The High Court of Chhattisgarh has ruled that a valid and approved District Survey Report (DSR) is a mandatory precondition before any mining activity or auction process for minor mineral ordinary sand can proceed. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Judge Ravindra Kumar Agrawal quashed a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) for a sand quarry lease in Hathnewra village, Janjgir-Champa district, holding that the State could not have initiated the auction process using a mere “draft” DSR.
The Court emphasized that under the law established by the Supreme Court of India, a draft DSR is virtually non-existent for the purpose of granting environmental clearance, and a validly finalized and approved DSR must be prepared every five years.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Gram Panchayat Hathnewra, represented by its Sarpanch, filed a writ petition challenging the Notice Inviting Tender (Reverse Auction) dated March 30, 2026, bearing No. 728/Kh.Li.1/Sand Auction/2025, issued by the Collector (Mining Branch), Janjgir-Champa. By this NIT, the respondent authorities invited bids under Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Minor Mineral Ordinary Sand (Quarrying and Trade) Rules, 2025, for grant of a quarry lease through electronic reverse auction across four villages: Khapridih, Hathnewra, Hadha, and Karnaudh.
The principal grievance raised by the Gram Panchayat was that no valid DSR, which is mandatory for sand mining activities under the environmental guidelines, was in existence for Janjgir-Champa district. The Gram Panchayat had also passed a resolution opposing the sand mining lease within its territorial limits.
Arguments of the Parties
For the Petitioner:
Senior Advocate Ms. Sharmila Singhai, representing the petitioner, argued that:
- The respondent authorities issued the NIT for sand mining without obtaining a validly approved DSR from the District Collector, which violates Clause 11(22) of the State Government’s notification dated September 12, 2025, mandating strict compliance with Court, Central, and State Government orders.
- Under the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Uttar Pradesh and Another v. Gaurav Kumar and Others (2025 SCC Online SC 1069), a DSR approved by the District Collector is a mandatory precondition for granting an ordinary sand quarry lease.
- The previous DSR for Janjgir-Champa district was prepared in 2019. Since the legal validity of a DSR is strictly limited to five years, it ceased to be tenable in 2024. Conducting an auction without preparing and finalising a new DSR is legally impermissible.
- Under Section 54 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, the Gram Panchayat has the duty to regulate environmentally sensitive activities within its territory. The petitioner also relied on the Supreme Court decisions in Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana (2012) 4 SCC 629 and State of Bihar v. Pawan Kumar (2022) 2 SCC 348 to emphasize the need for a prior valid DSR and environmental assessment.
For the Respondents/State:
Additional Advocate General Mr. Praveen Das, representing the State of Chhattisgarh, countered that:
- The writ petition was misconceived as the DSR for District Janjgir-Champa for the year 2025 had been duly prepared with technical assistance from IIT Rourkela and approved by the competent authority on November 27, 2025.
- The said report was uploaded in the public domain on the same day for public comments, and no objections were received.
- The Gram Panchayat’s objection lacks legal basis because Hathnewra does not fall under a “Scheduled Area,” making the provisions of the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA Act) inapplicable.
- Illegal sand mining had previously been detected in Hathnewra and machinery had been seized, but the Sarpanch had remained a silent spectator. The State suggested that individuals involved in illegal mining might be behind the petition to obstruct a transparent auction.
- Since successful bidders were already declared on April 30, 2026, any interference at this stage would prejudice third-party rights and cause a loss of public revenue.
The Court’s Analysis
Upon examining the Chhattisgarh Sand Rules of 2025 and judicial precedents, the High Court observed that Clause 11(22) of the notification dated September 12, 2025, binds authorities to strictly comply with all judicial directions.
The Court referred extensively to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Gaurav Kumar (supra), which established the regulatory framework under the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notifications. Quoting the Supreme Court, the Bench noted:
“We may add that a ‘draft DSR’ is virtually a non-existing DSR for purpose of grant of environmental clearance.”
The Court highlighted the strict timeline and lifecycle of a DSR as declared by the Apex Court:
“The lifetime of the report is five years. 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… It must be enforced strictly and with all vigor.”
Applying these principles to the facts of the case, the Bench found that although the state asserted that a 2025 DSR was uploaded on November 27, 2025, the record did not prove that it was ever finally approved by the District Collector or Chairperson of the competent authority.
The Bench noted:
“From the record, it appears that what was uploaded in the public domain was only a draft DSR intended for public scrutiny and comments. No document has been produced demonstrating final approval of the DSR by the competent authority after consideration of objections/suggestions, if any.”
The Court thus concluded that initiating an auction or issuing an NIT in the absence of a finalized and approved DSR is contrary to the Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020, as well as the Supreme Court’s binding directions in Gaurav Kumar (supra).
The Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned Notice Inviting Tender pertaining to Event No. MSTC/RPR/Chhattisgarh/Janjgir Tender/2/26-27/1580, specifically concerning Village Hathnewra.
However, the Court clarified that:
- The State/respondent authorities are at liberty to initiate a fresh process strictly in accordance with law, the 2020 Guidelines, and the directions in Gaurav Kumar (supra), after a valid DSR is prepared and approved by the competent authority.
- The State authorities remain fully empowered and are “duty-bound” to take legal action against any person or entity found involved in illegal sand mining or unlawful mineral extraction in the area.
There was no order as to costs.
Case Details
- Case Title: Gram Panchayat, Hathnewra v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
- Case No.: WPC No. 1970 of 2026
- Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Judge Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
- Date of Judgment: May 15, 2026
