the respondents not to
demand any monthly installments specified
in the lease deed for the months of October,
November and December, 2023, and, January
and February, 2024.

2. An advertisement/auction notice
dated 3.12.2018 was issued by the District
Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat for grant of mining
leases of sand/morrum under Chapter IV of
the U.P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules,
19631 by e-tender cum e-auction for a period
of five years for all vacant mining areas in
Kanpur Dehat district. The bid of the
petitioner, in respect of plot No.58 measuring
08.275 hectares at Village-Bilaspur Kachhar,
Tehsil-Sikanda, District-Kanpur Dehat, of
Rs.264 per cubic meter, being the highest bid,
was approved by the District Magistrate and a
Letter of Intent was issued to the petitioner on
5.2.2019. The petitioner applied for a mining
plan which was sanctioned by the competent
authority and thereafter the petitioner applied
for obtaining an Environment Clearance
Certificate, which was granted to the
petitioner on 15.1.2021. Thereafter, a leasedeed was executed in favour of the petitioner
on 12.3.2021 for a period of five years
permitting winning of 1,10,057 cubic meters
per annum of sand/morrum with the
installments (excluding the security amount)
for the first year totaling Rs.2,90,55,048.00
and for each successive year, the royalty
payable would be increased by 10% on the
royalty payable in the previous year. An
amount of Rs.2,20,31,460.00 was deposited
by the petitioner as security.

3. It is stated that the petitioner had
carried out mining operations and paid the
entire installments due upto 30.6.2023 as
916 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
per the payment schedule specified in the
lease-deed. A notice dated 2.6.2023 was
issued by the Additional District Magistrate
(Administration), Kanpur Dehat directing
the petitioner to get the pre-monsoon and
post-monsoon replenishment study done of
his mining area. The petitioner got the
replenishment study of pre-monsoon done
on 25.6.2023. It is stated that even after
post-monsoon,
the
leased
area
was
completely submerged and, hence, it was
not possible to carry out post-monsoon
survey and no mining operations were
possible and, therefore, the petitioner
moved an application on 5.10.2023 before
the District Magistrate requesting him not
to compel the petitioner to deposit the lease
amount
post-monsoon
till
the
replenishment study was done. It is stated
that the post-monsoon survey was done on
29.10.2023 and a combined report of premonsoon and post-monsoon was submitted
before the District Magistrate. The Mines
Officer issued a demand notice dated
25.11.2023 demanding the installment of
October
and
November
2023.
The
petitioner moved an application dated
28.11.2023 stating that the entire leased
area is submerged and a very small patch of
surface was seen which belonged to the
restricted area. Again, a request was made
by the petitioner to the District Magistrate
to waive off the installment for the period
starting
from
1.10.2023
till
actual
commencement of the mining operations.

4. Again, the Mines Officer issued
a demand notice to the petitioner on
4.12.2023 demanding the due installments.
The petitioner sent an application dated
11.12.2023 to the District Magistrate
requesting him to waive off the installments
for the period with a further request that the
petitioner be allowed to get the leased area
re-assessed by the competent agency for
proper compliance and verification of the
actual mineable reserve.

5. By a letter dated 21.12.2023, the
District Magistrate rejected the aforesaid
applications of the petitioner on the ground
that it is the responsibility of the petitioner
to pay the installments stated in the leasedeed. The petitioner again on 8.1.2024 got
the leased area re-inspected for postmonsoon replenishment study for assessing
the quantity of available mineral. It is
stated that the new replenishment study
report
of
08.01.2024
reflected
no
significant replenishment of river bed
mineral and the replenished mineral on the
leased land on that date was 16,380 cubic
meters. The opinion in this replenishment
study was that the mineral quantity may
increase in future once the water recedes.

Thereafter, the petitioner moved an
application dated 27.1.2024 indicating his
willingness to initiate mining operations
provided the installments for the disrupted
period from 1.10.2021 till the actual
commencement of mining operations be
waived and further installments be 'reevaluated' as per the actual mineral
recharge/replenished quantity as found in
the post-monsoon replenishment study
report. This application of the petitioner
was rejected by the District Magistrate by
means of a demand notice/order dated
19.2.2024. It is stated that the impugned
order dated 27.2.2024 was received by the
petitioner on 29.2.2024 by email canceling
the mining lease of the petitioner. The
petitioner then filed a revision before the
State Government which was dismissed by
the impugned order dated 18.4.2024.

6. It is contended by the learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
that
the
cancellation of the mining lease and the
3 All. M/S Anandeshwar Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
917
rejection of the revision of the petitioner is
without consideration of the evidence and
against the statutory provisions. It is stated
that once an area is declared by the State
Government to be leased out by e-tender/eauction/e-tender cum e-auction, the District
Officer is mandated to get that declared
area evaluated for the quality and quantity
of mineral for fixing minimum bid or offer
which is to be done by the Director,
Geology and Mining, Uttar Pradesh or by
an officer authorised by him; that the
replenishment study is required to be
conducted as per the orders of the National
Green Tribunal2; that it was incumbent on
the State Government to make available the
quantity of mineral required for excavation
on the basis of which the petitioner would
pay the installments of lease amount,
otherwise the petitioner would be entitled
for refund or remission of the installments;
that if the State Government fails to
provide mineral for excavation, then no
lease instalment amount is payable; and
that the notice issued under Rule 59 of the
U.P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules,
20213 is required to be issued by the
District Magistrate and not by the Mines
Officer. In this view of the matter, it is
contended that the District Magistrate
having given the last notice on 19.2.2024,
and the order canceling the lease having
been passed on 27.2.2024, there is violation
of Rule 59 of the Rules, 2021 which
mandates 30+15 days notice.

In support of his contentions,
learned counsel for the petitioner has relied
upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Dharmendra Kumar Singh vs. State of
Uttar
Pradesh4;
a
judgment
dated
10.4.2018 passed by the Supreme Court in
the case of M/s. Planet Steel Pvt. Ltd. vs.
The State of Haryana & Ors.5; a decision
of a coordinate Bench of this Court dated
11.1.2021 in the case of Vipul Tyagi vs.
State of U.P. & 6 Ors.6 and a decision of
this Court dated 24.10.2019 in the case of
Ranjana Singh vs. State of U.P. & Ors.7.

7. A counter affidavit has been
filed on behalf of the respondents stating
that the lease-deed was executed on
12.3.2021 in respect of the leased area for
excavation of 110057 cubic meters of
sand/morrum per annum at the rate of
Rs.264/-. The amount of security, the
annual amount payable and the installments
due and payable were specified in the
lease-deed itself. It has been stated that
material facts have been concealed in the
instant writ petition inasmuch as Writ-C
No.9186 of 2022 was filed by the petitioner
before the Lucknow Bench of this Court
seeking the following reliefs:-

"1. issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the Government Order
dated 9.11.2022 issued by the State
Government i.e. Respondent no.1,
contained as Annexure No.1 to this
writ petition.
2. Issue a writ, order or
direction
in
the
nature
of
mandamus
directing
the
respondents to waive of the liability
of deposit of the royalty amount of
the month of October 2022 &
November 2022 so far it relates to
the mining lease of the petitioner
and do not compel to the petitioner
to deposit the royalty amount for
the aforesaid two months as no
mining activity has taken place in
the aforesaid months.

3. to issue any other writ,
order or direction which this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
918 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
proper in the circumstances of the
case.
4. to award cost of the
petition to the petitioner."
In response to aforesaid
petition, a counter affidavit was
filed by the respondents opposing
the writ petition and that petition is
pending before the Lucknow Bench
of this Court.

8. It is stated in the counter
affidavit to the present petition that the
notices dated 25.11.2023 and 4.12.2023 as
well as the notices dated 21.12.2023 and
19.2.2024 were issued to the petitioner; that
the representations filed by the petitioner
were rejected on 21.12.2023 on the ground
that nine months' time was available to the
petitioner for mining for excavating the
annual quantity of sand and sell it as per the
market rate available and accordingly
upload Form eMM-11 to the extent of the
carried forward quantity in the preceding
month that could not have been mined; that
the
pre-monsoon
and
post-monsoon
replenishment
study
reports
are
contradictory and cannot be relied upon for
any purpose by this Court; that postmonsoon replenishment report reflects a
quantity of 16380 cubic meters of mineral
available for mining which may further
increase in future; that the amount of
mineral could be excavated by the
petitioner but he chose not to carry out any
mining
operations;
that
a
surrender
application for surrendering the mining
lease as per Rule 30 of the Rules 2021
could have been filed by him but no such
application was filed; that the petitioner has
not brought on record the inspection report
dated 13.2.2023; that illegal mining was
being done in violation of Rule 42h(1) of
the Rules, 2021, whereafter a notice dated
21.2.2023 was given to the petitioner
imposing a penalty of Rs.5 lacs which
notice has not been replied by the
petitioner. In paragraph nos.18 and 19 of
the counter affidavit, it is stated as follows:-

"18. That it is humbly
submitted before this Hon'ble Court
that in case the lease holder is
unable to extract the quantity of
sand in a particular month then
upon payment of the royalty
amount the quantity not excavated
is carried forward on the portal of
the department automatically. It is
also submitted herein that the
practice and procedure is that in
case the lease holder is to extract an
additional quantity of sand, that he
is unable to in a particular month,
he has to pay the royalty amount of
the succeeding month and extract
the carried forward quantity (that
was not extracted) of sand to be
excavated in the next month. The
said amount of sand has to be
excavated keeping in view the
annual quantity of sand to be
extracted
as
per
the
amount
mentioned in the Environmental
Clearance Certificate.
19. That in the facts of the
present case the amount of sand
that could have been extracted in a
particular year by the petitioner
herein is 1,10,0057 cubic meter
(sic, 110057) and 12,228.55 cubic
meter per month. If the amount of
12,228.55 cubic meter could not be
extracted by the petitioner in a
particular month then the left over
amount could be carried forward by
him in the next month and
extracted
accordingly.
The
petitioner herein from Jan. 2023 to
June 2023 has extracted sand in
3 All. M/S Anandeshwar Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
919
excess of 12,228.55 cubic meter
and the generated EMM-11 form
alongwith the production quantity
bearing lease ID No. 313623
bearing
Lease
ID
No.
313623090133 is being brought on
record and is being filed herewith
and marked as Annexure No.CA-9
to this Affidavit."

9. In the enclosure mentioned in
paragraph no.19 of the counter affidavit, a
table showing the production month,
generated eMM-11 form and the production
quantity in cubic meters is reflected, which
has not been denied in the rejoinder
affidavit and is as follows:-

Sr.
No.
Lease
Holder
Name
Produ
ction
Month
Gener
ated
eMM
11
Produ
ction
Quanti
ty
(Cubic
meter)
01
Sunil
Kumar
Gupta
Lease
ID3136230
90133
Januar
y,
2023
711
14750
02

Februa
ry,
2023
769
15926
03

March
2023
581
11907
04

April
826
16990
05

May,
2023
707
13864
06

June,
2023
605
12373

It is, therefore, contended that the
orders passed by the District Magistrate as
well as the State Government are justified.
10. In the rejoinder affidavit, the
petitioner has relied upon a Government
Order dated 12.11.2021 while stating that
the relaxation was granted by the State
Government in the payment of the lease
amount proportionate to the quantity of
mineral which the petitioner could not lift
and the Government Order directed that the
quantity which could not be lifted could be
deducted from the annual quantity.

As regards the table filed alongwith
the counter affidavit showing the Form
eMM-11 generated by the petitioner and
the amount of production of the mineral, it
has been stated that the calculations were
for the period from January 2023 to June
2023, when there was sufficient mineral
available in the mining area and the
petitioner had paid the entire lease amount
uptil June. It is stated that in the present
case, the entire area was submerged and,
therefore, there was no occasion for
carrying forward the minerals to be
excavated. The dispute relates to the period
commencing October 2023.

ANALYSIS

11. The emphasis of the petitioner
is on the loss being suffered by the
petitioner despite his every attempt to
bonafide work the mining lease granted to
him, due to lack of proper evaluation of the
mining area and want of preparation of a
District Survey Report8 which is mandated
to be prepared after a replenishment study
is conducted as per the Sustainable Sand
Mining Management Guidelines-20169,
which
was
supplemented
with
the
Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines
for Sand Mining-202010. It has also been
stated that the State Level Environment
Impact
Assessment
Authority,
Uttar
Pradesh, in its meeting held on 31.12.2022,
920 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
had directed the Mines Department to
ensure that no mining is carried out beyond
the
quantity
mentioned
in
the
replenishment study report.

12. The EMGSM-2020 was
formulated
by
the
Ministry
of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change,
Government of India. The Ministry had
earlier formulated the SSMMG-2016 which
focuses on the management of sand mining
in the country. However, while observing in
the
EMGSM-2020
that
apart
from
management
and
systematic
mining
practices, there is an urgent need to have
guidelines for effective enforcement of
regulatory provisions and their monitoring,
the
rampant
and
illegal
mining,
transportation and storage of minerals were
noted with concern. The guidelines focus
on the effective monitoring of sand mining
from identification of sand mineral sources,
its dispatch and end-use by consumers and
the general public. It was felt necessary to
identify the minimum requirements across
all geographical regions to have a uniform
protocol for monitoring and enforcement of
regulatory
provision
prescribed
for
sustainable sand and gravel mining.

13. After noting various directions
issued by the NGT and the Supreme Court
from time to time, the EMGSM-2020
narrates the necessity of complying with
the directions of the NGT. Though several
requirements
for
monitoring
and
enforcement
are
mentioned,
however,
certain
important
requirements
are
extracted below:-

"ii)
The
mining
lease
auctioned by State government as
per their Minor Mineral Concession
Rules are granted of Letter of Intent
(Lol), but it has been observed that
many of the sites are not suitable
w.r.t environmental aspects. In
most of the cases, the unplanned
grant of mining lease leads to
formation
of
cluster
and/or
contiguous cluster of small mining
leases which sometimes is difficult
to regulate and monitor. In order to
address such issues, more emphasis
is required on the preparation of
District Survey Report and its
format for reporting.
iii) Mining Plan is an
important document to assist the
mine owner to operate the mine in
a scientific manner. States have
their own format for preparation of
mining plan and it is observed that
recording of the initial level of
mining lease at shorter interval say
25m X 25 m grid interval is not
present.
iv) There is no practice for
regular replenishment study to
ascertain the rate of depositing,
plan and section needs to be
prepared based on the restrictions
provided in letter of intent and
provisions of Sustainable Sand
Mining Management Guidelines
2016.
v)
Environmental
Clearance is a process wherein the
regulatory
authorities
after
considering
the
potential
environment impact of mining
clearance is granted with a set of
specific & standard conditions to
carry out mining operations, but
often it is observed that letter of
intent is granted for a location
which has less potential for mining
and not feasible for environmentfriendly mining. This leads to an
unnecessary financial burden on the
3 All. M/S Anandeshwar Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
921
mine owners and litigations. Thus,
Lol should be preferably granted
for those locations which have the
least possibility of an impact on the
environment and nearby habitation.
vi) It is the responsibility of
the mine owner to obtain all the
statutory clearance and comply
with the conditions stipulated in the
clearance letter. Mining should be
carried out within the mining lease
area as per approved mining plan or
mining plan concurred by other
regulatory authorities.
.....................
viii) The river reaches with
sand provide the resource and thus
it is necessary to ascertain the rate
of replenishment of the mineral.
Regular replenishment study needs
to be carried out to keep a balance
between deposition and extraction.
This
document
provides
the
procedure to be followed for
conducting replenishment study.

14. The EMGSM-2020 highlights
that preparation of the DSR is a very
important step and that sustainable sand
mining in any part of the country would
depend on the quality of DSR. The DSR is
required to be prepared under the SSMMG2016. The guidelines emphasize detailed
procedure to be followed for the purpose of
identification
of
areas
of
aggradation/deposition where mining can
be allowed and identification of areas of
erosion and proximity to infrastructural
structures and installation where mining
should be prohibited. Calculation of annual
rate of replenishment, allowing time for
replenishment after mining, identification
of ways of scientific and systematic
mining; identifying measures for protection
of
environment
and
ecology
and
determining measures for protection of
bank erosion, bench mark (BM) with
respect to Mean Sea Level (MSL) should
be made essential in mining channel
reaches (MCR) below which no mining
would be allowed. The judgment of the
NGT of 8.12.2017 in the matter of Anjani
Kumar vs. State of U.P. & Ors.11 is
referred in the guidelines in this regard, in
which
judgment/order
the
following
observation was made:

"It states that the main
object of preparation of District
Survey
Report
is
to
ensure
identification
of
areas
of
aggradation/deposition
where
mining
can
be
allowed
and
identification of areas of erosion
and proximity to infrastructural
structures and installation where
mining should be prohibited and
calculation
of
annual
rate
of
replenishment and allowing time
for replenishment after mining
area.
Thus,
the
environmental
protection
requires
a
strictly
regulated mining in terms of area,
quantity
as
well
as
most
importantly replenishment thereof."
Then,
inter
alia,
the
following
order/direction
was
passed:
"The data collection and
declared for preparation of DSR
shall take precedence over other
data and would form the foundation
for providing mining lease in terms
of Appendix- x to the Notification
dated 15th January 2016 must be
prepared by the statutory authority
stated therein i.e. DEIAA prior to
awarding of permits for carrying on
mining activity in any part of the
State of UP."
922 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(emphasis supplied)

15. Considering the importance of
DSR, for purpose of preparation of
comprehensive DSR for sand mining,
certain guidelines were formulated, which
are encapsulated below :-

(a) District Survey Report
for sand mining shall be prepared
before the auction/e-auction/grant
of the mining lease/Letter of Intent
(LoI) by Mining department or
department dealing the mining
activity in respective states.

(b) The first step is to
develop the inventory of the River
Bed Material and Other sand
sources in the District. In order to
make the inventory of River Bed
Material, a detailed survey of the
district needs to be carried out, to
identify the source of River Bed
Material and alternative source of
sand (M-Sand). The source will
include
rivers,
de-siltation
of
reservoir/dams,
Patta
lands/Khatedari Land, M-sand etc.
It was proposed that for preparation
of
district
survey
report,
the
auditing of rivers needs to be
carried out.
(c) District Survey Report
is to be prepared in such a way that
it not only identifies the mineralbearing area but also define the
mining and no mining zones
considering various environmental
and social factors.
(d) Identification of the
source of Sand & M-Sand. The
sources may be from Rivers, Lakes,
Ponds, Dams, De-silting locations,
Patta land/Khatedari lands.
(e) Defining the sources of
Sand/M-Sand in the district is the
next step for identification of the
potential
area
of
deposition/aggradation
wherein
mining lease could be granted.
Detailed survey needs to be carried
out for quantification of minerals.
The purpose of mining in the river
bed is for channelization of rivers
so as to avoid the possibility of
flooding and to maintain the flow
of the rivers. For this, the entire
river stretch needs to be surveyed
and original ground level (OGL) to
be
recorded
and
area
of
aggradation/deposition needs to be
ascertained by comparing the level
difference between the outside
riverbed OGL and water level.
(f)
The
permanent
boundary pillars need to be erected
after identification of an area of
aggradation and deposition outside
the bank of the river at a safe
location for future surveying. The
distance between boundary pillars
on each side of the bank shall not
be more than 100 meters.
(g) Identifying the mining
and no mining zone shall follow
with defining the area of sensitivity
by ascertaining the distance of the
mining area from the protected
area, forest, bridges, important
structures, habitation etc. and based
on the sensitivity the area needs to
be defined in sensitive and nonsensitive area.
(h) Demand and supply of
the Riverbed Material through
market survey needs to be carried
out. In addition to this future
demand for the next 5 years also
needs to be considered.
3 All. M/S Anandeshwar Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
923
(i) It is suggested that as far
as possible the sensitive areas
should be avoided for mining,
unless local safety condition arises.
Such deviation shall be temporary
& shall not be a permanent feature.
(j) The final area selected
for the mining should be then
divided into mining lease as per the
requirement of State Government.
It is suggested the mining lease
area should be so selected as to
cover the entire deposition area.
Dividing
a
large
area
of
deposition/aggradation into smaller
mining leases should be avoided as
it leads to loss of mineral and
indirectly promote illegal mining.
(k) Cluster situation shall
be examined. A cluster is formed
when
one
mining
lease
of
homogenous mineral is within 500
meters of the other mining lease. In
order
to
reduce
the
cluster
formation mining lease size should
be defined in such a way that
distance between any two clusters
preferably should not be less than
2.5 Km. Mining lease should be
defined in such a way that the total
area of the mining leases in a
cluster should not be more than 10
Ha.
(l)
The
number
of
a
contiguous cluster needs to be
ascertained. Contiguous cluster is
formed when one cluster is at a
distance of 2.5 Km from the other
cluster.
(m) The mining outside the
riverbed on Patta land/Khatedari
land be granted when there is
possibility of replenishment of
material. In case, there is no
replenishment then mining lease
shall only be granted when there is
no riverbed mining possibility
within
5
KM
of
the
Patta
land/Khatedari
land.
For
government projects, mining could
be allowed on Patta land/Khatedari
land but the mining should only be
done by the Government agency
and material should not be used for
sale in the open market. Cluster
situation as mentioned in para k
above is also applicable for the
mining in Patta land/Khatedari
land.
(n) The State Government
should define the transportation
route
from
the
mining
lease
considering
the
maximum
production from the mines as at this
stage the size of mining leases,
their location, the quantity of
mineral that can be mined safely
etc. is available with the State
Government. It is suggested that
the transportation route should be
selected in such a way that the
movement of trucks/tippers/tractors
from the villages having habitation
should
be
avoided.
The
transportation route so selected
should be verified by the State
Government
for
its
carrying
capacity.
(o) Potential site for mining
having its impact on the forest,
protected area, habitation, bridges
etc, shall be avoided. For this, a
sub-divisional committee may be
formed which after the site visit
shall decide its suitability for
mining.
(p) Public consultation-The
comments
of
the
various
stakeholders may be sought on the
list of mining lease to be auctioned.
924 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The State Government shall give an
advertisement in the local and
national newspaper for seeking
comments of the general public on
the list of mining lease included in
the DSR.

16. Para 4.2 of the EMGSM-2020
relates to grant of Letter of Intent to those
mining leases which are falling in potential
mining zones. It reads as under :-

"The
State
Government
shall issue letter of intent as per
procedure laid down in their Minor
Mineral Concession Rules with due
consideration
of
final
district
survey
report.
The
State
Government shall ensure that all
the letter of intent shall have
complete details of the mining
lease including geo- coordinate of
the corner points, the involvement
of forest land, distance from the
forest land, distance from the
protected area, distance from other
sites of archaeological importance,
details of the cluster situation etc.
The demarcation of the boundaries
of LoI/Lease area shall be placed in
public domain along with LoI/lease
deed details.
The LOI should not be
granted for mining area falling on
both riverbed and outside riverbed.
Therefore, in the same lease, both
types of area should not be
included.
The authority responsible
for grant of lease for sand mining
shall ensure that annual audit of the
sand mining process, production
and compliance of the imposed
conditions by regulatory authority
(Environmental clearance or mine
plan) shall be one of the essential
condition of the lease agreement.
The annual audit report shall be
submitted
to
the
district
administration, which shall be put
in public domain through the
district website. Any deviation
observed shall be appropriately and
in accordance with applicable law
shall be dealt by the concerned
authority and corrective measures
shall also be taken to restoration of
ecological/environmental damage,
if observed."

17. Para 4.3 deals with preparation
of mining plan which reads as follows:-

"The preparation of Mining
Plan is also very important. The
mining plan should include the
original ground level recorded at an
interval not more than 10M x 10M
along & across the length of the
river. In addition to this levels,
outside the mining lease and bank
of the river up to meters needs to be
recorded. In the mining plan, there
should be 3 plates for each year
production & development planning
(pre-monsoon, monsoon and postmonsoon). The time period of
monsoon should be defined in the
DSR. At the time of review of the
mining plan, the details of the
replenishment study conducted for all
the years needs to be included in the
mining plan. The Mining Plan should
include the certificate from PCCF on
forest
land,
distance
from
the
protected area, past production details
for mining leases seeking expansion."

18. The considerations that are
required to be kept in mind for sand/gravel
3 All. M/S Anandeshwar Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
925
mining for approving mining plan have
been specified, relevant provisions of
which, for purpose of this case are
mentioned below:-

(i) Parts of the river reach
that
experience
deposition
or
aggradation shall be identified. The
Leaseholder/
Environmental
Clearance holder may be allowed
to extract the sand and gravel
deposit
in
these
locations
to
manage aggradation problem.
(ii) 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.
(iii) Sand and gravel may
be extracted across the entire active
channel during the dry season.
(iv)
Abandoned
stream
channels on the 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.
(v) 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.
(vi) The sediment sampling
should include the bed material and
bed material load before, during
and after the extraction period.
Develop a sediment rating curve at
the upstream end of the potential
reach using the surveyed crosssection. 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.
(vii) Mining depth should
be restricted to 3 meters and
distance from the bank should be
1/4th or river width and should not
be less than 7.5 meters.

19. Para 5 of the EMGSM-2020
provides for replenishment study, which
reads as follows:-

"5.0 Replenishment Study
The need for replenishment
study for river bed sand is required
in order to nullify the adverse
impacts arising due to excessing
sand extraction.