Riverbed Sand Mining Is an Industrial Activity Requiring CTE & CTO: NGT Issues Strict Directions in Kanpur Case
Pranav B Prem
The Principal Bench of the National Green Tribunal, New Delhi, has held that excavation of sand from riverbeds—other than manual excavation—is an industrial activity causing pollution and ecological disturbance, and therefore mandatorily requires a Consent to Establish (CTE) and Consent to Operate (CTO) from the concerned State Pollution Control Board under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi (Judicial Member) and Dr. Afroz Ahmad (Expert Member) observed that river sand mining cannot be treated as a non-polluting “White Category” activity merely because there is no express categorisation by the Central Pollution Control Board or the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. The Tribunal held that sand mining squarely falls within the consent regime, as it disturbs river morphology, degrades aquatic ecosystems and generates air pollution due to mechanical excavation and transportation.
The Tribunal further ruled that conditions stipulated in an Environmental Clearance (EC), particularly the requirement to obtain “all necessary statutory clearances,” inherently include the obligation to obtain CTE and CTO prior to commencement of mining operations. Failure to obtain such consent was held to be not only a violation of the Water and Air Acts but also a direct breach of the Environmental Clearance itself.
The case arose from an application filed under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, alleging illegal sand mining in the Kanpur and Unnao regions of Uttar Pradesh. The applicant alleged that Respondent No. 2 was conducting mining operations outside the permitted lease coordinates, had constructed an illegal bridge or dam across the river Ganga, and was operating either without a valid Environmental Clearance or in violation of EC conditions, resulting in severe air and water pollution.
Pursuant to the Tribunal’s directions, a Joint Committee was constituted to inspect the site. The Committee found that while Respondent No. 2 possessed an Environmental Clearance, there were serious instances of non-compliance. The proponent had failed to submit mandatory environmental monitoring reports, had not carried out prescribed Corporate Social Responsibility activities, and had not developed the mandatory green belt. Most significantly, the Committee found that an approach road had been constructed within the main stream of the river, obstructing its natural flow—an act with serious adverse environmental consequences.
While the allegation of construction of a bridge dividing the river into two streams was not substantiated, the Tribunal held that the construction of an approach road within the active river channel was a far more serious violation, as it directly interfered with the river’s flow and morphology.
During the proceedings, the Tribunal took strong exception to the contradictory stands adopted by regulatory authorities. The Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board argued that a CTO was not required for river sand mining, yet had imposed Environmental Compensation on Respondent No. 2 for operating without a CTO. The Director of Geology & Mining contended that river sand mining does not cause pollution, a submission the Tribunal categorically rejected as “factually and scientifically wrong,” observing that ecological degradation from sand mining is universally acknowledged.
The Bench noted “utter confusion leading to contradictory practices” in Uttar Pradesh with respect to enforcement of environmental norms for riverbed sand mining. It further found a serious dereliction of duty in the failure to properly transmit copies of the Environmental Clearance and mining lease to the concerned regional office of the Pollution Control Board, thereby frustrating effective monitoring and enforcement.
While holding that the UPPCB was estopped from imposing Environmental Compensation specifically for absence of a CTO due to its own contradictory conduct, the Tribunal clarified that such estoppel did not absolve the project proponent of other environmental violations. The Tribunal directed the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh, the Director of Geology & Mining, and the UPPCB to establish and strictly enforce a robust mechanism ensuring that no river sand mining takes place without valid CTE and CTO. It further directed that complete details of mining leases, environmental clearances and pollution control consents be placed in the public domain on official websites.
The Tribunal also directed Respondent No. 2 to remedy deficiencies in CSR activities and to undertake compensatory afforestation for failure to develop a green belt, with verification to be carried out by the District Magistrate and the Divisional Forest Officer respectively. The District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, was directed to pass a fresh order on penalties for illegal mining, as earlier mandated by the High Court. Issuing a stern warning, the Tribunal cautioned the Director of Geology & Mining and the Member Secretary of the UPPCB that any future non-compliance with the Tribunal’s directions would invite prosecution under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
The judgment lays down a clear and binding position that riverbed sand mining is a regulated industrial activity requiring pollution control consents, and exposes systemic administrative failures in environmental governance, particularly in the context of riverine ecosystems.
Cause Title: Sh. Aman Chaudhary V. Union of India & 5 Ors.
Case No: Original Application No. 176/2022 ( I.A No. 300/2024, I.A No. 39/2023 & I.A No. 40/2023 )
Coram: Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi (Judicial Member) and Dr. Afroz Ahmad (Expert Member)
