NGT Orders Reappraisal of Hamirpur Sand Mining DSR, Stresses Importance of Replenishment Study

June 9, 2026 : In a significant ruling on sustainable sand mining and environmental governance, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has directed the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Uttar Pradesh, and the State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) to reappraise the 2024 District Survey Report (DSR) prepared for Hamirpur district. The Tribunal emphasized that a replenishment study is a critical component of a valid DSR and must be properly considered before environmental clearances for sand mining activities are granted.

The order was passed by a Bench comprising NGT Chairperson Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Expert Member Dr. Afroz Ahmad while deciding two connected applications challenging the legality of the Hamirpur DSR and the process adopted for permitting sand mining in the district. The applicants contended that the DSR had been prepared without complying with the Sustainable Sand Mining and Management Guidelines, 2016 (SSMG-2016) and the Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020 (EMGSM-2020).

According to the petitioners, the earlier DSR prepared in 2017 had expired in 2022, and the revised DSR approved in October 2024 failed to satisfy mandatory environmental requirements, particularly the requirement of a scientific replenishment study assessing the natural restoration of sand deposits in riverbeds. The applicants argued that the study was neither completed nor placed before SEIAA when the DSR was approved.

The dispute centered on whether the replenishment study had been properly considered before approval of the DSR. During the proceedings, the applicants relied on official records showing that a copy of the replenishment study was forwarded to SEAC only on March 11, 2025, several months after SEIAA had approved the Hamirpur DSR on October 25, 2024. They also pointed to subsequent meetings of SEIAA and SEAC in which the appraisal process for several districts was put on hold because replenishment studies had not been submitted.

The State of Uttar Pradesh and SEIAA defended the approval process, arguing that the replenishment study had been conducted in 2023 and that its data had already been incorporated into the DSR. They maintained that the relevant information was available to the authorities while evaluating the report and that official actions should be presumed to have been carried out correctly.

After examining the record, the Tribunal found that although some data derived from the replenishment study may have been reflected in the DSR, the complete study itself was not placed before SEIAA when the DSR received approval. The Tribunal observed that the authority did not have the benefit of examining the full replenishment report while evaluating the environmental implications of the proposed mining activities.

The NGT extensively referred to the evolving legal framework governing sand mining in India, including the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the EIA Notification, 2006, the 2016 amendments introducing District Survey Reports, SSMG-2016, and EMGSM-2020. The Tribunal highlighted that these regulatory measures were introduced to curb the ecological damage caused by unregulated riverbed mining and to ensure scientific assessment of mineable resources.

The Bench also relied on recent Supreme Court judgments dealing with sustainable sand mining. Referring to State of Uttar Pradesh v. Gaurav Kumar (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1069), the Tribunal noted that a valid and subsisting DSR is mandatory for grant of environmental clearance and serves as the foundation for informed environmental decision-making.

More importantly, the Tribunal cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir v. Raja Muzaffar Bhat (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1789), where the Court held that “a DSR is valid and tenable only when a proper replenishment study is conducted.” The Supreme Court had further observed that a replenishment report forms an integral part of the DSR and that environmental clearances granted without such scientific assessment could be detrimental to river ecology and biodiversity.

While acknowledging these principles, the NGT declined to set aside the Hamirpur DSR outright. The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court’s detailed ruling declaring replenishment studies an integral part of DSRs came after the Hamirpur DSR had already been approved. It also observed that some replenishment-related data had been considered during the approval process. Consequently, instead of quashing the DSR, the Tribunal directed SEAC and SEIAA to undertake a fresh appraisal of the report after thoroughly examining the replenishment study.

The Tribunal further directed the authorities to verify whether mining has been proposed in submerged river areas, ensure that extraction remains within permissible limits, and confirm compliance with the safeguards prescribed under EMGSM-2020. It also instructed them to examine objections regarding apparent discrepancies in rainfall-related data mentioned in the replenishment study.

The ruling is expected to have implications beyond Hamirpur. By reinforcing the legal significance of replenishment studies and scientific river assessments, the decision strengthens regulatory scrutiny over sand mining projects across India. Environmental experts believe the order will compel authorities to adopt greater transparency and scientific rigor while preparing District Survey Reports and granting environmental clearances for riverbed mining operations.