Valid District Survey Report Essential For Environment Clearance; Draft Or Lapsed DSR Can't Be Basis For EC : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today (May 8) struck down the Uttar Pradesh government's e-auction notice for sand mining leases which cited reliance on an expired 2017 District Survey Report (DSR), which lapsed in 2022, and a draft 2023 DSR that had not yet been finalized.

The Court held that, under the Environment Protection Act, 1986 and the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notifications, a valid and up-to-date DSR is a mandatory prerequisite for granting Environmental Clearance (EC) for Category B2 minor mineral projects, such as sand mining, as per the 2016 amendment to the EIA Notification.

The dispute centred on the Uttar Pradesh government's attempt to auction sand mining rights based on a DSR from 2017, whose five-year validity had expired, and a 2023 draft DSR that was still undergoing finalization. The NGT ruled that this reliance violated key environmental regulations, rendering the auction process unlawful.

The bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra affirmed the National Green Tribunal's decision, which invalidated the e-auction of sand mining leases by the UP Govt. after noting that the notification was based on outdated DSR.

The judgment authored by Justice Narasimha emphasized that sand mining leases cannot be auctioned without relying on the up-to-date DSR's (not older than five years). Even draft DSRs would not validate auctions as draft DSR are non-existent for the purpose of the grant of environmental clearance.

“We have also noted that the NGT has been taking a consistent stand about the mandatory requirement of a DSR being a condition precedent to carry mining activity. Further, the decision of the NGT that DSR should be the basis for an application for grant of an EC and that an application without DSR is incomplete cannot be processed or proceeded further is correct in law. We may add that a 'draft DSR' is virtually a non-existing DSR for purpose of grant of environmental clearance.”, the court said.

Life Of DSR Is Five Years, DSR Mandatory For Environmental Clearance & Must Be Strictly Enforced

“we are of the opinion that there is a mandatory requirement of preparation of a DSR. The DSR shall form the basis for application of environmental clearance. It shall also be the basis for preparation of reports and also appraisal of the projects. Another important facet of DSR is that it shall be prepared for all the districts and the draft is to be placed in the public domain. There is a requirement for keeping a copy of DSR in Collectorate. It must also be posted on the district's website for 21 days.”

“After five years the existing DSR will not be tenable and a new DSR will have to be prepared and finalized. The purpose and object of prescribing a lifetime of five years for subsistence of a DSR is for the reason that the position of ecology and the environment is rapidly changing and the position that exists five years back, may not subsist for later days. It is true that it might have changed even before the expiry of five years but a reasonable estimate, to work as a benchmark is a policy consideration. May be a precautionary principle, it is not only legal and valid but is also mandatory. It must be enforced strictly and with all vigor.”, the court added.

The Court concluded by holding that:

“(i). A District Survey Report is a document of seminal importance as it enables informed decision making.

(ii). Preparation of a DSR as per the procedure prescribed for its preparation under Appendix X, read with para 7(iii)(a), is required to be followed meticulously.

(iii). A valid and a subsisting DSR alone can be the basis for an application for grant of EC. A draft DSR is untenable for grant of an EC.

(iv). Preparation of reports and appraisal of projects by DEIAA and DEAC shall be on the basis of a valid and a subsisting DSR.

(v). DEIAA and DEAC are recognized as the authorities fastened with the statutory duty of preparing the DSR every five years and this duty compels them to have a comprehensive and a real time perspective of the environment position of the district including its eco-sensitivity and other fragilities.”

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Case Title: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. VERSUS GAURAV KUMAR & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 548

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv.(Arguing counsel) Mr. Vanshdeep Dalmia, AOR (Arguing counsel) Ms. Natasha Dalmia, Adv. Ms. Anisha Jain, Adv. Ms. Shambhavi Singh, Adv. Mr. S.P. Singh, Sr. Adv.(Arguing counsel) Mrs. Revathy Raghavan, AOR Ms. Kavya Roy Choudhury, Adv. Mr. Shannu Baghel, Adv. Mr. Ashish Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Rohit Gupta, Adv. Ms. Tabasum Bano, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati,A.S.G (Arguing counsel) Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain, AOR Ms. Marbiang Khongwir, Adv. Mr. Parth Yadav, Adv. Ms. Mani Munjal, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Ajit Sharma, AOR(Arguing counsel) Parul Goyal, Adv. Mr. Kanchan Kumar, Adv. Mr. Yuvrajsinh Solanki, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Misra, AOR Mr. Daleep Dhyani, Adv. Mr. Suraj Singh, Adv. Mr. Ashok Kr. Panda, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shashwat Panda, Adv. Mr. Tejaswi Kumar Pradhan, AOR Manoranjan Paikaray, Adv.