NGT Judgement(3).pdf

of 57
Item No.1
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
(Through Video Conference)
Original Application No. 252 of 2017(SZ)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Udaya Suvarna
S/o Late Mahabala Bangera,
Badhragiri,
Balkady Village, Brahmavar Post,
Udupi Taluk and Distirct,
Karnataka -576213 and Anr.
…Applicants
WITH
The Deputy Commissioner/Chairman
Udupi District Sand Monitoring Committee,
Office of the Deputy Commissioner,
“Rajathadri”, Manipal,
Udupi – 576104 and Ors.
…Respondents
For Applicant(s) Mr. Ranjan Shetty
For Respondent(s): Mr. Darpan K.M. along with
Mr. Rajat Jonathan Shaw for R1, R2 & R4.
Mr. Vasanth H.K. for R3 & R6.
Mr. G.M. Syed Nurullah Sheriff for R5.
Mr. B. Thilaknarayanan for R7.
Judgment Pronounced on: 18th May 2022.
CORAM:
HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON’BLE Dr. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER

of 57
O R D E R
Judgment pronounced through Video Conference. The original
application is disposed of with directions vide separate Judgment.
Pending interlocutory application, if any, shall stand disposed of.
Sd/-
Justice K. Ramakrishnan, J.M.
Sd/-
Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, E.M.
O.A. No. 252 of 2017 (SZ)
18th May, 2022. SE.

of 57
Item No.1
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
(Through Video Conference)
Original Application No. 252 of 2017(SZ)
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. Udaya Suvarna
S/o Late Mahabala Bangera,
Badhragiri,
Balkady Village, Brahmavar Post,
Udupi Taluk and Distirct,
Karnataka -576213
2. Dinesh Kunder
S/o Naranappa Thingalaya,
Mill Road,
Kallianpura,
Moodu Thonce Village
Post Kallianpura – 576114.
…Applicants
WITH
1. The Deputy Commissioner/Chairman
Office of the Deputy Commissioner,
“Rajathadri”, Manipal,
Udupi – 576104
2. The Member Secretary
And Senior Geologist,
Department of Mines and Geology, 1st Floor,
A, Block, “Rajathadri”, Manipal,
Udupi – 576104
3. The Member Secretary
State Level Environment Impact
Assessment Authority – Karnataka
7th Floor, 4th Gate, M.S. Building,
Bangalore-560001
4. The Chairman
Karnataka State Coastal Zone Management Authority
4th Floor, M.S. Building, Bangalore

of 57
5. The Secretary
Ministry of Environment,
Forests and Climate Change,
Indira Paryavaran Bhavan,
Jor Bagh Road,
Aliganj, New Delhi – 110003.
6. Head of the Department
Department of Applied Mechanics and Hydraulics,
National Institute of Technology,
Suratkal, Srinivasanagara,
Mangalore, Karnataka – 575025
7. Udupi Jilla Holge Dhoni Karmikara Sangha (R.)
Ramgopal Arcade, LVT Temple,
Opp. PutturSanthekatte,
Udupi District – 576 105
Represented by Lokesh Mendon, President
8. Karnataka Coastal District Traditional Sand Lifter’s
Association,
1st Floor, Mahakali Encalve, AdiUdupi,
Udupi District, Karnataka-579210.
Represented by Dinesh Suvarna
Gen Secretary
…Respondents
For Applicant(s) Mr. Ranjan Shetty
For Respondent(s): Mr. Darpan K.M. along with
Mr. Rajat Jonathan Shaw for R1, R2 & R4.
Mr. Vasanth H.K. for R3 & R6.
Mr. G.M. Syed Nurullah Sheriff for R5.
Mr. B. Thilaknarayanan for R7.
Judgment Reserved on: 30th March 2022.
Judgment Pronounced on: 18th May 2022.
CORAM:
HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON’BLE Dr. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
Whether the Judgement is allowed to be published on the Internet – Yes/No
Whether the Judgement is to be published in the All India NGT Reporter – Yes/No

of 57
JUDGMENT
Delivered by Justice K. Ramakrishnan, Judicial Member
1. The grievance in this application is that sand mining is being
done in Coastal Regulatory Zone in the guise of removing sand bar. On
an earlier occasion, when such things were found in Udupi District,
another application was filed as O.A. No. 111/2016 and this Tribunal by
order dated 27.02.2017 set aside all the 74 permits issued and also
directed the seven member committee to regulate issuance of licence in
respect of removal of sand bar in coastal regulator zone to avoid
exploitation of the same by miscreants. Further in a similar issue, the
Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal New Delhi in O.A. No. 171 of
2013 also issued certain directions by order dated 05.08.2013 as to how
such things will have to be regulated. But in spite of the same, the
authorities were permitting removal of sand in the guise of removal of
sand bar without getting necessary clearances and in the Coastal
Regulation Zone where sand mining is prohibited.
2. It is mentioned in the application that as per clause 3(iv) of the
CRZ Notification 2011, land reclamation bunding or disturbing the
natural course of river or sea and mining Sand are prohibited activities.
Certain activities can be carried out if it is a measure to prevent formation
of sand bars, for installing tidal regulators, for laying storm water drains
or for structures for prevention of salinity ingress and fresh water
recharge based on study carried out by any agency to be specified by
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.
3. The Karnataka State Government made a request to the
Ministry of Environment and Forest, New Delhi for relaxation to sand

of 57
mining in CRZ area vide their letter No.FEE 31 CRZ 2010 dated
28.03.2011 inter-alia stating that sand deposits in the rivers are causing
obstruction to navigation and fishing boats and also river is silted up and
resulting in inundation of neighbouring agricultural land. It was also
mentioned in the letter that sand extraction will give employment to local
people and sand will be supplied for local consumption. Copy of the
letter was produced as Annexure-2 along with the application.
4. In furtherance to the CRZ Notification dated 06.01.2011,
Ministry of Environment and Forest, New Delhi, vide Office
Memorandum dated 24.02.2011, 09.06.2011 and 08.11.2011, issued
detailed instructions/conditions to manage the sand bars in the CRZ area
of rivers and estuaries. The important conditions imposed by the Ministry
of managing/removal of sand bars through the said Memorandum are as
follows:
(i)
a. Sand bars which pose danger to fishing boats and vessels to be identified by the
concerned departments of the state.
b. State Government in consultation with state agencies may formulate a policy for
management of sand bars including its removal.
c. The proposal shall be examined by any of the six institutions identified in OM date
24.02.2011 of MOEF (NITK, Surathkal).
d. Based on the suggestions o the above said institution, recommendations from State /
UT, Coastal Zone Management Authority (KSCZMA) to be obtained.
e. Based on the recommendations of Coastal Zone Management Authority (KSCZMA)
the Environment Department of the State / UT shall take final decision on the
proposal with valid justifications.
(ii)
a. Only traditional communities to remove the sand from sandbars.
b. Sand to be collected in non – mechanised dinghies or small boats using baskets /
buckets by manual method.
c. District Collector shall chair a seven member committee consisting of concerned
officials as also at least one representative each from scientific or technical institute,
the local communities like fisher folk and the local civil society.

of 57
d. Based on the recommendations of above said seven member committee, District
Collector may permit removal of sand in specified time, area and quantity subject to
the condition that registration of local community persons permitted to remove the
sand manually.
e. Environmental officer of the district to monitor the removal of sand, Sand mining
permits should not be given in eco-sensitive zones, fish migratory and breeding
grounds. Permit shall be given taking into consideration the local circumstances and
ecological settings. Permit renewal on yearly basis.
These office Memorandums were produced as Annexures 3 to 5.
5. In the last decade with the active involvement of local
politicians, district administration and sand businessmen, large scale
sand mining is taking place in the CRZ Rivers of Udupi District. Villagers
have made number of complaints to Village Panchayat, Tahsildar, Local
Police Station, Deputy Commissioner, Superintendent of Police, Ministers
in charge of the Districts and also to the Chief Minister of Karnataka but
no action has been taken. These aspects have been reflected in the media
both electronic and print media. This issue was even debated in
Karnataka Assembly but no action has been taken in this regard.
6. The applicant also enumerated the illegal sand mining in the
name of sand bar removal as follows:
a. It is estimated that over 200 loads of sand being extracted and transported from a
village per day from CRZ Rivers. Thus due to constant movement of Trucks inside
the village pertaining to contractors the atmosphere of the village is polluted and
roads are damaged beyond repair.
b. The migrant workers numbering over 200 in a village connected to any CRZ River
are housed in temporary sheds / tents without any facility of toilet / bathrooms are
using the fields for nature calls, creating unhygienic environment.
c. Most of the migrant workers under the influence of liquor resort to petty quarrels
during evening / night disturbing the peace and also security of women and
children in the village.
d. Sand has been extracted to such an extent that the depth of the flora and funna of
the river. Natural habitats of the river such as shellfish, crabs etc. are totally not
available in the rivers. It has become difficult to judge the depth of the river because
of the sand mining, so the people are scared and find it risky to enter the waters to
collect shells and fish and for all other requirement.

of 57
e. On account of excessive sand mining, fish breeding and also nesting of birds in the
area has totally stopped.
f. On account of sand mining the natural filtration of salt water has stopped as such
village wells and ponds have now become salty and are unsafe to use for irrigation
as well as for consumption.
g. There is systematic erosion taking place in the banks of the river due to increase in
depth of the river and removal of sand protection to the Banks of the river.
7. The project proponent, for sand bar removal being the Deputy
Commissioner, was supposed to obtain environmental clearance as head
of the District. The object of the proposal is to remove sand bars which
are causing obstruction to fishing boat navigation and he is required to
entrust this work of sand removal by hand in buckets/baskets using
small non mechanised dinghies/Boats to local traditional community
people, after duly identifying the eligibility in terms of MoEF & CC
notification. When the registered traditional community persons remove
the sand from sand bar, to facilitate smooth navigation, they will not be
paid in cash for their labour. Alternately, they were permitted to sell their
mined sand in the local market after paying the nominal royalty to the
State to the extent of Rs.60 per metric tonne. If it is seen from any angle it
is clear that it is not a business proposal, it is only a state sponsored
public utility activity providing employment to local communities as well
as facilitating smooth navigation of fishing boats.
8. But what was happening in Coastal Udupi District of
Karnataka is different. The District Administration in collusion with sand
miners are taking advantage of clause no. 3(iv)(d) of CRZ notification
dated 06.01.2011 and permitting extraction of sand from CRZ Rivers in
the guise of sand bar removal. The sand miners remit a paltry amount of
Rs.60/- per metric tonne and sell the extracted sand at an exorbitant

of 57
amount in cities, specially outside the State to the total exclusion of local
coastal communities. The non-existent sand bars are identified by few
officials of District Administration on paper, which is technically perused
by Prof. of NITK Suratkal and ECs are granted on these false reports by
State Environment Impact Assessment Authority. Subsequently permits
are granted to sand businessmen and not to the people of local
community who themselves extract sand from sand bar using heavy
machineries. Further important guidelines of the authorities such as
monsoon period, registration of persons physically involved in sand
removal and importantly marking of sand bar location on the river banks
are violated while issuing the permits.
9. Once the sand removal permits were granted, the sand
businessmen engage the services of migrant workers even from other
States and extract sand from CRZ rivers at whichever location/whatever
quantity, convenient to them including under the bridge using heavy
mechanized boats and JCBs.
10. On an earlier occasion in OA 111/2016, this Tribunal has
quashed the permits granted for such activity as the Tribunal found that
it was not intended for sand removal but for mining purpose. The
Tribunal also came to the conclusion after considering the request made
by the Karnataka Government dated 28.03.2011 which was produced as
Annexure 2 along with the application that the intention was very clear
that they wanted to amend the CRZ notification which was not intended
for protection of the livelihood of fishermen communities or for the
smooth navigation but for removal of the sand. It was also mentioned in
the letter that several representations have been received by the State
Government to reconsider the prohibition of removal of sand mining in

of 57
CRZ area of the rivers as by the prohibition, mining of sea shell and sand,
have come to a standstill.
11. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that sand mining can
never be permitted in CRZ area of the rivers flowing in Udipi District.
While disposing the matter, this Tribunal, in OA 111 of 2016 passed the
following order:
“Therefore, the permits to be granted for removal of sandbars can never be to
circumvent the prohibition of sand mining under the name of removal of sandbars.
If any sandbar is to be removed, a proposal is to be submitted by the State
Government, as provided in the OM, in consultation with the departments
provided therein. Such a proposal should originate, on account of the existence of
sandbars causing obstruction to the fishing or navigation. If no such obstruction is
caused by any sandbars, no proposal for removal of such sandbars shall be made. If
any such sandbars exist causing obstruction to the navigation or fishing, the
proposal for their removal shall be made strictly, as provide in the OM. Thereafter,
the proposal shall be examined by one of the institutions provided in the OM. It is
for the said Institute and not a retired expert to consider the proposal and give the
technical opinion. Based on that technical opinion, the proposal shall be examined
by the Seven Member Committee headed by the District Collector as provided in
the OM. The Monitoring Committee shall be constituted not in violation of the
guidelines, but strictly in compliance with the guidelines including the
representatives of the local fishermen community and the local civil society. It is
based on the decision of the Monitoring Committee the proposal is to be examined
by the KCZMA. It is thereafter, the Department of Environment, State of
Karnataka to examine the proposals and decide whether the permission is to be
granted or not. The order of granting such permission or rejecting such permission
shall necessarily show the reasons for such permission or rejection as the case may
be. We grant liberty to the State of Karnataka to decide the question of removal of
sandbars from the coastal rivers of Karnataka strictly in compliance of the
guidelines and conditions provided in the Office Memorandums of the MoEF &
CC but making it clear that in any event it shall not be for sand mining in the
name of removal of sandbars. We hold that based on the disputed permits granted
for the period 2016 – 2017, no sand shall be extracted from the rivers of Udupi
District.”
But even now similar types of permits have been granted in total
defiance of the orders passed by this Tribunal in O.A. 111 of 2016.

of 57
12. Further this Tribunal while allowing O.A.111 of 2016 issued
further following directions in this regard.
“………It is thereafter, the Department of Environment, State of Karnataka to
examine the proposals and decide whether the permission is to be granted or not.
The order of granting such permission or rejecting such permission shall
necessarily show the reasons for such permission or rejection as the case may be.”:
Thus, it is mandatory to obtain Environment Clearance from Environment
Department of the concerned State (SEIAA) for permitting removal of sand from
sand bars from the CRZ Rivers.
h) It is noteworthy that in terms of in the Office Memorandum dated 9th June 2011
(annexure – 4) Item No.2 (d) It is stated based on the recommendations of the
specified institution (in the present case it is NITK Surathkal) further process at
KSCZMA has to be undertaken. Here it is important to note that while concluding
the technical report NITK has made a special mention in this regard as follows:
“The above suggestions would address most of the technical issues related to sand
removal. The final decision on this issue rests with the State Coastal Zone
Management Authority and Environmental Department of the State.”
The applicant also produced the report of the NITK dated 09.05.2017
as Annexure 9.
13. They are not following the procedures provided and it is
being done in violation of the guidelines. The sand bar will be available in
any river specially in CRZ area. The quantum of sand, the thickness of
sand deposits vary from place to place and from river to river depending
upon the meandering of the river and flow of water.
14. Mere deposit of some quantity of sand in the river cannot be
termed as sand bar. Unless the sand bar has grown to such an extent that
it is visible over the level of water in the sea or river, even if there exists a
sand bar in a river grown above the water level still it need not obstruct
the movement of fishing vessels/boats. It all depends on the length of the
river as well as the size of the sand bar and number of fishing boats
moving in the concerned river. It was given as example in the application

of 57
that if the breadth of the river is over 1 K.M. a sand bar of 200 300 meters,
even it has grown a meter above the water level, it may not obstruct the
movement of the boats. It is also mentioned in the application that in
many CRZ rivers, there are quite a few kudrus (Island/islet) which are in
existence for centuries without causing any obstruction to fishing boats or
vessels.
15. In all Udupi District administration has identified 28 sand
bars across six rivers. Average breadth of these sand bars is about 100
meters whereas the average breadth of the rivers is also more than the
breadth of these sand bars.
16. Considering the breadth of the river and the existence of sand
bar, there is no possibility of any obstruction being caused to the free
navigation of fishing boats. Further they are not marking the boundary of
the area of permission granted and there is no satellite location on the
basis of latitude and longitude given and these are all against the report
given by NITK, Suratkal. They are not registering the persons who are
entitled to remove the sand as per the notification issued. This indirectly
allows third parties to get the benefit of the notification in violation of the
notification.
17. The applicant has also given some calculation as to the
amount of sand that is being extracted by the persons who were
permitted to remove sand bars manually but illegally doing sand mining
in the guise of removing sand bar. Since the authority did not take any
action, the applicant filed this application seeking the following reliefs:
(i) An order quashing all the 74 permits issued for sand bar removal in
the Rivers (CRZ) of Udupi District listed in annexure-10.
(ii) An order quashing all the permits issued after 21.09.2017 for sand
bar removal in the Rivers (CRZ) of Udupi district.

of 57
(iii) To issue direction to the respondent No.1, requiring him to maintain
the rivers of Udupi District which are in CRZ area in its present
nature and character.
(iv) To issue direction the Respondent Authorities to formulate and place
on record strategy/scheme to prevent illegal sand mining.
(v) And pass such other or further order or orders as to Your Lordships
may seem fit and proper.”
18. The 7th Respondent filed Counter Affidavit contending that
the counter Affidavit was filed by the President of Udupi Jilla Hoige
Dhoni Karmikara Sangha on behalf of the association. They denied the
allegations made in the application. The applicant was not regularly
attending the court continuously after attempted to obtain an interim
order but no interim order was granted by this Tribunal. Respondents 1
to 6 were adopting the standard lawful procedure for issue of permits for
removal of sand bars as per the Notifications/Regulations of the
Government from time to time and also as per Guidelines issued by this
Tribunal earlier. The applicants have not approached this Forum or any
Authority raising any dispute in the subsequent years viz., 2018-19 and
2019-20. That shows that they have got vested interest in filing this
application. The 7th Respondent Association was formed for the welfare
of traditional community people and dedicated itself for the upliftment of
the said community in the locality. All the members of the Association
including the Office Bearers are traditional community people belonging
to Coastal Udupi District and all possesses substantial knowledge
regarding the coastal environment. The State Government with a view to
provide employment and livelihood to the traditional communities has
entrusted the work of removal of sand bars to ensure prevention of
sandbar accumulation which poses danger to fishing boats and vessels,
inundation of saline water into agricultural lands, preserving the ingress

of 57
of sea water into fresh water channels, etc. The entire removal of sand
bars is being carried out by all the Permit Holders strictly as per the terms
of permit and licenses for removal of sandbars and there were no
deviation whatsoever. The allegations contra, to this were denied. Totally
170 permits were available for issuance. However, only 165 permits were
been obtained for removal of sand bars. All the Permit Holders were
traditional community people. Some of the Permit Holders and also
belonging to Fishermen Community and they had also registered
themselves with the concerned Department. So, the allegation that no
Fishermen among the Permit Holders were involved in Sandbar removal,
was not correct. The allegation that there was no fishing activity in that
region, was also not correct. For the purpose of smooth navigation of
fishing boats, it requires at least 4 feet depth and on many occasions, the
fisherman concerned had given representation to the Fisheries
Department requesting for removal of sand for smooth passage of fishing
boats. There were about 12 Clauses/conditions stipulated in the Permits
granted for removal of sandbars. Pursuant to the guidelines issued by this
Tribunal, there were about 37 Clauses/conditions regulating the removal
of sandbars. The Permit Holders were strictly complying with the said
conditions in the permits. Their association was also ensuring the same.
The allegation that permits were issued without joint inspection of the
sandbars and relevant factors was not correct. Environment Clearance
had been obtained by the State Government from the concerned
Departments for issuance permits for removal of sandbars. Allegations
contra were stoutly denied. The permits for removal of sandbars was
issued for a period of one year from the month of September to August.
The months of June and July were fish breeding season and during this

of 57
period, the Permit Holders will not venture into the waters for removal of
sandbars. South West Monsoon set in from the month of June-July almost
till the end of September and during this period removal of sandbar was
almost impossible due to increase in flow of water and other force majure
reasons. Though the Permit Holders possesses the permit to remove the
sandbars for a year, each Permit Holder had to surrender their permits
after removal of sandbars that were allocated to them. The period of
sandbar removal depended upon the size of sandbar allotted to a
particular Permit Holder. In most of the cases, the Permit Holders could
use their permits for the entire year and they used to surrender the same
within a few months after removing the sandbars. The nature of
allegations regarding the quantum of sand bar removed enumerated in
the application were denied. They were strictly following the conditions
imposed. The transportation of sand was connected with GPS, T4U
(Telemetric Port Ltd. Company). If sand is transported above 50 Metric
Tonne Trip Sheet would not be issued. The boats measuring 4.5 feet
breadth and 35 feet length were utilised for removal of sandbars. Even
the said small boats were fitted with GPS, T4U. As per the clauses in the
permit, removal of sandbars takes place between 6 A.M. to 6 P.M. and
beyond the said time Permit Holders could not remove the sandbars. So
the allegation that the removal of sandbar happened 24 hours, was not
correct. The application was for setting aside 74 permits granted without
impleading each Permit Holder and as such the application was bad for
non-joinder of necessary parties. According to this Respondent, the
allegations were not correct, made without any bona fides and prayed for
dismissal of the application.

of 57
19. 5th Respondent filed Counter Affidavit in the form of an
affidavit contending that in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section
(1) and clause (v) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986 read with clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of rule 5 of
Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, Ministry of Environment and
Forest had notified the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, 1991
on 19th February 1991, which, inter alia, provided classification of Coastal
Regulation Zone areas and norms for regulating developmental activities
thereon. The same was subsequently superseded by CRZ Notification,
2011 issued vide S.O. No. 19(E) dated 06.01.2011. It was issued with an
objective to conserve and protect the coastal stretches by regulation of
developmental activities along the coastal stretches and to ensure
livelihood security to the fishermen communities and other local
communities, living in the coastal zone. The CRZ Notification was
amended from time to time based on representations received and the
need was felt overtime to undertake a comprehensive revision of the
notification on the basis of number of representations from various
Coastal States and Union Territory administrations, besides other
stakeholders. As per Para 3(x) of the CRZ Notification, 2011, mining of
sand, rock and other sub-strata materials are prohibited activities in CRZ
areas. In terms of Para 3 (iv) d of CRZ Notification 2011, the Ministry
vide its Official Memorandum 11-83/2005-1A III dated 24.02.2011,
specified six institutes for examining proposals relating to measures to
prevent sandbars, accumulation, installation of tidal regulators, laying of
storm water drains or for structures for prevention of salinity ingress and
freshwater recharge from technical angle. The Ministry vide O.M. dated
09.06.2011, issued guidelines for management of sandbars including their

of 57
removal. Further the Ministry vide another OM No.11-83/2005-1A-III
(Vol. III) dated 08.11.2011, permitted the removal of sandbars in CRZ
areas of rivers/estuaries by manual method by traditional communities
subject to certain conditions evidenced by annexure-R5/1 produced
along with the affidavit. The powers for enforcement of notification were
delegated, which are available under the Environment (Protection) Act,
1986, with the State Government and the State Coastal Zone Management
Authority (SCZMAs). The composition, tenure and mandate of State/UT
CZMAs have been notified from time to time by the respondent ministry.
The main function of these Authorities also include enquiring into the
cases of alleged violation of provisions of CRZ Notification, 2011 and
take appropriate decision under Section 5, 10 and 19 of Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986. The CRZ regulations are to be implemented and
monitored (including violations thereof) by the concerned State Coastal
Zone Management Authority in accordance with the approved Coastal
Zone Management Plan of the respective State. The 5th Respondent is
only framing policies and the action in the ground level has to be
implemented by the State and Union Territory Administrative Authority.
So, they prayed for accepting their contentions and passing appropriate
orders with liberty for them to file further Counter if any required.
20. As per order dated 25.02.2020, this Tribunal, after considering
the pleadings and Official Memorandum expressed its displeasure on
Karnataka Coastal Zone Management Authority, Deputy Commissioner,
Chairman Udupi District Sand Monitoring Committee for not filing
Statements as they are the authorities to supervise the violations and
enforce the conditions in the CRZ Notification and the permits granted.
The Tribunal also expressed the displeasure on the part of the MoEF &

of 57
CC in not taking any action relying on the decision of the Kerala High
Court in Parishithi Samrakshana Sangham v State of Kerala (WPC 3128 of
2009(S) dated 30.03.2009) of High Court of Kerala wherein it was held
that even if Coastal Regulation Zone is within the purview of state
authorities, the Central Government will not be losing its power to
regulate the same if there is any violation found and they can take action
against the State Authorities, if they are violating their guidelines and
notification in this regard. So, this Tribunal directed the Deputy
Commissioner and Chairman, Udupi District Sand Monitoring
Committee, Chairman, Karnataka State Coastal Zone Management
Authority and Member Secretary, State Level Environmental Impact
Assessment Authority, Karnataka to file their independent reports
regarding the manner in which the sand bar removal is being carried out
in their State and whether the guidelines issued by Ministry of
Environment and Forest and Climate Change and Sustainable Sand
Mining Management Guidelines of 2016 were being implemented in
letter and spirit and whether the Office Memorandum issued by the
MoEF & CC were being strictly complied with.
21. They were also directed to mention in the report as to whether
any action was taken by them or whether the incident of illegal mining
has been traced out by them and if so, what is the nature of action taken
by them in this regard, whether any prosecution has been launched,
vehicles have been seized, whether any penalty has been imposed, etc.
22. When the matter was taken up on 01.09.2020, this Tribunal
considered the unsigned report submitted by the State Environmental
Impact Assessment Authority, Karnataka extracted in Para 3 of the order
which reads as follows:

of 57
“Report incompliance to the orders of the Hon‟ble NGT (South Zone) in
O.A. No.252 of 2017 (SZ) dated 25.02.2020 regarding the manner in which the sand
bar removal is being carried out in the State of Karnataka from Respondent No.3,
State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority:
The procedure followed in the State of Karnataka while granting permission
for removal of sand bar is submitted as follows:
Sand mining is a prohibited activity in the CRZ area as per para 3 (x) of
CRZ Notification bearing No. S.O.19 (E), dated 6th January 2011 issued by MoEF
& CC. However, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change 4 vide
Office Memorandum bearing No.11-83/2005-IA.III, dated 24th February 2011, 9th
June 2011 and 8th November 2011 permitted removal of sand bards as pr the
provisions under para3 (iv) (d) “Measures to prevent sand bars, installation of tidal
regulators, laying of storm water drains for structures for prevention of salinity
ingress and fresh water recharge based on carried out by any agency to be specified
by MoEF”. For this purpose the MoEF & CC have specified the following
institutions:
(i) Central Water and Power Research Station
(ii) IIT Chennai, IIT Bombay
(iii) Department of Erosion Directorate, Ministry of Water Resources
(iv) ICMAM
(v) National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management
(vi) NIT, Suratkal.
Subsequently, the Ministry of Environment and Forest vide O.M. No.11-83/2005-IA.III
(part-III), dated 9th June 2011 issued following guidelines in continuation to the
O.M. dated 24th February 2011 for management of the sand bar including its
removal.
a) Sand bars which pose danger to navigation of fishing boats and vessels shall be
identified by the concerned Department in the State Government.
b) The State Government in consultation with the State agencies such as PWD, Water
Resources Department, Fisheries Department, etc. may formulate a proposal for
management of the sand bars including its removal.
c) The proposal shall be examined by any of the six institutions identified in the above
Office Memorandum dated 24th February, 2011, namely, (a) Central Water and
Power Research Station, Pune; (b) IIT, Chennai, IIT, Bombay; (c) Department of
Erosion Directorate, Ministry of Water Resources; (d) Integrated Coastal and
Marine Area Management, Chennai; (e) National Centre for Sustainable Coastal
Management; and (f) National Institute of Technology, Surathkal.
d) Based on the suggestions/recommendations received from these institutions the
concerned state government agency(s) shall obtain necessary recommendations from
the State/Union Territory (Ut) Coastal Zone Management Authority.
e) Based on the recommendations of the State/Ut Coastal Zone Management Authority
the Environment Department of the State/Ut shall take final decision on the proposal
with valid justification.
f) The decision shall be put on the website of the concerned agency undertaking the
project and also on the website of the State/Ut Coastal Zone Management Authority.
Further, the Ministry of Environment and Forest vide O.M. No.11/832005-IA.III
(Volume-iii) dated 8th November 2011 stipulated the following conditions for
removal of sand bards by traditional coastal communities only by manual method.
(a) The District Collector shall chair a seven member committee consisting of, concerned
officials as 6 also at least one representative of each from a scientific or technical
Institute, the local communities, like fisher folk and the local civil society.
(b) Based on the recommendations of the above committee, the District Collector may
permit such removal of sand in the specified time period in a particular area along
with specific quality subject to such conditions, such as registration of local
community persons permitted to remove the sand manually.

of 57
(c) The Environmental Official at district level shall monitor the removal of sand and
submit report to the Collector as may be specified say quantity of sand removed in
the period concerned.
(d) The above permit shall be renewed on yearly basis.
(e) The agenda and the minutes of the aforesaid committee, permits issued by Collector
and monitoring reports of the removal of sand would be uploaded on the website of
the collectorate and also made available hard copy to Zill Parishad etc. as may be
directed by the Collector.
(f) The accumulation of sand bar, its removal process etc. shall be studied by the State
Government with the help of satellite imageries, GPS, etc. It shall be ensured that the
permits are not accorded in such areas which are identified as eco-sensitive zones,
fish migratory and breeding grounds. The permits shall be given taking into
consideration the local circumstances and ecological settings.
In the State of Karnataka the District administration have engaged National
Institute of Technology, Suratkal for conducting study and examine the proposal
regarding removal of identified sand bars which poses danger to navigation of fishing
boats and vessels. The said institution have given report after duly examining the
location, the size, height and length of the sand bar with due recommendations for
removal. The committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner consisting of the
representatives of the concerned departments will consider and send
recommendation.
Pursuant to the recommendation of the committee, the District
Administration submits proposal to the DCZMC headed by the D.C. for
consideration of the proposal under the provisions of CRZ Notification, 2011 and
send their recommendation to the KSCZMA. The KSCZMA examines the proposals
and accord approval for removal of sand bar by the local Committees subject to strict
compliance to the condition thereon.
The Principal Bench of the Hon‟ble NGT vide order dated 5th August 2013
in O.A. No.171/2013 and connected matters restrained carrying out any mining
activity or removal of sand from river beds anywhere in the country without
obtaining Environmental Clearance from MoEF/SEIAA and license from competent
authorities. Accordingly such application, when submitted following due procedure
of law were considered by the SEIAA, Karnataka and decided based on merit to
grant Environmental Clearance with conditions.
When the O.A. No. 171/2013 was finally disposed off vide order dated
13.01.2015 by the Hon‟ble NGT, no specific direction regarding consideration of
applications for grant EC for removal of sand bar were issued and
management/removal of sand bar do not fall under the purview of mining of
minerals as specified either under MMDR Act or under EIA Notification, 2006.
Therefore, since then no applications were received seeking Environmental Clearance
for removal of sand bar under EIA Notification, 2006.”
23. This Tribunal also considered another report submitted by
Special Director (Technical Cell), Department of Forest, Ecology and
Environment extracted in Para 4 of the order which reads as follows:
“Report incompliance to the orders of the Hon‟ble NGT (South Zone) in
O.A. No.252 of 2017 (SZ) dated 25.02.2020 regarding the manner in which the
sand bar removal is being carried out in the State of Karnataka from Respondent
No.3, State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority:

of 57
The procedure followed in the State of Karnataka while granting permission for
removal of sand bar is submitted as follows:
Sand mining is a prohibited activity in the CRZ area as per para 3 (x) of CRZ
Notification bearing No. S.O.19 (E), dated 6th January 2011 issued by
MoEF&CC. However, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change
vide Office Memorandum bearing No.11-83/2005-IA.III, dated 24th February
2011, 9th June 2011 and 8th November 2011 permitted removal of sand bards as
pr the provisions under para3 (iv) (d) “Measures to prevent sand bars, installation
of tidal regulators, laying of storm water drains for structures for prevention of
salinity ingress and fresh water recharge based on carried out by any agency to be
specified by MoEF”. For this purpose the MoEF&CC have specified the following
institutions:
(i) Central Water and Power Research Station
(iv) ICMAM
(vi) NIT, Suratkal.
Subsequently, the Ministry of Environment and Forest vide O.M. No.11-
83/2005-IA.III (part-III), dated 9th June 2011 issued following guidelines in
continuation to the O.M. dated 24th February 2011 for management of the sand
bar including its removal.
a) Sand bars which pose danger to navigation of fishing boats and vessels
shall be identified by the concerned Department in the State Government.
b) The State Government in consultation with the State agencies such as
PWD, Water Resources Department, Fisheries Department, etc. may formulate a
proposal for management of the sand bars including its removal.
c) The proposal shall be examined by any of the six institutions identified in
the above Office Memorandum dated 24th February, 2011, namely, (a) Central
Water and Power Research Station, Pune; (b) IIT, Chennai, IIT, Bombay; (c)
Department of Erosion Directorate, Ministry of Water Resources; (d) Integrated
Coastal and Marine Area Management, Chennai; (e) National Centre for
Sustainable Coastal Management; and (f) National Institute of Technology,
Surathkal.
d) Based on the suggestions/recommendations received from these
institutions the concerned state government agency(s) shall obtain necessary
recommendations from the State/Union Territory (UT) Coastal Zone Management
Authority.
e) Based on the recommendations of the State/UT Coastal Zone Management
Authority the Environment Department of the State/UT shall take final decision
on the proposal with valid justification.

of 57
f) The decision shall be put on the website of the concerned agency
undertaking the project and also on the website of the State/UT Coastal Zone
Management Authority.
Further, the Ministry of Environment and Forest vide O.M.
No.11/832005-IA.III (Volume-iii) dated 8th November 2011 stipulated the
following conditions for removal of sand bards by traditional coastal communities
only by manual method.
(a) The District Collector shall chair a seven member committee consisting of,
concerned officials as also at least one representative of each from a scientific or
technical Institute, the local communities, like fisher folk and the local civil society.
(b) Based on the recommendations of the above committee, the District
Collector may permit such removal of sand in the specified time period in a
particular area along with specific quality subject to such conditions, such as
registration of local 11 community persons permitted to remove the sand manually.
(c) The Environmental Official at district level shall monitor the removal of
sand and submit report to the Collector as may be specified say quantity of sand
removed in the period concerned.
(d) The above permit shall be renewed on yearly basis.
(e) The agenda and the minutes of the aforesaid committee, permits issued by
Collector and monitoring reports of the removal of sand would be uploaded on the
website of the collectorate and also made available hard copy to Zill Parishad etc. as
may be directed by the Collector.
(f) The accumulation of sand bar, its removal process etc. shall be studied by
the State Government with the help of satellite imageries, GPS, etc. It shall be
ensured that the permits are not accorded in such areas which are identified as eco-
sensitive zones, fish migratory and breeding grounds. The permits shall be given
taking into consideration the local circumstances and ecological settings.
In the State of Karnataka the District administration have engaged
National Institute of Technology, Suratkal for conducting study and examine the
proposal regarding removal of identified sand bars which poses danger to
navigation of fishing boats and vessels. The said institution have given report after
duly examining the location, the size, height and length of the sand bar with due
recommendations for removal. The committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner
consisting of the representatives of the concerned departments will consider and
send recommendation to DCZMC.
Pursuant to the recommendation of the committee, the District Administration
submits proposal to the DCZMC headed by the D.C. for consideration of the
proposal under the provisions of CRZ Notification, 2011 and send their
recommendation to the KSCZMA. The KSCZMA examines the proposals and
accord approval for removal of sand bar by the local Committees subject to strict
compliance to the condition thereon.

of 57
The Principal Bench of the Hon‟ble NGT vide order dated 5th August 2013 in
O.A. No.171/2013 and connected matters restrained carrying out any mining
activity or removal of sand from river beds anywhere in the country without
obtaining Environmental Clearance from MoEF/SEIAA and license from
competent authorities. Accordingly such application, when submitted following
due procedure of law were considered by the SEIAA, Karnataka and decided based
on merit to grant E.C. with conditions.
When the O.A. No. 171/2013 was finally disposed off vide order dated 13.01.2015
by the Hon‟ble NGT, no specific direction regarding consideration of applications
for grant EC for removal of sand bar was not forthcoming. Further
management/removal of sand bar does not fall under the purview of mining of
minerals as specified either under MMDR Act or under EIA Notification, 2006.
Therefore, no applications were referred to SEIAA for Environmental Clearance
under EIA Notification, 2006.
Now, therefore applications seeking clearance under CRZ Notification, 2011/2019
for the management of removal of sand bar are considered by the KSCZMA and
clearance accorded based on merit as per the procedure 13 laid down in the O.M.s
dated 24th February 2011, 9th June 2011 and 8th November 2011 issued by
MoEF&CC.
Deviation and non-compliance of conditions if any will be dealt in accordance with
law. Presently the term of KSCZMA is over and it is under reconstitution.
Therefore, this information is furnished from the available records of the
Secretariat of the erstwhile KSCZMA.”
24. In this Order, this Tribunal expressed its displeasure that all
the reports filed by the Authorities only mentioned about the mechanism
that is provided for granting permission and regulating the same and
procedure for taking action. But, nothing was mentioned about any
violation noted and what is the nature of action taken.
25. This Tribunal also observed that 1st Respondent, being the
Chairman of the committee constituted by this Tribunal in O.A.
No.171/2013 alone can give details regarding the violations and action
taken and also the allegations made in the application were true or not.
But, quite unfortunately such details are not available in the report filed

of 57
by the so called regulators. So at the request of the officials, this Tribunal
granted time to file further report as directed by this Tribunal.
26. When the matter was taken up on 06.10.2020, this Tribunal
considered the submissions filed by the Counsel for the applicant to the
reports submitted by the State Environment Impact Assessment
Authority Karnataka and Special Director, (Technical Cell), Department
of Forest, Ecology and Environment wherein after reiterating the various
orders of this Tribunal in different matters dealing with this issue, and
also referring to the Office Memorandums issued by MoEF & CC in this
regard, they have reiterated that the process is being undertaken against
the Technical Report given by NITK Suratkal and the recommendations
of Karnataka Coastal Zone Management Authority and they are
obtaining permission for removal of sand bar but in fact, sand mining is
going on in that area, in the guise of removal of sand bar. So, this
Tribunal directed the Deputy Commissioner and Chairman, Udupi
Distirct Sand Monitoring Committee, the Chairman, Karnataka State
Coastal Zone Management Authority and Member Secretary, State
Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Karnataka to consider the
submissions made by the Counsel for the applicant to the earlier report
submitted by them and submit further report incorporating their views
on the submissions made and also in compliance with the directions
issued by this Tribunal in the earlier orders passed. Thereafter the matter
has been adjourned from time to time by successive notifications as no
reports were filed.
27. On 23.11.2021 this Tribunal considered the report submitted
by Deputy Commissioner and Chairman Sand Monitoring Committee,
Udupi District on behalf of State of Karnataka dated 07.10.2021 e-filed on

of 57
08.10.2021 filed in compliance with the order dated 25.02.2021, extracted
in Para 2 of the order which reads as follows:

of 57
28. The Karnataka State Coastal Zone Management Authority
also filed a report dated nil e-filed on 07.10.2021 extracted in Para 3 of the
order which reads as follows:
“Report in compliance to the orders of the Hon`ble NGT (South
Zone) in O.A. No. 252 of 2017 (SZ) dated 01.09.2020 regarding
action taken on violation of sand bar removal by the
Respondent No.4, Karnataka State Coastal Zone Management
Authority:
On receipt of the proposals received from the Deputy
Commissioner of the Coastal Districts for Karnataka for removal
of sand bars for easy navigation of fishing boats vessels after
having been recommended by DCZMC, the KSCZMA accords
approval as per the guidelines of MOEF & CC, OM dated 24th
February, 2011 and 9th June 2011 for removal of sand bars stipulating the
following conditions namely:

of 57
1. Sand should not be removed beyond the average bed level and the depth
is limited to the depth required for free movement of fishing boats.
2. Sand should not be removed near any vegetation or mangroves
growth. The sand deposits within the buffer zone of 50 meters from the
existing mangrove shall not be disturbed.
3. Use of any mechanized/ mechanical methods for removal of sand is strictly
prohibited.
4. Minimum distance of 2m should be maintained from river bank for
stocking of sand.
5. Sand bars in the known breeding and spawning grounds shall not be
disturbed. Removal of sand bars during the monsoon season which is
generally the breeding season for the aquatic fauna shall be avoided.
Upon obtaining the approval from KSCZMA and as per the O.M.
No. 11- 83/ 2005-IA.III (Volum-III) dated 8th November 2011 of
Ministry of Environment and Forests, the Deputy Commissioner
allows removal of a specified quantity of sand in specified time period in
a particular area to local community persons permitted to remove the
sand manually. It is ensured that the permits are not accorded in
such areas which are identified as ecosensitive zones, fish migratory
and breeding grounds. The permits are given taking into consideration
the local circumstances and ecological settings. If any violation in the
process of removal of sand bars is noticed, the Deputy Commissioner
initiates appropriate action against such persons permitted to remove the
sand bars based on the grounds of violation as per Para 6 (c) of the CRZ
Notification, 2011.”
29. The matter was adjourned to enable the State Environment
Impact Assessment Authority to file their statement.
30. The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Karnataka filed their report signed by the Officer on 23.03.2022 e-filed on
the same date which reads as follows:

of 57
31. Applicant filed detailed submissions to the reports filed and
also wanted this Tribunal to issue certain directions as follows:
(a) To issue direction the Respondent Authorities to formulate and place on
record strategy/scheme to prevent illegal sand mining, by covering the
following issues in tune with the spirit of Ministry of Environment and
Forest, Office Memorandum dated 24th February 2011, 9th June 2011 and
8th November 2011 and to put on hold, the sand bar removal / sand mining
activity, till such time;
1. Number of fishing boats that operate in these CRZ rivers.
2. The nature of hindrance the alleged sand bars poses to the movement of the
fishing boats.
3. Length and breadth o the sand bars vis a vis length and breadth of the
concerned River at relevant stretch.
4. Whether the permit holders employ other labourers‟ to remove the task of
sand bar removal, instead of carrying out the work themselves, contrary to
guidelines.
(b) And pass such other or further order or orders as to Your Lordships may
deem fit and proper”
32. 7th Respondent filed Objection to the report submitted by
Official Respondents and also submissions filed by the applicant,
reiterating their contentions and denying the nature of calculation made
by the applicant in their submissions. They further reiterated that they
were strictly following the procedure provided and complying with the
directions issued and conditions imposed. They also reiterated that the
allegations made by the applicant regarding the formation of sand bars
which were rightly answered by the Departments giving their scientific
reasons and the necessity for removal of sand bars. They also reiterated
the contention that the sand bar is being removed by members of the local
community strictly in accordance with the conditions imposed by the
Seven Member Committee and whenever incidents of committing
violations were brought to their notice, authorities were taking

of 57
appropriate action. They prayed for rejecting the contention of the
applicant and pass appropriate orders.
33. Heard the Counsel for the applicant Shri. Ranjan Shetty, Shri
Darpan K.M. for Respondents 1, 2 and 4, Mr. Vasanth H.K. for
Respondents 3 and 6, Mr. G.M. Syed Nurullah Sheriff for 5th Respondent
and Mr. B. Thilaknarayanan for 7th Respondent.
34. The Counsel for the applicant submitted that even going by
the report submitted by various officials, it is clear that there were
violations of CRZ Notifications and in fact, large scale sand mining is
being done in the guise of removal of sand bar.
35. Every authority is reiterating the fact that sand mining is a
prohibited activity as per the CRZ Notification in rivers and ersturites
which are covered by this Notification. They also admit that sand bar
removal is a permitted activity so as to regulate the movement of fishing
boats in order to ensure the livelihood of fishermen community. There are
certain guidelines issued by this Tribunal in O.A.111/2016 and also in
O.A.171/2016, but those guidelines were not being followed by the
authorities. Further, the quantity of sand bar that has been removed as
per the Report of the Committee will go to show that it is humanly
impossible to remove such quantity within the time frame provided and
in the manner in which it has to be done as per the guidelines issued.
Further, there was no necessity to permit removal of sand bar from the
entire stretch of the river in order to allow free flow of water or to ensure
smooth navigation of fishing boats. So, it is highly necessary for this
Tribunal to issue stringent directions and provide necessary guidelines as
to how this will have to be regulated and action will have to be taken
against persons who are involving in illegal sand mining.

of 57
36. The applicant also produced certain photographs showing the
use of heavy machineries involved in the removal of alleged sand bars
and also tents put up by the migrant labourers and the nature of vehicles
that are being used for removal of sand bar.
37. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing for MoEF
& CC submitted that they are only policy makers and whenever necessity
arises, they are issuing necessary Official Memorandums regulating the
activities in the CRZ Zone for removal of sand bars and it is for the State
Authorities to strictly implement the same and if there are any violations
found, it is for them to take appropriate action.
38. As per the guidelines issued, the removal of sand bar can be
done only after making proper study and the quantity available and that
must be permitted to be carried out only through the local community
people including fishermen and it can be removed only manually and no
mechanised removal was permitted, in this regard. They were strictly
issuing directions on the basis of the directions issued by this Tribunal
and various Courts in this regard.
39. The Learned Counsel appearing for State of Karnataka
submitted that the permits are being granted by the Committee
appointed and it is being given only to those persons who have been
registered that too, to the local fishermen community and the local
community people to enable them to have their livelihood and the
persons who are involved were not granted any remuneration but they
have been permitted to sell the same after collecting some nominal
amount as royalty, so that they can earn their livelihood. They are
monitoring the implementation of conditions of the permits and if there
are any violations found, they used to take appropriate action as well.

of 57
They never permit any instream sand mining in violation of the CRZ
Notification from the rivers to which the CRZ Notification is applicable.
40. The Learned Counsel also submitted that the reports given by
them will go to show that they are strictly following the procedure
provided and taking action against the violators.
41. The Learned Counsel appearing for State Environment Impact
Assessment Authority, Karnataka submitted that they are not granting
any Environment Clearance in respect of removal of sandbars in CRZ
areas and they will have to obtain permission from the Coastal Zone
Management Authority for this purpose and only after obtaining the
recommendations of the Coastal Zone Management Authority, the
Chairman, Monitoring Committee is issuing permits to the persons who
have applied for and acting strictly in compliance with the directions
issued by this Tribunal and also the directions issued in the Office
Memorandum issued by MoEF & CC in this regard.
42. The Environment Clearance is granted only in the areas
outside the CRZ Notification, if the sand mining is permissible in that
area strictly in accordance with law.
43. The Counsel appearing for the 7th Respondent submitted that
the allegations made in the application are not correct. The submission
made by the Counsel for the applicant are also imaginary and without
any data. In fact, 7th Respondent is representing the Association of
Fishermen Community who are involved in removal of sand bars as
permitted by the directions of this Tribunal in OA 111/2016 and after
obtaining necessary permit from the authorities. They are not using any
machineries for this purpose, they are doing the work manually and
using small boats for this purpose.

of 57
44. Further, the nature of calculation made by the Counsel for the
applicant and also the manner in which the sand bar removal has to be
regulated on the basis of the width of the river etc. are not practicable and
those things will have to be decided by the authorities after conducting
proper survey and the amount of sand bar to be removed for the purpose
of smooth regulation of the flow of water and also the navigation of
fishing boats to enable the fishermen community to earn their livelihood.
45. They strictly abide by the directions issued. Whenever any
illegal activities are brought to their notice, they are informing the
authorities and action is being taken by the authorities. To their
knowledge, no illegal mining is going on in the guise of removal of sand
bar. So he prayed for dismissal of the application.
46. Considered the pleadings, the submissions made by the
Counsel for the parties and also the Written Submissions submitted by
them.
47. The points that arise for consideration are:
(i) Whether any illegal mining is going on in the river bed
area covered under the CRZ Notification in Udupi
District?
(ii) What is the nature of direction that has to be given
including imposition of compensation, considering the
nature of violations if any proved?
(iii) What is the nature of directions to be given to regulate the
sand bar removal in the area covered by CRZ Notification
so as to avoid misuse of and over exploitation of natural
resources, detriment to the Marine/River in ecology?
(iv) Relief and Costs.

of 57
Points:
48. The grievance in this application was that the 7th Respondent
and others were doing illegal mining in the guise of removal of sand bars
in the river beds of Udupi District, where CRZ Notification is applicable.
According to the applicant, instream river mining is prohibited and in
CRZ area sand mining is also prohibited. Only removal of sand bar is
permissible to the extent which is required for ensuring free flow of water
and also for navigation for fishing boats. No heavy machinery is also
expected to be used for that purpose, but contrary to the same, heavy
machineries are being used and in the guise of sandbar removal, illegal
sand mining is going on. The same was denied by the respondents
including the 7th respondent, who is representing the Association of Local
Community People, who are involved in lifting of sand from the sand
bars said to be in traditional manner.
49. It is an admitted fact that the rivers mentioned in the
application are having tidal effect and falling under the CRZ Zone to
which CRZ Notification 2011 is applicable. It was also an admitted fact
that earlier when certain sand bar removal permits were granted by
Udupi District Administration during 2016, a case was filed by some
applicant before this Tribunal as O.A.111/2016 and this Tribunal while
disposing the matter set aside the permits granted and observed as
follows.
(i) After the order dated 17.05.2016 there was no sand mining or removal of
sand bars from CRZ areas of those rivers from that day onwards.
(ii) There cannot be any extraction of sand in the name of removal of sand bars
unless valid permits are granted in accordance with the guidelines as provided by
MoEF & CC.
(iii) The State of Karnataka is directed to grant permission for removal of sand
bars which causes obstruction to the fishing and navigation in the coastal rivers
coming within CRZ areas, only in strict compliance to the conditions and

of 57
guidelines provided in the Official Memorandum dated 24.02.2011, 09.06.2011
and 08.11.2011.
(iv) The permits to be granted for removal of sandbars can never be used to
circumvent the prohibition of sand mining under the name of removal of
sandbars, if any sandbar is to be removed, a proposal is to be submitted by the
State Government as provided in the OM, in consultation with the Departments
provided therein, such a proposal should originate on account of the existence of
sandbars causing obstruction to the fishing navigation. If no such obstruction is
caused by any sandbars, no proposal for removal of sandbars shall be made, if any
such sandbars exists causing obstruction to the navigation or fishing a proposal
for removal shall be made strictly as provided in the OM.
(v) The proposal shall be examined by one of the institutions authorized in
OM. It is for the said institution and not a retired expert to consider the proposal
and give technical opinion.
(vi) Based on that technical opinion, the proposal shall be examined by the
seven member committee headed by the District Collector as provide in the OM.
(vii) The Monitoring Committee shall be constituted not in violation of the
Guidelines, but strictly in compliance with the guidelines including the
representatives of local fishermen community and the local civil society.
(viii) It is based on the decision of the monitoring committee, the proposal has to
be examined by Karnataka Coastal Zone Management Authority. It is thereafter
the Department of Environment, State of Karnataka to examine the proposals and
decided whether permission is to be granted or not.
(ix) The order of granting such permission or rejecting such permission shall
necessarily show the reasons for such permission or rejection as the case may be.
(x) Liberty was granted to State of Karnataka to decide the question of removal
of sand bars from the coastal rivers of Karnataka strictly in compliance with the
guidelines and conditions provided in the Official Memorandum of MoEF & CC,
but making it clear that in any event, it shall not be for sand mining in the name
of removal of sandbars.
(xi) Based on the disputed permits is granted for the year 2016-17, no sand
shall be extracted from the rivers of Udupi District.
With the above directions, the application was disposed of.”
50. It is clear from the above decision that there was an attempt
on the part of the Government to grant permits without complying with
the guidelines issued by MoEF & CC in this regard and against the CRZ
Notification without proper application of mind and with that permits,
there was attempt for doing illegal sand mining in the area which was

of 57
prohibited and also using heavy machineries and that was prevented by
this order.
51. Now the grievance of the applicant was that, in spite of such
directions, the same is being repeated.
52. It is clear from Para 3(x) of CRZ Notification, 2011, sand
mining is a prohibited activity but under Para (iv) removing sandbars
from the river flowing in CRZ area is a permitted activity which reads as
follows.
“(iii) Prohibited activities within CRZ the following are declared as
Prohibited Activity within CRZ.
xxxxxxxx
(iv) Land reclamation, bunding or disturbing the natural course of seawater
except those
(a) Required for setting up construction or modernisation or expansion of foreshore
facilities like ports, harbours, jetties, wharves, quays, slipways, bridges, sealink,
road on stilts, and such as meant for defence and security purpose and for other
facilities that are essential for activities permissible under the notification;
(b) Measure for control of erosion, based on scientific including Environmental
Impact Assessment [hereinafter referred to as “EIA”] Studies;
(c) Maintenance or clearing of waterways, channels and ports, based on EIA Studies;
(d) Measure to prevent sand bars, installation of tidal regulators, laying of storm
water drains or for structures for prevention of salinity ingress and freshwater
recharge based on carried out by any agency to be specified by Ministry of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change.
XXXXXX
XXXXXX
(x) Mining of sand, rocks and other sub-strata materials except:-
a. Those rare minerals not available outside the CRZ area (mining Atomic Minerals
notified under Part B of the First Schedule of Mining as Minerals (Development)
Act, 1957 (67 of 1957) occurring as such or association with one or other
Mineral);
b. Exploration and exploitation of Oil and Natural Gas.
53. So, it is clear from the above notification that sand mining is
strictly prohibited in CRZ area. Reclamation and bunding will be

of 57
permissible as a measure to prevent sand bars and installation of tidal
regulators etc. on the basis of the study to be conducted in this regard.
54. When the State of Karnataka by Annexure-2 letter wanted
relaxation of the same, the same was not permitted by the Ministry of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change. Ministry of Environment,
Forest and Climate Change had issued an Office Memorandum No.11-
83/2005-1A-III dated 24.02.2011 regarding the institutions which can be
permitted to conduct the study which reads as follows:
“This has reference to the issue of the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification,
2011 vide S.O. No. 19(E) date 16th January, 2011. As pr para 3(iv)(d) “measures to
prevent sand bars, installation of tidal regulators, laying of storm water drains or for
structures for prevention of salinity ingress and freshwater recharge based on carried
out by any agency to be specified by MoEF.” In this regard, the Ministry specifies the
following institutions who will be included for the above activities:
(i) Central Water and Power Research Station.
(iv) ICMAM
(vi) NIT, Suratkal
All proposals relating to the projects indicated in the above Para of the
Notification shall be examined by the institutions from technical angle and base on the
recommendations made by these institutions, the project would be considered for
clearance by the concerned authorities indicated in the Notification.
This issues with the approval o Competent Authority.”
55. Thereafter Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate
Change issued another notification regarding the guidelines to be
followed for implementation of CRZ Notification vide OM No.11-
83/2005-IA-III(PLIII) dated 09.06.2011 which reads as follows:
“This is in continuation to our earlier Office Memorandum of even
number dated 24th February, 2011 regarding removal of sand bar as indicated in
para 3(iv)(d) of Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2011 dated 6th January,
2011, a copy of same is enclosed.

of 57
2. A guideline for management of the sand bars including its removal which are as
follows:
(a) Sand bars which pose danger to navigation of fishing boats and vessels shall be
identified by the concerned Department in the State Government.
(b) The State Government in consultation with the State agencies such as PWD,
Water Resources Department, Fisheries Department, etc., may formulate a
proposal for management of the sand bars including its removal.
(c)The proposal shall be examined by any of the six institutions identified in the
above Office Memorandum dated 24th February, 2011, namely (a) Central Water
and Power Research Station, Pune, (b) IIT, Chennai, IIT, Bombay; (c) Department
of Erosion Directorate, Ministry of Water Resources; (d) Integrated Coastal and
Marine Area Management, Chennai; (e) National Centre for Sustainable Coastal
Management, and (f) National Institute of Technology, Surathkal.
(d) Based on the suggestions/recommendations received from these institutions the
concerned State Government agency(s) shall obtain necessary recommendations
from the State/Union Territory (UT) Coastal Zone Management Authority.
(e) Based on the recommendations of the State/UT Coastal Zone Management
Authority the Environment Department of the State/UT shall take final decision
on the proposal with valid justification.
(f) The decision shall be put on the website of the concerned agency undertaking the
project and also on the website of the State/UT Coastal Zone Management
Authority.”
56. The Seven Member District Committee sent a proposal for
recommendation for removal of sandbar of 28 numbers in the river
Sowparnika, Varahi, Papanashini, Swarna Nadi, Seetha Nadi and
Yedamavina Hole rivers of the Udupi District with a technical report of
NITK Suratkal with following recommendations:
(i) Depth of sand removal not to exceed prescribed 0.8m depth.
(ii) Sand removal to be carried out during the day i.e. 6 A.M. to 6 P.M.
(iii) No stream should be diverted for the purpose of sand removal. No natural
water course and/or water resources obstructed due to sand removal operations.
(iv) Sand removal shall be undertaken only by manual method without the use
of earth moving equipment such as JCB etc. Use of mechanized boats for sucking
sand from in-stream area shall be strictly prohibited. This could cause water
pollution during sand removal.
(v) Appropriate safety zones (a distance of 200m – 500m) shall be maintained
in proximity to any bridge/and/or embankment and other permanent structures.”

of 57
57. The report of NITK also reveals that in several locations that
sufficient width is available on either side of the sandbar and the sand
deposition is resulting in reduction of the flow velocity of the river. This
shows that by and large the requirement of sand bar removal is not to
facilitate navigation except in some stretches and the major problem
identified is overflowing of the rivers into fertile agricultural lands and
floods during monsoon season.
58. The Karnataka Coastal Zone Management Authority
considered the same as Agenda Item No.19.2 dated 17.06.2017 granted
permission for removal of sandbar with the following additional
conditions:
(i) The deputy Commissioner may permit removal of sand bars in the specified time
period in a particular area as given in the proposal with GPS latitude and longitude
along with specific quantity subject to such conditions, such as to allow only
registered local community persons with a condition to remove sand bar manually
only by using local dinghies.
(ii) The Environment Official at the district level shall monitor the removal of sand bar
and submit report to Deputy Commissioner, as may be specified, say depth of sand
bar removed in the specified location and the quantity of sand obtained thereof.
(iii) The CRZ clearance for sand bar removal is valid only for one year from the date of
issue of clearance.
(iv) The agenda and the minutes of the Seven Member Committee, permits issued by
Deputy Commissioner and monitoring reports of removal of sand bar would be
uploaded on the website of the Deputy Commissioner‟s office and also made available
the hard copy to Zila Parishad etc., as may be directed by the Deputy Commissioner.
(v) The accumulation of sand bar, its removal process etc., shall be monitored by Deputy
Commissioner with the help of satellite imageries, GPS etc. It shall be ensured that
the permits are not accorded in such areas which are identified as eco-sensitive zones,
fish migratory and breeding g rounds. The permits shall be given taking into
consideration the local circumstances and ecological settings.
(vi) Deposit in the sand bars above the level of river bed only shall be removed by way of
skimming and no pit excavation shall be permitted.
(vii) The sand deposits within the buffer zone of 50 meters from the existing mangrove
shall not be permitted.

of 57
(viii) Sand bars in the known breeding and spawning grounds shall not be disturbed.
Removal of sand bars during monsoon season which is generally the breeding season
for equatic fauna shall be avoided.
(ix) No pits in the river bed shall be formed as it tends to alter the entire river dynamics.
(x) Sand bars at the vicinity of bridges and other engineering structures and the river
banks shall not be disturbed.
(xi) The authorities shall ensure that removal sand bars do not disturb the habitants in
order to conserve benthic flora and fauna that inhabit the sandy substrata.
(xii) The Authority reserves the right to cancel the NOC given under CRZ Notification
for sand bar removal in case of any violation in the interest and conservation of
coastal environment without giving any notice.
(xiii) The natural „kudrus‟ (Islands) should not be disturbed.
(xiv) As there is no involvement of sand mining and the present proposal is for removal of
sand bar there is no need to obtain Environmental Clearance separately.”
59. So, it is clear from this also that the deposit of sandbars above
the level of riverbed only shall be removed by way of manually and no
pit excavation shall be permitted. There are certain restrictions issued as
to how this will have to be carried out as well.
60. They also specifically mentioned on the basis of the proposal
made that there was no involvement of sand mining, they mentioned that
there is no necessity to obtain environment clearance separately.
61. The photographs produced by the applicant show that there
was involvement of heavy machineries in removing the sandbar and also
in the guise of removal of sandbar instream river mining is being
undertaken.
62. It is also seen from the photographs that heavy vehicles were
also used for removal of sand bars from that area which was not
permissible as per the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Environment,
Forest and Climate Change referred to above.
63. It is also seen from the report submitted by the Deputy
Commissioner and Chairman of Seven Member Sand Monitoring

of 57
Committee Udupi District that they found certain violations and certain
cases have been filed and certain amounts have been realised as penalty
as extracted below:
Details of Cases filed for illegal Sand Mining/Transportation:
Year Sand Removal Transportation Total
2017-18 08 03 11
2018-19 06 57 63
2019-20 15 111 126
2020-21 0 32 32
2021-22 9Upto
Sept. 2021)
4 2 6
Details of Penalty Collected with respect to illegal Sand
Mining/Transportation & GPS Violation for transporting Vehicles & Boats
Year Sand
Removal
Penalty
Amount
Transportation Penalty
Amount
Total
2017-18 78 4000000 44 1125000 5125000
2018-19 116 1990000 - 0 1990000
2019-20 118 7650000 36 450000 8100000
2020-21 64 1953723 128 3684020 5637743
2021-22
(Upto Sept.
2021)
30 929128 43 1151976 2193464
Total 406 16522851 251 6410996 23046207
64. In fact, it is seen from the report that heavy vehicles were also
permitted for the purpose of removal of sandbars on collection of certain
amount depending on the carrying capacity of the vehicles which was in
fact not permissible under the Office Memorandum issued.
65. Further, it is also clear from the Office Memorandum and the
permission granted that the removal of sandbars must be restricted to the
extent of enabling the free flow of water and also allowing navigation of
fishing boats.
66. According to the applicant, no fishing boats are registered in
that area. So there is no possibility of any fishing activity being carried
out in that area. The permission for removal of sandbar by local

of 57
community people were permitted by traditional methods only for the
purpose of enabling them to get some employment and not to exploit the
natural resources for commercial exploitation.
67. There is some force in the submission made by the Counsel
for the applicant that even if there is sandbar formation in the river
having more width then it is not necessary to remove the entire sandbar
from that area and the area required for the purpose of facilitating
navigation of fishing boat alone need be permitted to be removed.
Further, there must be some mechanism to prevent benami transactions
being undertaken through somebody else by employing other employees
instead of the local community people for extracting the same as well.
68. It is seen from the documents produced by the applicant, the
Official Respondents and also the nature of contentions raised by the
parties, it is clear that the District Level Monitoring Committee is not
strictly adhering to the directions issued by this Tribunal in OA.
No.111/2016 and that in the guise of sandbar removal illegal mining is
being carried out. The action taken report submitted by the District
Monitoring Committee, clearly establishes the commercial nature of the
mining which is prohibited and that illegal Sand Mining is being done in
the guise of removal sandbar.
69. We cannot agree with the contention of the respondents that
no illegal mining is happening in rivers to which CRZ Notification is
made applicable. The fact that they are collecting royalty though nominal
and permitting the permit holder to sell the same without any price limit
at the discretion of permit holder outside will amount to nothing but sand
mining which is a prohibited activity in Coastal Regulation Zone. Only if
the sand is used for community purpose i.e. strengthening of river bunds

of 57
or any other permitted activity if any, then only it can be said that it is for
the benefit of the community people or fishermen community. So the
State of Karnataka is directed not to resort to this type of indirect sand
mining in the guise of removal of sandbar from the rivers to which CRZ
Notification is made applicable. Further, the Committee was also not
constituted as directed by this Tribunal in OA 111/2016 with persons
having integrity and having no interest in the proposals that are to be
considered. This also will have to be taken note of by the District
Collector while constituting the Seven Member Committee as directed in
the Official Memorandum of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and
Climate Change and also as directed by this Tribunal in OA 111/2016 of
this Bench and OA 171/2013 of Principal Bench of National Green
Tribunal. This must be strictly adhered to by the State of Karnataka and
also by the District Monitoring Committee. We are not satisfied with the
manner in which the sandbar removal is being undertaken from the river
to which CRZ Notification is applicable. Further, while considering the
sandbar removal, a study must be conducted regarding the width of the
river, height of the sandbar, width and length of the sandbar what is the
extent required for the purpose of free navigation of fishing boat and free
flow of water at the relevant places and permission can be granted only to
that extent not beyond that.
70. It is not possible for the Tribunal to go on monitoring these
aspects perpetually. It is for the regulators namely Seven Member
Monitoring Committee appointed as per the Office Memorandum of
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and the Coastal
Zone Management Authority and State Environment Impact Assessment
Authority to regulate and supervise these activities. If they are not taking

of 57
pro-active role in protecting the exploitation of natural resources, then it
will cause irreparable degradation of riverine ecology and coastal
ecology, which will have impact on the flora and fuana in that area apart
from causing financial loss to the Government. So, it is highly necessary
for the State Departments to be more careful in carrying out such
activities and that must be done strictly in accordance with law. It is
highly necessary to register the persons who are entitled to get permit as
per the notification and only those persons can be permitted to carry out
the removal of sand bar and permissions can be granted only to such
persons. They should not further subcontract the same to third parties for
the purpose of exploiting the permission granted to them to the detriment
of environment and make unlawful enrichment with that illegal activity.
The total extent of sand removed in the guise of sandbar removal shows
that it is not humanly possible to remove so much sand by using the
traditional method as permitted in the permits granted and also by
making the methodology provided therein.
71. So, under such circumstances, it is necessary to identify those
persons who have extracted more than the permission granted using
heavy machineries apart from making them to pay the penalty provided
must also realise the environment compensation for damage caused to
environment on account of such activity and recover the value of the total
sand illegally removed as compensation.
72. It is also seen from the documents produced by the applicant
that one of the persons included in the Monitoring Committee is none
other than the Secretary of the 7th Respondent Association who were
permitted to lift sand from that area. So it cannot be said that the
committee is constituted in such a way that there will not be any

of 57
interested persons in that committee to exploit the condition and get
benefit out of the same. The District Collector/Deputy Commissioner,
Chairman of Monitoring Committee must be careful in selecting the
person from the local community and members of civil society of
integrity and person who is not interested/involved in such activity, then
only the appraisal can be said to be transparent and free from bias.
73. So under such circumstances, we feel that the application can
be disposed of with the following directions:
(i) The present methodology adopted by the State of Karnataka of
collecting nominal amount from the permit holder and permitting
the permit holder to sell it outside without fixing any amount will
amount to mining as it will amount to winning of mineral for
commercial exploitation, which is not permissible under the CRZ
Notification. This practice is deprecated and this should be stopped
forthwith.
(ii) The District Monitoring Committee is directed to ensure that in the
guise of removal of sand bar no illegal sand mining is carried out in
that area in the CRZ Zone.
(iii) A study must be conducted independently regarding the width of
the river and the width and breadth of the sandbar developed in that
area and also study the extent of removal of sandbar which is
required for the purpose of smooth flow of the river and ensure free
navigation of fishing boats which are registered with the authorities.
Only if fishing boats are being used by the local community for
undertaking their fishing activity, then only the question of removal
of sandbar for ensuring free navigation of such fishing boats will
arise. This aspect must be ensured by the authorities before

of 57
identifying the sandbars from where the sand will have to be
removed.
(iv) The District Collector/Deputy Commissioner, the Chairman of the
District Monitoring Committee, Udupi is directed to ensure while
selecting persons from the local community and civil society as
members of the committee in such a way that they must be
independent and they are not involved in extraction of sand and
apply for permission for this purpose so as to ensure transparency
and independent unbiased appraisal while considering the proposal
for issuing permission.
(v) The District Monitoring Committee is directed to ensure that no
illegal sand mining is carried out in the guise of removal of sandbar
in the permitted areas within the location provided and if there is
any violation found, then they are directed to take appropriate
action against those persons, including imposition of Environmental
Compensation and realize the amount from them in accordance with
law.
(vi) They must also ensure that there should not be any use of heavy
machineries and heavy vehicles for transport of sand or removal of
sandbar, which is permitted under CRZ Notification, against the
guidelines issued by the MOF & CC in this regard, which clearly
prohibits usage of heavy machineries and vehicles.
(vii) The District Monitoring Committee, Udupi District, the District
Collector Udupi District, State Environment Impact Assessment
Authority, Karnataka and Karnataka State Coastal Zone
Management Authority and the Environment Department of State of
Karnataka are directed to ensure implementation of guidelines

of 57
issued by Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change by
their Office Memorandum dated 24.02.2011, 09.06.2011 and
08.11.2011 and strictly adhere to the conditions imposed and
timeline provided for removal of sandbar and methodology
provided under the permissions granted by Karnataka State Coastal
Zone Management Authority and also the accredited agency which
was authorized to conduct the study in this regard.
(viii) The District Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Chairman of
Monitoring Committee is directed to take steps to register fishing
boats with the Fisheries Department that are likely to operate in the
rivers covered by CRZ Notification.
(ix) Whenever study is being conducted by the District Monitoring
Committee through the accredited agency, they must ascertain the
nature of hindrance that is likely to be caused on account of the
presence of sandbars for movement of fishing boat, the length and
breadth of sandbar vis-a-vis, the length and breadth of the concerned
river at the relevant stretch and the quantity and the width of the
sandbar that is required to be removed for the purpose of achieving
the aim of providing free flow of river and also free navigation of
fishing boats or one of the same.
(x) The Committee must also ensure that the permit holders have to
carry out the work by themselves and they should not be allowed to
carry out the same by subcontracting the same to others. If the
fishing community want to do the same with the help of their family
members, then there must be some regulation to be made by the
authority for registering the name of those persons also as helpers of
the permit holders so as to avoid the natural resources being

of 57
exploited by persons other than the local community for whose
interest such permissions have been granted.
(xi) The District Collector/Deputy Commissioner, the Chairman of
District Monitoring Committee is directed to take steps to assess the
Environmental Compensation for excess mining or transport of sand
from the sandbar done against the permission granted apart from
realization of the penalty as has been done and registering the cases
and that amount will have to be used for the purpose of
nourishment of sand in the riverbed area covered in the CRZ
Notification. This amount will have to be calculated on the basis of
the total extent of such illegal mining done against the permit
granted applying the principles laid down in Common Cause v
Union of India reported in 2017 (9) SCC 499.
(xii) The Officials must also ensure that the vessels, Boats, permissible
Vehicle, as per the Office Memorandum that are being used must be
registered with the authorities and are fitted with GPS so that their
movements can be traced and action can be taken if there is any
violation found.
(xiii) The State of Karnataka is directed to ensure an effective mechanism
to Monitor these activities by forming State Level Task Force
Committee under the Chairmanship of Principal Secretary
Environment and Forests, the other members may be from Mining
Department, State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Karnataka Coastal Zone Management Authority, so that effective
Monitoring of the same can be done and the violations can be dealt
with effectively in accordance with law. Similar committee may be

of 57
constituted at District Level under the Chairmanship of the District
Collector/Deputy Commissioner.
(xiv) The sand removed from sandbars, if permitted as per rules shall not
be sold and it can be used only for levelling low lying areas of the
river bed, sand nourishment in beaches and strengthening of the
river bunds.
74. The points are answered accordingly.
75. In the result, the application is allowed in part and disposed
of with the following directions:
(i) The present methodology adopted by the State of Karnataka of
collecting nominal amount from the permit holder and
permitting the permit holder to sell it outside without fixing
any amount will amount to mining as it will amount to
winning of mineral for commercial exploitation, which is not
permissible under the CRZ Notification. This practice is be
deprecated and this should be stopped forthwith.
(ii) The District Monitoring Committee is directed to ensure that
in the guise of removal of sand bar no illegal sand mining is
carried out in that area in the CRZ Zone.
(iii) A study must be conducted independently regarding the
width of the river and the width and breadth of the sandbar
developed in that area and also study the extent of removal of
sandbar which is required for the purpose of smooth flow of

of 57
the river and ensure free navigation of fishing boats which are
registered with the authorities. Only if fishing boats are being
used by the local community for undertaking their fishing
activity, then only the question of removal of sandbar for
ensuring free navigation of such fishing boats will arise. This
aspect must be ensured by the authorities before identifying
the sandbars from where the sand will have to be removed.
(iv) The District Collector/Deputy Commissioner, the Chairman
of the District Monitoring Committee, Udupi is directed to
ensure while selecting persons from the local community and
civil society as members of the committee in such a way that
they must be independent and they are not involved in
extraction of sand and apply for permission for this purpose
so as to ensure transparency and independent unbiased
appraisal while considering the proposal for issuing
permission.
(v) The District Monitoring Committee is directed to ensure that
no illegal sand mining is carried out in the guise of removal of
sandbar in the permitted areas within the location provided
and if there is any violation found, then they are directed to
take appropriate action against those persons, including
imposition of Environmental Compensation and realize the
amount from them in accordance with law.

of 57
(vi) They must also ensure that there should not be any use of
heavy machineries and heavy vehicles for transport of sand or
removal of sandbar which is permitted under CRZ
Notification, against the guidelines issued by the MoEF & CC
in this regard, which clearly prohibits usage of heavy
machineries and vehicles.
(vii) The District Monitoring Committee, Udupi District, the
District Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Udupi District, State
Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Karnataka and
Karnataka State Coastal Zone Management Authority and the
Environment Department of State of Karnataka are directed to
ensure implementation of guidelines issued by Ministry of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change by their Office
Memorandum dated 24.02.2011, 09.06.2011 and 08.11.2011 and
strictly adhere to the conditions imposed and timeline
provided for removal of sandbar and methodology provided
under the permissions granted by Karnataka State Coastal
Zone Management Authority and also the accredited agency
which was authorized to conduct the study in this regard.
(viii) The District Collector/Deputy Commissioner is directed to
take steps to register fishing boats with the Fisheries
Department that are likely to operate in the rivers covered by
CRZ Notification.

of 57
(ix) Whenever study is being conducted by the District Monitoring
Committee through the accredited agency, they must ascertain
the nature of hindrance that is likely to be caused on account
of the presence of sandbars for movement of fishing boat, the
length and breadth of sandbar vis-a-vis, the length and
breadth of the concerned river at the relevant stretch and the
quantity and the width of the sandbar that is required to be
removed for the purpose of achieving the aim of providing
free flow of river and also free navigation of fishing boats
either both or one of the same.
(x) The Committee must also ensure that the permit holders have
to carry out the work by themselves and they should not be
allowed to carry out the same by subcontracting the same to
others. If the fishing community want to do the same with the
help of their family members, then there must be some
regulation to be made by the authority for registering the
name of those persons also as helpers of the permit holders so
as to avoid the natural resources being exploited by persons
other than the local community for whose interest such
permissions have been granted.
(xi) The District Collector/Deputy Commissioner, the Chairman
of District Monitoring Committee is directed to take steps to
assess the Environmental Compensation for excess mining or
transport of sand from the sandbar done against the
permission granted apart from realization of the penalty as

of 57
has been done and registering the cases and that amount will
have to be used for the purpose of nourishment of sand in the
riverbed area covered in the CRZ Notification. This amount
will have to be calculated on the basis of the total extent of
such illegal mining done against the permit granted applying
the principles laid down in Common Cause Vs. Union of
India reported in 2017 (9) SCC 499.
(xii) The Officials must also ensure that the vessels, Boats,
permissible Vehicle, as per the Office Memorandum that are
being used must be registered with the authorities and are
fitted with GPS so that their movements can be traced and
action can be taken if there is any violation found.
(xiii) The State of Karnataka is directed to ensure an effective
mechanism to Monitor these activities by forming State Level
Task Force Committee under the Chairmanship of Principal
Secretary Environment and Forests, the other members may
be from Mining Department, State Environment Impact
Assessment Authority, Karnataka Coastal Zone Management
Authority, so that effective Monitoring of the same can be
done and the violations can be dealt with effectively in
accordance with law. Similar Committee must be constituted
at District Level under the Chairmanship of the District
Collector/Deputy Commissioner.

of 57
(xiv) The sand removed from sandbars, if permitted as per rules
shall not be sold and it can be used only for levelling low lying
areas of the river bed, sand nourishment in beaches and
strengthening of the river bunds.
(xv) Considering the circumstances, parties are directed to bear
respective cost in the application.
(xvi) The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the
Deputy Commissioner, Chairman of the Monitoring
Committee, Udupi District, the Principal Secretary for
Environment, Department of Fisheries, State Environment
Impact Assessment Authority, Karnataka Coastal Zone
Management Authority, Chief Secretary, State of Karnataka
for their information and compliance with the directions.
76. With the above directions and observations, the application is
disposed of.
Sd/-
Justice K. Ramakrishnan, J.M.
Sd/-
Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, E.M.
O.A. No. 252 of 2017
18th May, 2022. SE

NGT Judgement(3).pdf

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to NGT Judgement(3).pdf

Similar to NGT Judgement(3).pdf (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

NGT Judgement(3).pdf