“No District Survey Report, No Sand-Mining” – Supreme Court’s Peremptory Rule in State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. v. Gaurav Kumar & Ors. (2025 INSC 650)

1. Introduction

Sand is the second-most consumed natural resource on the planet, yet its extraction has largely been regulated in a piecemeal fashion in India. The present judgment emanates from three conjoined civil appeals filed by (i) the State of Uttar Pradesh and (ii) two private successful bidders (LOI holders) who had secured river-bed sand blocks through an e-auction dated 13 February 2023 in Saharanpur District. Respondent No. 1, a Haryana resident, challenged the auction before the National Green Tribunal (“NGT”) alleging that no valid District Survey Report (“DSR”) existed on the date of auction – the 2017 DSR had lapsed in 2022 and only a “draft” DSR (dated 13 Jan 2023) was available.

The NGT quashed the auction; the Supreme Court, per Narasimha J., now upholds that order and, in doing so, lays down a hard-edged rule: a subsisting, finally-approved DSR is a jurisdictional prerequisite for (a) issuance of any mining auction notice, (b) recommendation by the District Expert Appraisal Committee (“DEAC”) and (c) grant of environmental clearance (“EC”) by the District Environment Impact Assessment Authority (“DEIAA”). A “draft” DSR is treated as non-existent in law.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• The Court dismisses all three civil appeals and affirms the NGT’s decision quashing the e-auction and consequent Letters of Interest.
• Key holdings:
  1. Preparation of a DSR in strict conformity with Appendix X of the EIA Notification 2006 (as amended in 2016 and 2018) is mandatory.
  2. Only a final, valid DSR (life-span: five years) can underpin an auction notice, DEAC recommendation or DEIAA clearance; a “draft DSR” lacks legal efficacy.
  3. DEIAA/DEAC bear a continuing statutory duty to prepare and update DSRs every five years – failure results in regulatory vacuum, halting mining operations.
  4. The doctrine is rooted in the precautionary principle under Art. 21 and Art. 48-A of the Constitution; strict enforcement is “non-negotiable”.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and their Influence

1. Deepak Kumar v. State Of Haryana (2012) 4 SCC 629.
   • Introduced the idea that all minor-mineral mining, irrespective of area, requires prior EC.
   • Emphasised the ecological havoc of unregulated sand mining, prompting the 2016 amendments creating DEIAA/DEAC and mandating DSRs.
2. NGT decision in Satendra Pandey v. MoEF&CC (2018).
   • Found 2016 EIA amendments inadequate; ordered comprehensive EIA/EMP and robust DSR procedure, influencing later 2018 amendment (Part II to Appendix X).
3. State Of Bihar V. Pawan Kumar (2022) 2 SCC 348.
   • Reaffirmed necessity of DSR scrutiny by SEIAA/SEAC; endorsed 2020 Enforcement & Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining.
4. Various NGT rulings (Anjani Kumar 2017; Raza Muzaffar Bhat 2022) uniformly held that an application without a finalized DSR is incomplete. The Supreme Court now gives these rulings constitutional imprimatur.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

• Statutory Construction: Para 7(iii)(a) of EIA 2006 + Appendix X expressly declare that DSR “shall form the basis” for EC. The word “shall” denotes mandatory intent; absence of DSR invalidates subsequent administrative acts (auction, recommendation, clearance).
• Precautionary Principle: Sand-mining’s irreversible ecological effects justify strict ex-ante procedures. A time-barred DSR cannot reflect current river morphology; thus a five-year shelf-life is reasonable and constitutionally consistent.
• Jurisdictional Fact Doctrine: Existence of a valid DSR is a jurisdictional fact for DEIAA/DEAC. If absent, they lack competence to act; resultant decisions are void ab initio.
• Public Participation: Posting the draft DSR for 21 days and incorporating public comments is integral; it was entirely bypassed here.
• Zero-Tolerance Enforcement: The judgment repeatedly speaks of “absolute standards” and “get-tough” policy — signalling future courts and regulators to treat even minor deviations as fatal.

3.3 Potential Impact of the Judgment

1. Operational Freeze where DSRs have Lapsed: Numerous districts nationwide whose DSRs expired post-2020 will have to halt auctions and seek fresh approvals, potentially slowing construction supply chains but compelling states to update DSRs promptly.
2. Elevation of DSR to Jurisdictional Touch-stone: The decision transforms DSR from a technical formality into a constitutional safeguard. Future litigants can challenge mining activity merely by demonstrating absence/expiry of DSR.
3. Strengthening Local Governance: DEIAA/DEAC, earlier viewed as peripheral, now assume center-stage; their failure may attract contempt or environmental compensation.
4. Market Realignment: Auction bidders will factor regulatory risk of DSR lapse into valuations, possibly reducing speculative bids and encouraging compliance-oriented players.
5. Stimulus for Alternatives: Court’s acknowledgment of “ore-sand” and M-sand as sustainable substitutes may spur policy incentives and innovation in construction materials.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

District Survey Report (DSR)

A scientific inventory of sand/minor-mineral resources in a district, identifying mining and no-mining zones, replenishment rates, ecological sensitivities, and socio-economic factors. Updated every five years.

Environmental Clearance (EC)

Formal approval granted under the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 after multi-stage appraisal (screening, scoping, public consultation, appraisal) ensuring a project’s environmental viability.

DEIAA & DEAC

District-level bodies (headed respectively by District Magistrate and Executive Engineer, Irrigation) created in 2016 to process small (≤5 ha) minor-mineral projects (Category B2).

Category B2 Projects

Minor-mineral mining leases up to 5 ha requiring EC from DEIAA (not Central Government). They are exempt from detailed EIA reports but not from DSR prerequisite.

Precautionary Principle

Environmental law doctrine that lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in State of U.P. v. Gaurav Kumar crystallises a stringent, bright-line rule: without a valid, up-to-date District Survey Report, every subsequent administrative step in the sand-mining chain is null and void. By elevating the DSR to the status of a jurisdictional fact and reiterating the five-year expiry, the Court closes loopholes that previously allowed states to rush auctions on the basis of draft or outdated reports. In the broader environmental jurisprudence, the judgment reinforces the interplay between statutory text, constitutional principles (Art. 21, 48-A) and international sustainability norms. Going forward, regulators, industries, and bidders must recalibrate strategies to ensure meticulous compliance, while civil society now wields a sharper tool to secure riverine ecology. In a single sentence: “No DSR, No Sand.”