The National Green Tribunal has directed key state authorities to submit detailed affidavits and reports on alleged illegal river sand mining during night hours, in violation of Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) restrictions. The Tribunal emphasized the duty of state agencies to act on citizen complaints and enforce environmental safeguards, particularly during periods of heightened air pollution control.
The Verdict
The applicant prevailed in securing urgent procedural directions from the National Green Tribunal. The core legal holding is that state authorities, including the District Mining Officer and Commissioner of Police, have a mandatory duty to investigate and act on credible allegations of illegal river mining, especially when conducted in violation of GRAP restrictions. The Tribunal directed the filing of affidavits, police reports, and personal appearance by officials to account for inaction, reinforcing environmental enforcement as a non-discretionary obligation.
Background & Facts
The applicant, a resident and environmental activist, filed Original Application No. 724/2023 before the National Green Tribunal alleging unlawful river sand mining activities along the Yamuna River in Ghaziabad. The allegations intensified in January 2026, when the applicant and local villagers observed heavy excavators operating at night, approximately 8 meters deep, beyond the permitted lease area and diverting the river’s natural course. The mining occurred despite the imposition of GRAP-III on 16 January 2026 and GRAP-IV on 17 January 2026, which prohibit activities contributing to environmental degradation.
The applicant submitted photographic evidence dated 18 January 2026 and filed formal complaints on 5 January 2026 to the District Magistrate, Chief Secretary, Prime Minister’s Office, Director of Geology & Mining, and District Mining Officer. No substantive action was taken. The applicant also contacted the police via emergency number 112 on 2 January 2026, with no response. The applicant’s rejoinder dated 19 January 2026 reiterated these failures and sought immediate intervention.
The respondents, including the State of Uttar Pradesh and mining operators, had previously filed responses, but none addressed the specific allegations of night-time mining during GRAP enforcement. The Tribunal, finding the allegations prima facie credible and environmentally urgent, ordered immediate accountability measures.
The Legal Issue
The central legal question was whether state authorities, under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and GRAP guidelines, are legally obligated to investigate and act on citizen complaints regarding illegal mining during pollution control emergencies, and whether inaction constitutes a breach of statutory duty.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The applicant’s counsel argued that the State has a non-delegable duty under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 to protect and improve environmental quality. The invocation of GRAP-III and GRAP-IV explicitly prohibits unauthorized mining as a contributor to particulate pollution and ecological disruption. The applicant cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, which holds that environmental rights are fundamental under Article 21, and that state inaction in the face of documented violations amounts to a violation of this right. The applicant further relied on the NGT’s own precedents in cases involving illegal sand mining, where the Tribunal has consistently held that night-time mining is per se illegal and constitutes a grave environmental offense.
For the Respondent
The respondents did not contest the factual allegations in their prior filings. Their counsel focused on procedural delays and lack of jurisdictional clarity, but offered no substantive rebuttal to the claim of night-time mining during GRAP enforcement. No affidavit or evidence was submitted prior to the Tribunal’s order to refute the applicant’s claims.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal found that the applicant’s allegations, supported by photographic evidence and contemporaneous complaints, raised a prima facie case of environmental violation. The invocation of GRAP-III and GRAP-IV was not a mere advisory measure but a legally binding directive under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The Tribunal emphasized that the duty to enforce environmental norms does not rest solely with the applicant; it is a statutory obligation of the State.
"The State cannot remain a silent spectator when environmental degradation is occurring in real time, especially during a declared public health emergency under GRAP."
The Tribunal noted that the District Mining Officer is statutorily designated as the enforcement authority under the Uttar Pradesh Sand Mining Rules, 2012, and is required to maintain a daily log of mining operations. The failure to act on complaints received on 2 January and 18 January 2026, despite clear evidence, amounted to dereliction of duty. The Commissioner of Police’s failure to respond to the 112 call further indicated systemic breakdown in inter-agency coordination.
The Tribunal rejected any notion that citizen complaints require corroboration before triggering enforcement. The burden of proof lies with the State to demonstrate compliance, not with the citizen to prove violation beyond doubt at the preliminary stage. The Tribunal relied on the principle of precautionary approach and polluter pays principle, both embedded in Indian environmental jurisprudence.
What This Means For Similar Cases
This order establishes a clear precedent for environmental enforcement during pollution emergencies. Practitioners representing communities affected by illegal mining or other environmental violations can now cite this order to demand immediate action from district authorities when GRAP or similar emergency protocols are in force. The Tribunal’s directive for personal appearance by officials sets a new benchmark for accountability - mere written replies are insufficient when environmental harm is ongoing.
Future litigants should ensure complaints are documented with time-stamped photographs, official complaint receipts, and proof of communication to multiple agencies. This order also signals that courts will treat inaction during GRAP periods as aggravated violations, potentially inviting contempt proceedings. However, the scope is limited to situations where GRAP or similar statutory emergency protocols are active; routine illegal mining without such context may require separate evidentiary thresholds.
