JUDGMENT : M.S. Sonak, J. 1. Heard Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias for the petitioners and Ms. Maria Collasso for the intervenors vide Miscellaneous Civil Application No.995/2019. Mr. D. Pangam, learned Advocate General along with Mr. P. Faldessai, learned Additional Government Advocate appear for the respondents. 2. We issue Rule and with the consent and at the request of learned counsel for the parties, we proceed to dispose of this petition finally. Mr. P. Faldessai, learned Additional Government Advocate waives service on behalf of the respondents. 3. In this petition, instituted in public interest, the petitioners basically seek reliefs with regard to the following two aspects:- (A) Remedial measures to be adopted by the State and its agencies to prevent and control illegal sand mining in the State of Goa; (B) Directions to the Goa State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (GSEIAA) – respondent no.5 to withdraw the environment clearance dated 01.10.2015 for undertaking sand mining in certain specified areas and, if necessary, to issue fresh environment clearance after compliance with sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Union of India. 4. In so far as relief in terms of prayer clause (B) above (the prayer clause in the petition is BB) is concerned, according to us, it may not be appropriate to consider the same in the present petition, particularly since such issue would involve hearing not only the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change but also at least some of the beneficiaries of this environment clearance upon representative basis. We felt that there was no point in delaying consideration of relief in terms of (A) above, by linking the two issues together, though, we agree, that the two issues are not entirely unconnected. 5. Accordingly, we made it clear that in this petition, we will not be considering any relief in terms of prayer clause (BB) of the petition but we will grant liberty to the petitioners to institute a fresh petition, in relation to such relief. 5. Accordingly, we made it clear that in this petition, we will not be considering any relief in terms of prayer clause (BB) of the petition but we will grant liberty to the petitioners to institute a fresh petition, in relation to such relief. We also made it clear that the interim orders dated 31.10.2018, as modified on 28.01.2019, in the present petition, which have a bearing on the consideration of relief in terms of prayer clause (BB) shall continue to operate for a period of six weeks from the date of disposal of this petition so as to enable the petitioners to seek either continuance or fresh interim relief, in the fresh petition, which the petitioners propose to institute in relation to relief in terms of prayer clause (BB) of this petition. To such a petition, we assume, the petitioners will implead at least some of the beneficiaries of the environment clearance which they propose to challenge, in representative capacity. We order and grant liberty, accordingly. 6. In so far as relief in terms of (A) above is concerned, it is necessary to note that there is really no dispute raised even by the respondents that there is illegal sand mining going on in the State of Goa and that effective measures need to be taken to curb and control the same. Upon this undisputed premise, we have, from time to time, been making orders in this petition, so that, there is some mechanism in place to deal with the issue of prevention and control of illegal sand mining in the State of Goa. 7. We are happy to note that both the parties have not treated this petition as some adversarial litigation and approach of both the parties has been to endeavor to put in place some workable mechanism to prevent illegal sand mining and to take remedial measures, where such illegal sand mining is taking place. 8. On 03.07.2018, we made the following order: “Heard Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. Pravin Faldessai, learned Additional Government Advocate for the Respondents. 2. Reply on behalf of Respondent no.3 is tendered. The learned Additional Government Advocate states that the reply on behalf of the Director (Mines) would be filed. 3. The Petitioners have raised certain issues at Para 60 of the Petition. Therefore, a response would be needed on these points raised. 4. Pravin Faldessai, learned Additional Government Advocate for the Respondents. 2. Reply on behalf of Respondent no.3 is tendered. The learned Additional Government Advocate states that the reply on behalf of the Director (Mines) would be filed. 3. The Petitioners have raised certain issues at Para 60 of the Petition. Therefore, a response would be needed on these points raised. 4. To crystalise the issues, the State response is needed on the following points: (a) Whether a preparation of plan with a study showing the annual replenishment of sand in mining lease area is required under the Memorandum dated 24 December 2013 and if so, within how much time this plan would be prepared? If it is not required, whether the State is ready to prepare one? (b) Whether any study is mandated to determine the depth of the river beds and the impact of sand mining activities on the river beds, the buffer zones, proximity to bridges, embankment, bunds and river banks and stream, is mandated under the Memorandum dated 24 December 2013 and even if it is not so mandated, whether the State is ready to undertake such study and if so, within how much time? (c) Whether periodical monitoring by the Goa State Bio- Diversity Board as regarding to ecological impacts of sand extraction on the riverine ecosystem is being carried out. If so, whether there are any reports prepared of the said monitoring and which is the Authority which enforces the compliances? (d) Whether there is any Authority is entrusted with the compliance of the conditions environment clearance in respect of the sand mining or the general activity of sand mining, and whether any progress reports are maintained by such Authority? (e) Whether any patrolling is being carried out to oversee the activity of the sand mining? (f) Whether any registration and inspection of boats involved in sand mining, methods used for extraction and monitoring of personnel involvement of boats used for sand mining is being carried out, if so, details thereof? 5. The response of the State on the above points by way of an affidavit of an responsible Officer be placed on record by 31 July 2018. 6. Stand over to 31 July 2018.” 9. In response to the aforesaid order the Director of Mines has filed an affidavit, in which, he referred to five instances of illegal sand mining in the Mandovi river. 6. Stand over to 31 July 2018.” 9. In response to the aforesaid order the Director of Mines has filed an affidavit, in which, he referred to five instances of illegal sand mining in the Mandovi river. Out of the five instances, penalty was imposed in one of the cases and the others were mostly compounded. Accordingly, we were constrained to observe that the trend of compounding such cases can hardly have any deterrent effect and there must be serious action if violations are found and proved. We observe that mere compounding will simply embolden further violations. 10. Thereafter, in our order dated 31.07.2018, we issued following interim reliefs:- 6. The environmental clearances granted to the Collector and District Magistrate by the Goa State Environment Impact Assessment Authority contain various stipulations. It is emphasized that there should be a proper survey and there should be scientific extraction. It is also stated that there should be a Patrolling-cum-Flying squad and complaint/monitoring mechanism, comprising of senior level representatives from stakeholder Departments and Authorities to be constituted for effective implementation. There should also be a mechanism for redressal of complaints at District level and a dedicated helpline number. The Goa State Biodiversity Board should periodically monitor riverine and riparian biodiversity on a sampling mode. These are the conditions on which the Collector has been authorized to give further licenses and therefore they will have to be strictly complied with. 7. As regard the flying squad, the affidavit of the Director does not disclose that it has been constituted. Learned Counsel for the petitioner on instructions states that flying squad does not have a functional Boat. 8. The permits which have been granted to the individuals also lay down various conditions. The permit holder is under obligation not to interfere or damage any riverbanks or not to carry out excavation below maximum depth specified. So that the permit holder carries out the obligation under the permission, a regular monitoring is required. It is for the very reason that the establishment of the flying squad is necessary and must be made effective. 9. In both, implementation of the conditions and preparation of plan and conducting an In-Depth study more efforts on the part of the State are necessary. The conditions in the EC and the permits will have to be enforced. 10. It is for the very reason that the establishment of the flying squad is necessary and must be made effective. 9. In both, implementation of the conditions and preparation of plan and conducting an In-Depth study more efforts on the part of the State are necessary. The conditions in the EC and the permits will have to be enforced. 10. Accordingly, as a first step, we direct that a flying squad, if not already set up, be set up within a period of six weeks from today. A flying squad should have a functional boat for its effective monitoring. 11. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn our attention to the memorandum issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest on 24 December 2013 more particularly clause 2(1)(iii)(e) in respect of the study for annual replenishment of sand. It is pointed out that for carrying out this study, the monsoon period, when the sand mining activity is suspended, could be most ideal. 12. The Captain of Ports along with the Goa State Environment Impact Assessment Authority and a Biodiversity Board will consider carrying out a preliminary study as contemplated in the Office Memorandum dated 24 December 2013. Since it will be a preliminary study, the same can be conducted as early as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from today, unless of course it is not possible due to some cogent reason or that scientifically it is not the correct time period. 13. As already contemplated in the Environment Clearances, the State will constitute a committee comprising of senior level representative from stake holders department for effective implementation and monitoring of the general and specific conditions of the environment clearance vis-a-vis complaints at the district level, within a period of eight weeks. 14. The State will set up a dedicated helpline number, if not already set up, for effective redressal of the complaint and will give adequate wide publicity of the dedicated helpline number. 15. The State will set up a study group of expert on the subject to prepare In-Depth study of the aspect of sustainable sand mining and map as contemplated under the sustainable sand mining guidelines and environmental clearances granted by the Goa State Environment Impact Assessment Authority. 15. The State will set up a study group of expert on the subject to prepare In-Depth study of the aspect of sustainable sand mining and map as contemplated under the sustainable sand mining guidelines and environmental clearances granted by the Goa State Environment Impact Assessment Authority. The composition of the study group shall be identified within a period of six weeks from today and the composition of the same shall be placed before us before it is so finally constituted. 16. To report the compliance of the above directions and to ascertain further progress in the matter, we defer the hearing of this petition by six weeks from today.” 11. In our subsequent order of 10.07.2018, we noted that there were various instances of illegal sand mining which were acknowledged by the State and its agencies. We also noted the stance of the State and its agencies that efforts were being made to control such violations. However, we were constrained to note that there was complete lack of any sort of effective regulatory mechanism to prevent such violations or at least to control them. 12. Accordingly, in our order dated 10.09.2018, we made following interim directions:- 4. To control the illegal sand mining, there must be an effective enforcement mechanism in place. Instead we see a complete lack of any sort of effective regulatory mechanism. The Petition was heard in the morning session and was kept in the afternoon session for the learned Additional Govt. Advocate to take instructions as we were given the standard explanation of movement of files from table to table. Now the Director Mines is present in the Court along with the Deputy Captain of Ports. We are informed by the learned Additional Govt. Advocate, on instructions, that the enforcement squad was created for Pernem, Bardez, Tiswadi, Bicholim, Sattari and Ponda Talukas on 22 August 2013, but it is non-functional. There is no functional boat. It is obvious that the State will not be able to curb the illegal sand mining if it does not have an enforcement mechanism in the form of Patrolling Squad. The State also has not set any help line or a complaint platform to receive any information regarding illegal sand mining. In such a state of affairs, how it will deter illegal sand mining is difficult to discern. 5. The State also has not set any help line or a complaint platform to receive any information regarding illegal sand mining. In such a state of affairs, how it will deter illegal sand mining is difficult to discern. 5. It is absolutely necessary that the State must put in place a regulatory mechanism to curb the illegal sand mining. In our earlier order, reproduced above with underlined emphasis, we have referred to various conditions and stipulations imposed by the authorities themselves. The conditions seems to have remained on paper. 6. The learned Additional Govt. Advocate states that the Director of Mines & Geology is in process of creating the enforcement squads. He states that squads with same compositions as in communication dated 22 August 2013 will be set up. He states that a communication to that effect will be issued by tomorrow. Learned Additional Govt. Advocate states that the Director of Mines and Geology has requested the Captain of Ports and the Coastal Security Police, to provide services of functional boats. This letter is sent today, even though we had granted six weeks time. The Captain of Ports and the Coastal Security Police shall accordingly provide the functional boats as requested by the Director of Mines and Geology. All the three Authorities will report compliance by next date. We are informed that the sand mining season would commence from 1 October 2018. We expect that the regulatory mechanism in the form of enforcement squad with functional boats and complaint forum is established forthwith, to avoid any restraint order. 7. S.O. to 12 September 2018. To be listed under the caption “For Directions”. On the next date, the Respondents will apprise the Court of the status of the progress in respect of the other directions issued.” 13. In our order dated 12.09.2018, we noted the compliances which were reported to us, particularly in relation to the constitution of flying squads and their operations. Our order dated 12.09.2018, reads thus:- “Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The learned Advocate General states that in compliance with the order dated 10 September 2018, flying squad has been constituted. The flying squads which were constituted for Pernem, Bardez, Tiswadi, Bicholim, Sattari and Ponda Taluka vide order dated 22 August 2013 have been revived and letter has been issued on 10 September 2018. 2. The learned Advocate General states that in compliance with the order dated 10 September 2018, flying squad has been constituted. The flying squads which were constituted for Pernem, Bardez, Tiswadi, Bicholim, Sattari and Ponda Taluka vide order dated 22 August 2013 have been revived and letter has been issued on 10 September 2018. He states that the copy of the letter dated 10 September 2018 along with the composition of such flying squads is already placed before this Hon'ble Court. The learned Advocate General states that request is made to the Captain of Ports and the Superintendent of Police, Coastal security to provide services of functional boards by letter dated 10 September 2018. He states that the Captain of Ports has communicated that his department will provide services of functional boat in river Mandovi which can also be used in river Zuari. He has given the details of the boat and the contact person has also been given. As regards to the compliance by the SP, Coastal Security, the learned Advocate General states that the boats will be provided as and when required. A letter to that effect will be issued to the Director of Mines giving details of such boars and the operators/contact persons. Learned Advocate General states that such letter will be issued latest by Monday i.e. on 17 September 2018 after the formal approval of Director General of Police. 3. Learned Advocate General further states that in addition to the flying squads earlier mentioned, vide order issued yesterday the Director of Mines and Geology has constituted similar flying squads for Salcete, Sanguem, Quepem, Dhar- Bandora, Canacona and Mormugao Taluka. Learned Advocate General states that yesterday the Deputy Director, Mines and Geology has designated the officials from the Directorate of Mines and Geology on the Taluka wise flying squads and the list of such officers along with their telephone numbers is issued. 4. The learned Advocate General states that preliminary impact study, has been carried out and the report is submitted. He states that constitution of a committee for implementation and monitoring and dedicated helpline number, the Government has approved the issue of dedicated helpline number and a letter is issued yesterday requesting to notify such helpline number. He assures that other issues of expert committees, a high level meeting will be held. He states that constitution of a committee for implementation and monitoring and dedicated helpline number, the Government has approved the issue of dedicated helpline number and a letter is issued yesterday requesting to notify such helpline number. He assures that other issues of expert committees, a high level meeting will be held. The meeting will be held at the Chief Secretary level and the action taken will be appraised. We expect that the Helpline Number is set up and Committee meeting takes place at the earliest. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention to the Environment Clearance, which is annexed to the petition and more particularly to the general and specific conditions specified therein. We note that since these are the conditions upon which power to issue licenses is given to the Authorities, the response of the State to each of these conditions as to when they will be complied, is necessary. 6. To enable the State to file an additional affidavit and to inform the status as above stand over to 19 September 2018.” 14. On 27.09.2018, 03.10.2018, 16.10.2018, 23.10.2018 and 31.10.2018, we made some orders which are relevant in the context of relief relating to the issue of environment clearance. Since, we are not addressing the said issue in this petition, we make no further reference to the said orders. 15. Finally, on 25.09.2019, the learned counsel for the parties assured this court that the parties, their advocates and government officials who are concerned with the issue relating to sand mining, whether legal or otherwise will meet on 4th October, 2019 at 5.00 p.m. in the office of the learned Advocate General, in an attempt to either sort out the issues or to at least to come out with some mechanism to prevent illegal sand mining or take remedial action, in the matter of illegal sand mining. 16. We were informed that more than two meetings took place in which, the parties attempted to formulate some agreed minutes, on the basis of which, the issue of prevention of illegal sand mining and remedial measures could perhaps be worked out. Drafts of minutes of the order were exchanged between the parties. Though there was broad agreement on most of the issues, there were differences in the modalities suggested. Drafts of minutes of the order were exchanged between the parties. Though there was broad agreement on most of the issues, there were differences in the modalities suggested. As such, the parties, were not in a position to present to this Court agreed minutes of the order. However, we are happy to note that at least on some broad aspects, there was consensus and therefore, we too, propose to take into consideration such minutes, in making our final order. On aspects where there was no consensus however, we propose to issue our own directions. 17. Before we do so, we would like to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Sanjay – (2014) 9 SCC 772 , in which, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has considered the issue as to whether the provisions contained in the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) operate as a bar against prosecution of a person who has been charged with allegation which constituted offence under Section 379 and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). In other words, the issue which arose for consideration in the said case was whether the provisions of MMDR Act explicitly or impliedly exclude provisions of IPC when an act of the accused is an offence both under MMDR Act as well as the IPC. This judgment is relevant because the same arose in the context of rampant illegal mining of sand from river beds, which is, the issue with which we are concerned in the present public interest litigation. 18. In the context of illegal sand mining, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made following relevant observations:- “32. The policy and object of Mines and Minerals Act and Rules have a long history and are the result of an increasing awareness of the compelling need to restore the serious ecological imbalance and to stop the damages being caused to the nature. The Court cannot lose sight of the fact that adverse and destructive environmental impact of sand mining has been discussed in the UNEP Global Environmental Alert Service report. As per the contents of the report, lack of proper scientific methodology for river sand mining has led to indiscriminate sand mining, while weak governance and corruption have led to widespread illegal mining. As per the contents of the report, lack of proper scientific methodology for river sand mining has led to indiscriminate sand mining, while weak governance and corruption have led to widespread illegal mining. While referring to the proposition in India, it was stated that Sand trading is a lucrative business, and there is evidence of illegal trading such as the case of the influential mafias in our Country. 33. The mining of aggregates in rivers has led to severe damage to river, including pollution and changes in levels of pH. Removing sediment from rivers causes the river to cut its channel through the bed of the valley floor, or channel incision, both upstream and downstream of the extraction site. This leads to coarsening of bed material and lateral channel instability. It can change the riverbed itself. The removal of more than 12 million tonnes of sand a year from the Vembanad Lake catchment in India has led to the lowering of the riverbed by 7 to 15 centimetres a year. Incision can also cause the alluvial aquifer to drain to a lower level, resulting in a loss of aquifer storage. It can also increase flood frequency and intensity by reducing flood regulation capacity. However, lowering the water table is most threatening to water supply exacerbating drought occurrence and severity as tributaries of major rivers dry up when sand mining reaches certain thresholds. Illegal sand mining also causes erosion. Damming and mining have reduced sediment delivery from rivers to many coastal areas, leading to accelerated beach erosion. 34. The report also dealt with the astonishing impact of sand mining on the economy. It states that the tourism may be affected through beach erosion. Fishing, both traditional and commercial — can be affected through destruction of benthic fauna. Agriculture could be affected through loss of agricultural land from river erosion and the lowering of the water table. The insurance sector is affected through exacerbation of the impact of extreme events such as floods, droughts and storm surges through decreased protection of beach fronts. The erosion of coastal areas and beaches affects houses and infrastructure. A decrease in bed load or channel shortening can cause downstream erosion including bank erosion and the undercutting or undermining of engineering structures such as bridges, side protection walls and structures for water supply. 35. The erosion of coastal areas and beaches affects houses and infrastructure. A decrease in bed load or channel shortening can cause downstream erosion including bank erosion and the undercutting or undermining of engineering structures such as bridges, side protection walls and structures for water supply. 35. Sand is often removed from beaches to build hotels, roads and other tourism-related infrastructure. In some locations, continued construction is likely to lead to an unsustainable situation and destruction of the main natural attraction for visitors — beaches themselves. Mining from, within or near a riverbed has a direct impact on the stream’s physical characteristics, such as channel geometry, bed elevation, substratum composition and stability, instream roughness of the bed, flow velocity, discharge capacity, sediment transportation capacity, turbidity, temperature, etc. Alteration or modification of the above attributes may cause hazardous impact on ecological equilibrium of riverine regime. This may also cause adverse impact on instream biota and riparian habitats. This disturbance may also cause changes in channel configuration and flow-paths.” 19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, has in paragraph 36 of State vs. Sanjay (supra), has referred to the decision of the division bench of the Madras High Court, in the case of M. Palanisamy v. The State of Tamil Nadu, ( 2012 (4) CTC 1 ), in which, Eqbal J., as His Lordship then was, was also the member of the Bench. In the said case, there was elaborate discussion on the object of restrictions put on illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals including sand after consideration of various reports. The relevant paragraphs from the said judgment, which are quoted by the Hon'ble Apex Court read as follows:- “21. In order to appreciate the issue involved in these Writ Petitions, we may have to look at the larger picture - the impact of indiscriminate, uninterrupted sand quarrying on the already brittle ecological set up of ours. According to expert reports, for thousands of years, sand and gravel have been used in the construction of roads and buildings. Today, demand for sand and gravel continues to increase. Mining operators, instead of working in conjunction with cognizant resource agencies to ensure that sand mining is conducted in a responsible manner, are engaged in full-time profiteering. Excessive in-stream sandand- gravel mining from river beds and like resources causes the degradation of rivers. In-stream mining lowers the stream bottom, which leads to bank erosion. Mining operators, instead of working in conjunction with cognizant resource agencies to ensure that sand mining is conducted in a responsible manner, are engaged in full-time profiteering. Excessive in-stream sandand- gravel mining from river beds and like resources causes the degradation of rivers. In-stream mining lowers the stream bottom, which leads to bank erosion. Depletion of sand in the stream-bed and along coastal areas causes the deepening of rivers and estuaries and enlargement of river mouths and coastal inlets. It also leads to saline-water intrusion from the nearby sea. The effect of mining is compounded by the effect of sea level rise. Any volume of sand exported from stream-beds and coastal areas is a loss to the system. Excessive in- stream sand mining is a threat to bridges, river banks and nearby structures. Sand mining also affects the adjoining groundwater system and the uses that local people make of the river. Further, according to researches, in-stream sand mining results in the destruction of aquatic and riparian habitat through wholesale changes in the channel morphology. The ill effects include bed degradation, bed coarsening, lowered water tables near the stream-bed, and channel instability. These physical impacts cause degradation of riparian and aquatic biota and may lead to the undermining of bridges and other structures. Continued extraction of sand from river beds may also cause the entire stream-bed to degrade to the depth of excavation. 23. The most important effects of in-stream sand mining on aquatic habitats are bed degradation and sedimentation, which can have substantial negative effects on aquatic life. The stability of sand-bed and gravel-bed streams depends on a delicate balance between stream flow, the sediments supplied from the watershed and the channel form. Mining-induced changes in sediment supply and channel form disrupt the channel and the habitat development processes. Furthermore, movement of unstable substrates results in downstream sedimentation of habitats. The affected distance depends on the intensity of mining, particles sizes, stream flows, and channel morphology. 24. Apart from threatening bridges, sand mining transforms the riverbeds into large and deep pits; as a result, the groundwater table drops leaving the drinking water wells on the embankments of these rivers dry. Bed degradation from instream mining lowers the elevation of stream flow and the floodplain water table, which in turn, can eliminate water table-dependent woody vegetation in riparian areas and decrease wetted periods in riparian wetlands. Bed degradation from instream mining lowers the elevation of stream flow and the floodplain water table, which in turn, can eliminate water table-dependent woody vegetation in riparian areas and decrease wetted periods in riparian wetlands. So far as locations close to the sea are concerned, saline water may intrude into the fresh waterbody.” 20. The Hon'ble Apex Court after detailed analysis of the provisions of MMDR Act and IPC, finally came to the conclusion that initiation of proceedings for commission of an offence under MMDR Act does not debar the police from taking action against persons for committing theft of sand and minerals under the provisions of the IPC and that of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that in a situation where a person without any lease or license or any authority enters into river and extracts sand, gravel and other minerals and remove or transport those minerals in a clandestine manner with an intent to remove dishonestly those minerals from the possession of the State, is liable to be punished for committing such offence under Sections 378 and 379 IPC. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that from a close reading of the provisions of MMDR Act and the offence defined under Section 378 IPC, it is manifest that the ingredients constituting the offence are different. The contravention of terms and conditions of mining lease or doing mining activity in violation of Section 4 of the MMDR Act is an offence punishable under Section 21 of the MMDR Act, whereas dishonestly removing sand, gravel and other minerals from the river, which is the property of the State, out of the State's possession without the consent, constitute an offence of theft. Hence, merely because initiation of proceeding for commission of an offence under the MMDR Act on the basis of complaint cannot and shall not debar the police from taking action against persons for committing theft of sand and minerals by exercising power under the Cr.P.C. And submit a report before the Magistrate for taking cognizance against such persons. Hence, merely because initiation of proceeding for commission of an offence under the MMDR Act on the basis of complaint cannot and shall not debar the police from taking action against persons for committing theft of sand and minerals by exercising power under the Cr.P.C. And submit a report before the Magistrate for taking cognizance against such persons. In other words, in a case where there is a theft of sand and gravel from the government land, the police can register a case, investigate the same and submit a final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before Magistrate having jurisdiction for the purpose of taking cognizance as provided in Section 190(1)(d) Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, has, in paragraph 73, finally held that after giving thoughtful consideration in the matter, in the light of the relevant provisions of the MMDR Act vis-a-vis the IPC or Cr.P.C., the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the definite opinion that the ingredients constituting the offence under the MMDR Act and the ingredients constituting the offence under the MMDR Act and the ingredients of dishonestly removing sand and gravel from the riverbeds without consent, which is the property of the State, is a distinct offence under the IPC. Hence, for the commission of offence under Section 378 IPC, on receipt of the police report, the Magistrate having jurisdiction can take cognizance of the said offence without awaiting the receipt of complaint that may be filed by the authorized officer for taking cognizance in respect of violation of various provisions of the MMDR Act. The contrary view taken by different High Courts was held to be unsustainable and the Magistrates were directed to proceed accordingly. 21. The aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court makes it quite clear that the State is the owner of minor minerals like sand, gravel, etc. found in the riverbeds or on the banks of the rivers and if any person without any lease or license or any authority enters into the river and extracts sand, gravel and other minerals and removes or transports these minerals in a clandestine manner without any permission or authorisation, with an intent to remove dishonestly those minerals from the possession of the State, such person is liable to be punished for committing such offence under Sections 378 and 379 IPC. 22. 22. When we say that the State is the owner of the minor minerals like sand, gravel and other minerals in the riverbeds or on the banks of the rivers, we wish to clarify that the ownership of the State is to be construed in a special sense. This is because sand, gravel and other minerals found in the riverbeds or on the river banks are natural resources and in that sense, they are public property or national assets. 23. The State, as was observed in the case of Centre for Public Interest Litigation vs. Union of India – (2012) 3 SCC 1 , is empowered to distribute natural resources. However, as they constitute public property/national asset, while distributing natural resources the State is bound to act in consonance with the principles of equality and public trust and ensure that no action is taken which may be detrimental to public interest. Like any other State action, constitutionalism must be reflected at every stage of the distribution of natural resources. In Article 39(b) of the Constitution it has been provided that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community should be so distributed so as to best sub-serve the common good, but no comprehensive legislation has been enacted to generally define natural resources and a framework for their protection. Of course, environment laws enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures deal with specific natural resources i.e. forest, air, water, coastal zones, etc. 24. In such matters, the Doctrine of Public Trust clearly applies as was explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.C. Mehta vs. Kamal Nath and others (1997) 1 SCC 388 . In this decision, the Hon’ble Apex Court records that this doctrine perhaps developed in the ancient Roman Empire. This doctrine was founded on the ideas that certain common properties such as rivers, seashore, forests and the air were held by Government in trusteeship for the free and unimpeded use of the general public. 25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta vs. Kamal Nath (supra), has explained that the public trust doctrine primarily rests on the principle that certain resources like air, sea, waters and the forests have such a great importance to the people as a whole that it would be wholly unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership. 25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta vs. Kamal Nath (supra), has explained that the public trust doctrine primarily rests on the principle that certain resources like air, sea, waters and the forests have such a great importance to the people as a whole that it would be wholly unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership. The said resources being a gift of nature, they should be made freely available to everyone irrespective of the status in life. The doctrine enjoins upon the Government to protect the resources for the enjoyment of the general public rather than to permit their use for private ownership or commercial purposes. 26. Finally, the Hon'ble Supreme Court made it clear that our legal system — based on English common law — includes the public trust doctrine as part of its jurisprudence. The State is the trustee of all natural resources which are by nature meant for public use and enjoyment. Public at large is the beneficiary of the sea-shore, running waters, airs, forests and ecologically fragile lands. The State as a trustee is under a legal duty to protect the natural resources. These resources meant for public use cannot be converted into private ownership. 27. The aforesaid principle was reiterated in Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi vs State of A.P. & Ors – (2006) 3 SCC 549 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the responsibility of the State to protect the environment is now a well-accepted notion in all countries. It is this notion that, in international law, gave rise to the principle of "state responsibility" for pollution emanating within one's own territories. This responsibility is clearly enunciated in the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm 1972 (Stockholm Convention), to which India was a party. The relevant Clause of this Declaration in the present context is Paragraph 2, which states that the natural resources of the earth, including the air, water, land, flora and fauna and especially representative samples of natural ecosystems, must be safeguarded for the benefit of present and future generations through careful planning or management, as appropriate. 28. The reference to this Doctrine of Public Trust is necessary for two reasons in the context of large scale illegal mining of sand from the riverbeds and river banks in the State of Goa. 28. The reference to this Doctrine of Public Trust is necessary for two reasons in the context of large scale illegal mining of sand from the riverbeds and river banks in the State of Goa. Firstly, such reference is necessary so that the State realizes that it is not some literal or absolute owner of all these natural resources like sand, gravel, etc. found in the riverbeds and banks of the rivers. The State, is a trustee in respect of these natural resources and therefore, it is the responsibility of the State to ensure that such natural resources are protected, inter alia, from theft and even robbery. It is the responsibility of the State to ensure that such natural resources are not in any illegal and unauthorized manner converted into private ownership and exploited for commerce. The second reason is that these natural resources like sand, gravel, etc. found in the riverbeds and banks of the rivers are to be found in ecologically sensitive and at times even fragile areas. Doctrine of Public Trust requires the State to undertake the responsibility to protect the environment as well. The protection of environment is now accepted as one of the necessary facets of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and not merely livelihood. Therefore, when there is rampant illegal and unauthorized sand mining for commercial purpose and there is no proportionate will to initiate action, if necessary, criminal action against the exploiters of these natural resources, clearly, there is infringement of the constitutional guarantees enshrined in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. In such a situation, there is clearly a breach of the Public Trust Doctrine, which is now recognized as a part of our Constitution through the dynamic interpretation of the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 29. Just as the State, prosecutes thieves and robbers who steal and rob from private parties or their private properties, so also, the State must be equally, if not more, vigilant, when it comes to stealing or robbing of natural resources held in trust by the State. 29. Just as the State, prosecutes thieves and robbers who steal and rob from private parties or their private properties, so also, the State must be equally, if not more, vigilant, when it comes to stealing or robbing of natural resources held in trust by the State. The attitude that something which belongs to all, belongs to none in particular, is required to be shunned and strict action is required to be taken against those who, with impunity, indulge in illegal mining of sand and gravel from the riverbeds and river banks, regardless of the damage which they cause to the environment and regardless of the financial loss which they cause to the State. 30. In the case of Chenchu Rami Reddy and another v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others- (1986) 3 SCC 391 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court was constrained to observe as follows: “More often than not detriment to what belongs to 'many', collectively, does not cause pangs to 'any', for no one is personally hurt directly. That is why public officials and public-minded citizens entrusted with the case of 'public property' have to show exemplary vigilance. 31. The aforesaid attitude, has unfortunately percolated in the State, when it comes to dealing with those, who, with impunity indulge in mining of sand and gravel from the riverbeds and river banks, solely for commercial exploitation. Therefore, it is high time, that serious criminal prosecutions are launched against those found in extracting, transporting and appropriating sand and gravel from the riverbeds and river banks, without valid permissions, leases and clearances as prescribed under the relevant legislations dealing with such matters. 32. From the material placed before us, we find that some action is indeed being taken against those who are indulging in illegal and unauthorized extraction of sand and gravel from the riverbeds and river banks. The action is mainly in the form of confiscation of canoes or trucks as well as the extracted sand and gravel. However, in the course of these proceedings, we were quite disturbed to note that in most cases, the trucks and canoes were released after imposing paltry fines. There were occasions where even the illegally extracted sand and gravel was being released to the exploiters, after imposition of some paltry fines. However, in the course of these proceedings, we were quite disturbed to note that in most cases, the trucks and canoes were released after imposing paltry fines. There were occasions where even the illegally extracted sand and gravel was being released to the exploiters, after imposition of some paltry fines. All this according to us, is quite illegal and will only further encourage illegal extraction of sand and gravel from the riverbeds and river banks. Such persons, only, factor the fines and penalties into the final price and continue to profit in the illegal business of extraction of sand and gravel from the riverbeds and river banks. 33. Learned counsel for the petitioners have pointed out that the illegal sand mining mainly takes place in the following areas: PONDA TALUKA (Mandovi River) 1. Candola 2. Savoi Verem 3. Volvoi TISWADI TALUKA (Mandovi River and Cumbhajua Canal) 1. Cumbhajua 2. St Estevam 3. Corlim BICHOLIM TALUKA (Mandovi River) 1. Amona 2. Navelim PERNEM TALUKA (Tiracol and Chapora Rivers) 1. Tiracol 2. Querim 3. Paliem 4. Corgao 5. Porscodem 6. Pernem 7. Torxem BARDEZ TALUKA (Mandovi and Chapora Rivers) 1. Chapora 2. Querim 3. Paliem 4. Corgao 5. Porscodem 6. Pernem 7. Torxem BARDEZ TALUKA (Mandovi and Chapora Rivers) 1. Chapora 2. Colvale 3. Camurlim 4. Nadora 5. Pirna 6. Ozrim SALCETE TALUKA (Zuari and Kushawati Rivers) 1. Loutolim 2. Curtorim 3. Guirdolim (Rivulet) 4. Chandor (Kushawati River) 5. Assolda SANGUEM/QUEPEM TALUKAS (River Zuari) 1. Panchwadi 2. Sanvordem 3. Xelvona 4. Curchorem 34. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also pointed out that there are certain routes from where the illegally mined sand and gravel is transported. Pirna 6. Ozrim SALCETE TALUKA (Zuari and Kushawati Rivers) 1. Loutolim 2. Curtorim 3. Guirdolim (Rivulet) 4. Chandor (Kushawati River) 5. Assolda SANGUEM/QUEPEM TALUKAS (River Zuari) 1. Panchwadi 2. Sanvordem 3. Xelvona 4. Curchorem 34. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also pointed out that there are certain routes from where the illegally mined sand and gravel is transported. The same are as follows: S. No. Roads from where sand is transported River Taluka 1 Volvoi via Keri – Ponda Road Mandovi Ponda 2 Volvoi via Savoi Verem Marcela Road Mandovi Ponda 3 Betqui to Marcela Road Mandovi Ponda 4 Candola side under Amona Bridge to Marcela Road Mandovi Ponda 5 Amona side under Amona Bridge to Marcela Road and also Sakhali Road Mandovi Ponda 6 Virdi Bridge to Sakhali Road and also Marcela Road Mandovi Ponda 7 Govt College Candola – Gaundhali Bridge Junction Kumbharjuva canal, Mandovi at Aakhada Ponda 8 Kundaim Industrial Estate Junction Mandovi Ponda 9 Borim Bridge Circle before bridge Mandovi Ponda 10 Bridge – Candepar Mhadai Ponda 11 Banastarim Bridge (Corlim – Dhulape side) Mandovi, Kumbharjuva canal Tiswadi 12 Old Goa Church circle Mandovi Tiswadi 13 Junction of Mapusa – Bicholim – Pernem Mandovi Bardez 14 Bridge – Colvale – Dhargal Chapora Pernem 15 Bridge – Satarda Terekhol Pernem 16 Maina – Kudnem Junction Mandovi Bicholim 17 Ponda – Margao Road, Circle at Loutolim, near Old Borim Bridge Zuari Salcete 18 Ponda – Margao Road, Circle at Loutolim, near Old Borim Bridge Zuari Ponda 19 Sanvordem Circle, near Sanvordem – Curchorem bridge Zuari Sanguem 20 Ambedkar Chowk, Curchorem and Junction 220 m to the east on the road towards Assolda/ Chandor Zuari Quepem 21 Assolda – Chandor – Tilamol junction at Assolda, near Kushawati Bridge from Assolda to Chandor Zuari Quepem 22 Margao – Curtorim – Macazana Road, Maina Market Junction, Near St Rita’s Church, Maina Zuari Salcete 23 Margao – Curtorim – Macazana Road, junction 100 m to the east from St Anthony Chapel, Curtorim Zuari Salcete 24 Ramnagar Junction, Margao Housing Board to Chandor road Zuari Salcete 35. Learned counsel for the petitioners and intervenors submit that if there are directions to intensely patrol the aforesaid areas and routes, then, it is possible that there is some check to these rampant illegal sand mining and transportation. 36. Mr. Nigel da Costa Frias and Ms. Learned counsel for the petitioners and intervenors submit that if there are directions to intensely patrol the aforesaid areas and routes, then, it is possible that there is some check to these rampant illegal sand mining and transportation. 36. Mr. Nigel da Costa Frias and Ms. Collasso are perhaps right in suggesting that such illegalities continue either with the active connivance of the authorities or at least on account of inaction on the part of the authorities despite knowledge of the magnitude of such illegal sand mining. Although, it would not be appropriate for us to make any sweeping observations on such issues, if, the position, as it stands, continues any further, some inferences, from proven circumstances, will have to be drawn. For the present, we say no more on this subject. 37. After this matter was reserved for orders, Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias placed on record order dated 12.12.2019 made by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) on the issue of illegal sand mining in river Chapora. He pointed out that certain directions have been issued by the NGT in relation to the illegal sand mining in river Chapora. The directions which we propose to issue relate to the issue of illegal sand mining in the entire State of Goa. Obviously therefore, the directions which we propose to issue will be in addition to the directions issued by the NGT in relation to the illegal sand mining in river Chapora. 38. For all the aforesaid reasons, we dispose of this petition by making the following order:- (a) We direct the State and its various departments to undertake regular patrolling through flying squads at all stretches of rivers. Such patrolling shall not be at any fixed time of the day but randomly during the day and during the night, so as to genuinely surprise those indulging in illegal sand mining and ensure the stoppage of such illegal sand mining. (b) The canoes and boats used for illegal extraction of the sand shall be seized by the flying squads and thereafter confiscated. The registration of such canoes/boats used for illegal sand mining shall be cancelled by the Captain of Ports. The canoes/boats operating without registration shall be dealt with as per notification dated 29.03.2016 issued by the Director of Mines and Geology and the circular dated 25.02.2019 issued by the Captain of Ports. The registration of such canoes/boats used for illegal sand mining shall be cancelled by the Captain of Ports. The canoes/boats operating without registration shall be dealt with as per notification dated 29.03.2016 issued by the Director of Mines and Geology and the circular dated 25.02.2019 issued by the Captain of Ports. (c) The State and its authorities, in the first instance, shall ensure that the illegally mined sand stacked on the river banks or on plots close to the river banks is put back into the river or used for the purpose of replenishment of the areas, where erosion has taken place on account of indiscriminate sand mining or other natural causes. The expenses for this will have to be initially borne by the State and its agencies. However, the State and its agencies, should invariably recover such expenses from those found involved in illegal sand mining at the site. (d) If, for some reason such restoration or replenishment as aforesaid is not feasible, the State, may use the confiscated sand, gravel and other material for public projects, after maintaining proper records and following due procedures. The maintenance of such records is absolutely necessary, as otherwise, there is a tendency for such confiscated material to find its way into unauthorized markets, looking to the demand for this material, particularly from the real estate or construction industry. (e) The State should launch prosecution against those, found to be illegally extracting sand and other natural resources. For this purpose, the First Information Reports should be filed by invoking the appropriate provisions of the IPC and such prosecution should be pursued with all seriousness and taken to their logical conclusions. The State, must not, rest only with prosecution under the MMDR Act or the Goa Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1985, since, we find that most of these prosecutions, end up with levy of paltry penalties and fines upon those indulging in illegal extraction of sand and gravel from the riverbeds and river banks. (f) The areas which are quite notorious for illegal sand mining have been identified by the Director of Mines and Captain of Ports, who are the main agencies of the government involved in the detection of illegal mining and charged with the responsibility of preventing such illegal mining or taking remedial action in that regard. Such areas are referred to in paragraph 33 of this Judgment and Order. Such areas are referred to in paragraph 33 of this Judgment and Order. The State and its agencies must ensure that there is intensive patrolling in these areas, both by road as well as in the rivers themselves. We direct that patrolling must be done at least thrice each day in these areas and police must make entries in this regard in the station diary in their respective police stations. The vigil at these areas will have to be kept mainly by the police authorities, who, upon detection of illegal sand mining must take immediate action, including by way of summoning flying squads constituted for the purpose of taking action in such matters. (g) The helpline numbers already constituted by the State and its agencies, in terms of our interim orders, must continue to remain operational, so that, any members of the public can report/complain about illegal sand mining. In addition, we direct that in the talukas of Ponda, Pernem and Bicholim where, there is rampant illegal sand mining the complaints regards illegal sand mining be entertained by the police with promptitude. No sooner such complaint is received, the police authorities will be duty bound to visit the site in question and if, there is any illegal sand mining in progress, the same, will have to be immediately halted and the flying squad will also have to be alerted of taking immediate action in the matter. The police authorities in these talukas to coordinate with the flying squads and other agencies which are enjoined in the task of taking action against illegal sand mining. (h) We direct that in addition to these helplines, members of the public be informed by appropriate publications through the Directorate of Information that complaints may be lodged by calling the emergency number 100. Upon receipt of such complaints, the police authorities of the concerned police station to immediately visit the site and alert the flying squad if any illegal sand mining is going on at the site. (i) We direct the State to provide the flying squads with dedicated boats for patrolling and site inspection with adequate staff. We also direct the Marine/Coastal Police to assist the flying squads to carry out regular patrolling and raids along the rivers whenever reports are received in the matter of illegal sand mining. We direct the State Government to make adequate arrangements in this regard. We also direct the Marine/Coastal Police to assist the flying squads to carry out regular patrolling and raids along the rivers whenever reports are received in the matter of illegal sand mining. We direct the State Government to make adequate arrangements in this regard. In particular, we direct that some dedicated boats be made available for patrolling the sensitive areas referred to in paragraph 33 of this Judgment and Order. All this exercise must be completed within three months from today. (j) The petitioners have pointed out certain routes on which illegal transportation of sand and gravel, again illegally mined, is carried out. These routes are referred to in paragraph 34 of this Judgment and Order. Accordingly, we direct the State, through its police machinery as well as transport department to regularly patrol these areas and check the transport vehicles carrying sand to verify whether the same is backed by valid permissions and authorizations. If the transporters are unable to indicate the source from where such sand or gravel is mined and to produce necessary permissions/ authorizations for transportation, the police and transport authorities to take stern action, including but not restricted to confiscation of trucks and material therein. The police should also consider, in such cases, to launch prosecution under the relevant sections of the IPC as well as MMDR Act. )k) The State, through its Directorate of Information, is directed to publish in the local newspapers the helpline numbers, so that, the members of the public, are made aware of the same and there is prompt action, once, the helpline is accessed. (l) We direct the Director of Mines and Geology to forward the copy of this Order to the Village Panchayats, Mamlatdars and police stations for the purpose of effective implementation and enforcement. (m) We make absolute the interim orders made by us from time to time in the course of this petition in so far as they relate to the issue of illegal sand mining. 39. As indicated earlier, in this Judgment and Order we are not dealing with the aspect (B) as indicated in paragraph 3 of this Judgment and Order or relief in terms of prayer clause (BB) of the petition. Accordingly, we grant liberty to the petitioners to institute a fresh petition in respect of the said aspect or in respect of relief in terms of prayer clause (BB) of this petition. Accordingly, we grant liberty to the petitioners to institute a fresh petition in respect of the said aspect or in respect of relief in terms of prayer clause (BB) of this petition. We however extend the operation of interim order regards this aspect, including in particular, the interim order dated 31.10.2018, as modified on 28.01.2019, for a period of six weeks from today. 40. The Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.