Uttarakhand High Court
Dinesh Kumar Chandola vs State Of Uttarakhand on 30 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (PIL) No. 80 of 2020
Dinesh Kumar Chandola. ..................Petitioner.
-Versus-
State of Uttarakhand. ..........Respondent.
Present:
Shri Dushyant Mainali, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri A.S. Rawat, learned Special Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing
Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
Shri V.K. Kaparwan, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.
Ms. Monika Pant, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India.
Date of Hearing and Judgment : 30.03.2022
Coram:-
Sri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, ACJ.
Sri Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, J.
Upon hearing the learned counsel, the Court made the following
judgment:- (Per, S.K.Mishra, ACJ)
1. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the
following reliefs:
"i. Issue a writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned
Government Order dated 13.05.2020 annexed at Annexure
No. 1.
ii. To direct the respondent nos. 1 and 3 to effectively
implement the Enforcement & Monitoring Guidelines for
Sand Mining 2020 and Sustainable Sand Management
Guidelines 2016 issued by respondent no. 2 so far as they
prescribe Replenishment Study of rivers and Monitoring
Mechanism to prevent illegal mining, in letter and spirit.
iii. To direct the respondent nos. 1, 3, 7 and 8 to take
immediate and effective steps and legal action to prevent
rampant unscientific and unregulated mechanized river
bed mining being done in rivers Khoh, Sukhro and Malan
at Kotdwar District Pauri Garhwal.
iv. To direct the respondent nos. 1, 3 & 6 - 11 to take
stringent measures and legal action to prevent illegal and
unregulated river bed mining in their respective
jurisdictions.
v. To direct the respondent no. 2 and 4 to take adequate
effective steps and legal action in the cases of violation of
conditions of forest clearance granted for river bed mining
projects.
vi. To direct the respondent no. 12 or to any suitable
expert agency / institute suggested by them or by some in
the opinion of the Hon'ble Court to be expert body, to
conduct cumulative impact study on rampant river bed
mining in the State of Uttarakhand and recommend
suitable measures to be adopted in the sector of river bed
mining in the State of Uttarakhand."
2. As per order dated 11.06.2022, it is apparent that prayer no.
1 no longer survives. Now, the case remains for rest of the reliefs.
3. Shri Dushyant Mainali, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that Clauses 5.0 and 5.1 of the Enforcement & Monitoring
Guidelines for Sand Mining are very much necessary for the
purpose of maintaining ecological balance and also for the health
of the rivers, which are reproduced below:
"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. Mining within or near
riverbed has a direct impact on the stream's physical
characteristics, such as channel geometry, bed
elevation, substratum composition and stability, in-
stream roughness of the bed, flow velocity, discharge
capacity, sediment transport capacity, turbidity,
temperature etc. Alternation or modification of the
above attributes may cause an impact on the
ecological equilibrium of the reverine regime,
disturbance in channel configuration and flow paths.
This may also cause an adverse impact on instream
biota and riparian habitats. It is assumed that the
riparian habitat disturbance is minimum if the
replenishment is equal to excavation for a given
stretch. Therefore, to minimize the adverse impact
arising out of sand mining in a given river stretch, it
is imperative to have a study of replenishment of
material during the defined period.
5.1 Generic Structure of Replenishment Study.
Initially replenishment study requires four surveys.
The first survey needs to be carried out in the month
of April for recording the level of mining lease before
monsoon. The second survey is at the time of closing
of mines for monsoon season. This survey will
provide the quantity of the material excavated before
the offset of monsoon. The third survey needs to be
carried out after the monsoon to know the quantum
of material deposited / replenished in the mining
lease. The fourth survey at the end of March to know
the quantity of material excavated during financial
year. For the subsequent years, there will be a
requirement of only three surveys. The results of
year-wise surveys help the state government to
establish the replenishment rate of the river. Based on
the replenishment rate future auction may be
planned.
The replenishment period may vary on nature of the
channel and season of deposition arising due to
variation in the flow. Such period and season may
vary on the geographical and precipitation
characteristic of the region and requires to be defined
by the local agencies preferable with the help of the
Central Water Commission and Indian
Meteorological Department. The excavation will,
therefore, be limited to estimated replenishment
estimated with consideration of other regulatory
provisions. "
4. Ms. Monika Pant, learned Standing Counsel for the Union
of India submits that in fact, such guidelines have been issued by
the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and in
fact, mining of rivers for removing silt should be done as per
Guidelines issued, which appears at Annexure No. 15 (page 144
of the writ petition).
5. Shri V.K. Kaparwan, learned counsel for the respondent no.
5 - Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation submits that
removal of silt from the rivers in Uttarakhand through mining
process is done strictly in accordance with the instructions issued
by Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, referred
to above, hence, there is no need to issue any further directions.
6. Shri A.S. Rawat, learned Special Senior Counsel for the
State of Uttarakhand submits that removal of silt through mining
process is being done, strictly as per guidelines issued by the
Union of India through its Ministries.
7. In that view of the matter, we dispose of this public interest
litigation, as nothing remains to be decided. However, we make it
clear that if at all, any player viz. Uttarakhand Forest
Development Corporation or the State of Uttarakhand through its
officials is found violating the principles referred to above, shall
be liable to civil contempt.
(Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, J.) (Sanjaya Kumar Mishra)
Acting Chief Justice.
SKS
