JUDGMENT : 1. The present D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.3547/2025 has been filed by the Petitioner Society, registered under the provisions of the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958, raising the issue of environment by contending that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide Order dated 19.02.2020 passed in SLP (C) No. 10587/2019 titled Bajri Lease LOI Holders Welfare Society Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. with Connected Matters directed the Central Empowered Committee (in short ‘CEC’) to go into the issue and submit a Report on the problem relating to Sand Mining in the State of Rajasthan with directions to go into the question of illegal mining and suggest measures for stopping such illegal mining. Pursuant to the aforesaid Order dated 19.02.2020 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the CEC submitted its Report dated 23.12.2020, wherein various recommendations were made by the CEC for consideration of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, which inter alia include recommendation "D" which pertains to conducting of River Sand Mining in Rajasthan after following the procedure listed in Para-11 (iii) of the CEC Report. The Para-11 (iii) of CEC Report contains Sub Para (f), which provides that no sand shall be collected from any of the annual blocks from where sand has already been mined during any of the 05 years period of lease. The aforesaid recommendation was accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 11.11.2021 passed in SLP (C) No. 10587/2019 with directions to the State Government for implementation of recommendation forthwith. It is further contended that various e-auctions for River Sand Mining have been carried out by the Respondents, without complying with the aforesaid recommendation inasmuch as despite there being mining during 2022, 2023 and 2024, the blocks have been auctioned at the cost of the environment and in violation of the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 2. It is further contended that various e-auctions for River Sand Mining have been carried out by the Respondents, without complying with the aforesaid recommendation inasmuch as despite there being mining during 2022, 2023 and 2024, the blocks have been auctioned at the cost of the environment and in violation of the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 2. The following pray has been made by the Petitioner in the present PIL: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to call for the entire record maintained by the respondents in respect of auctions conducted by the Respondents for Minor Mineral Bajri, more particularly in District Ajmer, Tonk, Sawai Madhopur and Bhilwara, And Set aside and quash from the very inception, all the E-Auctions of 93 Mining Leases for Minor Mineral Bajri, which were put for Auctions from March 2024 in respect of District Ajmer, Tonk, Sawai Madhopur and Bhilwara, wherein 34 Bajri Leases pertains to District Tonk, 48 Bajri Leases pertains to District Bhilwara, 02 Mining Leases pertains to District Sawai Madhopur and 09 Bajri Leases pertains to District Ajmer in violation of the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Any other order or direction as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in for conservation of Rivers and general public interest of State". 3. The facts pleaded by the Petitioner Society in the PIL are summarized as under: (a) Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed following order dated 19.02.2020 in SLP (C) No. 10587/2019 titled Bajri Lease LOI Holders Welfare Society Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. with other connected matters: "We find that the issue of sand mining in the State of Rajasthan has become extremely complicated and probably chaotic. The parties before us blame each other for the present situation. In these circumstances, we consider it appropriate to accept the suggestion of Shri Naveen Sharma, the petitioner appearing in person in C.P. No. 674/2019 in SLP(C) No. 34811/2013, that the CEC should be empowered to go into this issue and submit a report to this Court on the problems relating to sand mining that are faced by the traders, the consumers, the transporters, the State and other stakeholders. It would be necessary for the CEC to also go into the question of illegal mining and suggest measures for stopping such illegal mining. Shri Mahendra Vyas, who is a member of the CEC is present before us and suggest that the CEC will carry out the mandate of this Court and submit a report along with recommendations within six weeks. The CEC shall have the power to summon any person, including, Government officials for the purpose of making the aforesaid enquiry for preparing the report. The CEC shall also hear the representatives of the State Government, Dastak NGO, the LOI holders, the stakeholders and Shri Naveen Sharma. The CEC shall be entitled to obtain copies of any court proceedings on the subject. It is not disputed by anybody, including the State, that illegal sand mining is rampant in the State of Rajasthan. This cannot be allowed to continue. We, therefore, direct the State of Rajasthan and in particular, the Collector and the Superintendent of Police for each District in Rajasthan to take immediate steps for stopping illegal sand mining as there is no doubt that such unbridled sand mining is likely to damage the environment irreparably. The State of Rajasthan shall submit an action taken report to this Court within a period of four weeks from today". (b) The CEC submitted its report dated 23.12.2020 before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, wherein following recommendations were made by the CEC for consideration by Hon'ble Apex Court. Relevant recommendations with reference to the present PIL are: "12. RECOMMENDATIONS: The following is recommended for the kind consideration of this Hon'ble Court: A xxxxxxx B xxxxxxx C xxxxxxx D. River Sand Mining in Rajasthan is permitted to be conducted after obtaining all statutory clearances and payment of dues and applicable taxes following the procedure listed in Para 11 (iii) of this Report. E xxxxxxx F xxxxxxx G xxxxxxx H. The State Government will auction the sand mining leases after proper ground demarcation and after assessing the extractable sand resources as given in the approved DSR and after obtaining no objection certificates from all concerned authorities. The sale of Mining Blocks objected to by any of the Government Departments shall not be put up for Tender/Auction. The sale of Mining Blocks objected to by any of the Government Departments shall not be put up for Tender/Auction. I. XXXXX J. XXXXX K. XXXXX" (c) With reference to recommendation "D" the relevant part of the procedure listed in Para-11 (iii) of CEC Report is: "Measures to overcome illegal River Sand Mining and to promote legal mining of sand in the State of Rajasthan. 11. (i) xxxxxxx (ii) xxxxxxx (iii) Keeping in view the special agro climatic conditions prevalent in the State of Rajasthan and considering that no regular replenishment is noticed during monsoon and that District Survey Reports (DSRs) as prescribed in the Sustainable Sand Mining and Management Guidelines, 2016 have been submitted to the MoEF&CC and considering the observation and recommendation in the CMPDI Study Report, CEC suggests the following procedure in respect of persons holding valid LOI for grant of Sand Mining Leases and EC for River Sand Mining in the State of Rajasthan; (a) The entire Lease area along the River is divided into five linear annual blocks having nearly equal quantity of sand resource for annual extraction during the 5 year period of lease. The boundaries of the River to be leased for Sand Mining are to be demarcated after the procedure laid down by the EAC in its meeting held on 8th January, 2018. An extract of the minutes dated 08.01.2018 is enclosed as Annexure-R-21 to this Report. (b) During the course of Mining 1/3 width of the river in central part will be dugout all along the length of the annual block without any gap to maintain continuity of channel and the depth of the mining will be maintained at uniform 1M until the replenishment study is undertaken. The remaining 1/3 width of the river on either side of the river shall not be less than 7.5 M each and which is the minimum width of safety zone prescribed in the Mining Rules. (c) xxxxxxx (d) xxxxxxx (e) xxxxxxx (f) No sand will be collected from any of the annual blocks from where sand has already been mined during any of the 5 year period of the lease. (c) xxxxxxx (d) xxxxxxx (e) xxxxxxx (f) No sand will be collected from any of the annual blocks from where sand has already been mined during any of the 5 year period of the lease. (g) To (l) - xxxxx" (d) The Interlocutory Application (IA) No. 29984 of 2021 in SLP(C) No. 10587/2019 was filed by the State of Rajasthan before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India requesting to accept the recommendations made by the CEC in respect of all points, except recommendations 'A' and ‘J’. Recommendation ‘A’ pertains to termination of Khatedari leases within 5 km of the river bank and restriction on the State Government to grant fresh Khatedari leases without the approval of Apex Court. Recommendation 'J' pertains to exemplary penalty of Rs. 10 lakh per vehicle and Rs. 5 lakh per cubic metre of sand seized for violation of the order passed by this Court on 16.11.2017. (e) Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide Judgement dated 11.11.2021 disposed of the said IA and passed orders: "19. The recommendations made by the CEC, except recommendation 'J', are approved for implementation forthwith. IA No. 29984 of 2021 and IA No. 54981 of 2021 are disposed of". (f) Considering the directions to implement recommendation "D" of CEC Report, it is mandatory for the Respondents to comply with the procedure listed under Para-11(iii) for grant of Mining Lease of Minor Mineral Bajri in State of Rajasthan. Despite the fact, that in e-auction notices, condition has been imposed that Lease Holder has to comply with provisions of Para-11(iii) of CEC, however, if the said condition is complied with, no Bajri can be collected from the blocks/plots, auctioned by the Mining Department inasmuch as the mining of Bajri was going on in these Plots/Blocks during 2022, 2023 and 2024 thereby there shall not be any extractable sand from these Plots/Blocks. (g) The Petitioner furnished list of as many as 93 Plots auctioned by the Respondents in District Tonk, Bhilwara, Sawai Madhopur and Ajmer, which were forming part of old Mining Leases, where the Mining of Bajri was going on during various periods from 20.06.2022 to 02.05.2024 to substantiate that the violation of orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is writ large. (h) The Petitioner furnished representation to the Respondents on 28.02.2025, however, the inaction on the part of the Respondents has compelled the Petitioner to approach this Court for protecting the cause of environment. (i) The Petitioner also contended that adverse and destructive environmental impact of sand mining has led to erosion of Rivers of India and more particularly in the State of Rajasthan. The mining of aggregates in rivers has led to severe damage to rivers, 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. 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. Rivers in Rajasthan are ephemeral in nature and sand in these rivers is not replenished annually as compared to perennial rivers. The average rainfall in the state is scanty and the distribution of rainfall within the State is also not uniform. The uncertainty in occurrence of rainfall in the state has a direct influence in shaping composition of the river eco-system. Except for the Chambal River, most of the riverbeds remain dry for long periods in a year. Aquatic life therefore cannot thrive in these rivers during dry periods. 4. The PIL was first listed for hearing on 10.03.2025, when this Court showed its disinclination to hear the PIL without deposit of Security Amount of Rs. 50,000/-. The Learned Counsel of the Petitioner submitted that he is prepared to deposit the amount and the same was deposited by the Petitioner. On 04.04.2025, Learned Additional Advocate General (AAG) entered appearance and took notices on behalf of the Respondents. Learned AAG prayed for two weeks time to file reply, which was granted. 5. 50,000/-. The Learned Counsel of the Petitioner submitted that he is prepared to deposit the amount and the same was deposited by the Petitioner. On 04.04.2025, Learned Additional Advocate General (AAG) entered appearance and took notices on behalf of the Respondents. Learned AAG prayed for two weeks time to file reply, which was granted. 5. The matter was first heard on 16.05.2025, when this Court passed the following orders: "Challenge to the action of the respondents in granting mining lease is based mainly on the submission that in the matter of grant of mining lease, the Hon'ble Supreme Court's directives issued on 11.11.2021 in Bajri Lease Lol Holders Welfare Society Through its President Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. [Interlocutory Application No.29984/2021 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 10587/2019], is being violated. Mr. Virendra Lodha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to recommendations made by the CEC in para 19 of its order clearly held that the recommendations made by the CEC, except recommendation 'J' are approved for implementation forthwith. The recommendation contained in Clause D referring to CEC recommendation dated 23.12.2020 (as mentioned in para 8 of the order), it has been stated that rivers and mining in Rajasthan is permitted to be conducted after obtaining all statutory clearances and payment of dues and applicable taxes following the procedure listed in paragraph 11 (iii) of the report. Para 11 (iii) Clause (f) of the report states that no sand will be collected from any of the annual blocks from where sand has already been mined during any of the five year period of the lease. Referring to the aforesaid orders and directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is argued that the respondents are violating these conditions and are proceeding to grant lease in violation of the aforesaid directives. We granted learned counsel for the respondents time to file reply, however, reply has not been filed. Learned State Counsel would submit that once the Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued directions in the matter of grant of mining lease for bajri, the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court shall be scrupulously followed. He would submit that the matter would require consideration by the competent authorities by examining cases relating to grant of mining lease in the light of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as above. He would submit that the matter would require consideration by the competent authorities by examining cases relating to grant of mining lease in the light of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as above. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, as an interim measure, it is directed that the respondents-State shall constitute a committee of three senior officials, who shall examine whether in the matter of grant of mining lease for bajri, the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as referred to hereinabove, are being scrupulously complied with or not. Clearance shall be granted only in those cases, where the committee forms an opinion that the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are being fully complied with. Detailed reply should be positively filed within four weeks. List after four weeks". 6. The Respondent State filed reply to the PIL on 07.07.2025, wherein certain preliminary objections/submissions were raised and reply to the Writ Petition was furnished, the substance of which is as under: (a) The Respondent State has raised preliminary objections contending that: (i) The order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 11.11.2021, relied upon by the Petitioner was passed while deciding an Interim Application, final adjudication of the matter is underway. PIL seeking directions with regard to compliance of the interim order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court is not maintainable. The Petitioner is free to participate in the matter pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, the Petition is gross abuse of process of this Court. (ii) The Petitioner is guilty of suppressing material facts, which include, filing of Original Application (OA) No. 194/2024 (CZ) before National Green Tribunal, Central Zone, Bench Bhopal ( NGT ), which was decided by the NGT vide order dated 30.09.2024. The Petitioner has not disclosed the filing of said OA before NGT, whereas the issue with regard to the CEC recommendations and its acceptance was considered in Para-36 of the Order dated 30.09.2024. (iii) The Petitioner has further suppressed facts pertaining to the filing of Miscellaneous Application No. 19/2024 in the aforesaid OA, which was decided along with IA No. 129/2024 in OA No. 242/2024 and IA No. 243/2024 in OA No. 130/2024, which were disposed of vide order dated 15.01.2025. (iii) The Petitioner has further suppressed facts pertaining to the filing of Miscellaneous Application No. 19/2024 in the aforesaid OA, which was decided along with IA No. 129/2024 in OA No. 242/2024 and IA No. 243/2024 in OA No. 130/2024, which were disposed of vide order dated 15.01.2025. Feeling aggrieved with Order dated 15.01.2025 passed in IA No. 243/2024 in OA No. 130/2024, the Applicant Ashok Vijay filed Civil Appeal No. 1008/2025, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 27.01.2025. The Petitioner has suppressed the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. (iv) There appears to be a cartel actively working in the State of Rajasthan to somehow stall auction of River Sand Leases and accordingly, various cases are being filed for one or another reason. One such Writ Petition bearing CWP No. 3666/2024 was filed before Principal Seat of this Court, wherein the ex-parte interim order was vacated vide Order dated 21.03.2024 and appeal against the said interim order was dismissed by Division Bench vide Order dated 06.05.2024. (v) The Petitioner is very much aware of these facts and deliberately suppressed the aforesaid Orders. (b) In so far as issue raised under the present Petition and merit of the case is concerned, the substance of the reply furnished by the Respondent State is as under: (i) Para 11 (iii) of the CEC Report is not a recommendation though it is a suggestive measure and it is not applicable in the manner as stated as the Para-11 (iii) (f) cannot be read in isolation. It has to be read in conjunction with the entire Para-11. The CEC was considering the issue raised by Bajri Mining Association pertaining to 82 LOIs issued in the year 2013, wherein most of the LOI were granted for huge area comprising more than 1000 hectares. Considering the other regulatory provisions such Mining Areas were directed to be segregated into annual blocks. The 05 years period of the Lease is the period for which the Leases/LOIs were granted onwards 2013 and this expression has got nothing to do with the auctions now being conducted onwards the year 2024. Considering the other regulatory provisions such Mining Areas were directed to be segregated into annual blocks. The 05 years period of the Lease is the period for which the Leases/LOIs were granted onwards 2013 and this expression has got nothing to do with the auctions now being conducted onwards the year 2024. (ii) When the measures and the recommendations are read with the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 11.11.2021, it is clear that Para-11 (iii) (f) of the CEC Report is not applicable in the process of grant of River Sand Mining onwards 2024. (iii) Following the recommendation "H" of CEC Report, the State Government approved a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) vide order dated 07.10.2023, which provides maximum area for a single lease cannot exceed 100 hectares. Thus, in such small areas, there cannot be any annual block. (iv) The list and chart submitted by the Petitioner would show that not a single lease is above 100 hectares. 90% of the Leases are less than 60 hectares. Few Leases particularly in Ajmer District are 10-11 hectares only. Thus, the annual block concept is neither applicable nor feasible for such Mining Leases. (v) There is no direction by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to bifurcate Leases after its observation in 2023 to be bifurcated into five annual blocks. 7. The Petitioner had filed Rejoinder to the Reply on 14.07.2025 and serious objections were raised that in so far as the controversy pertaining to the compliance of the recommendation of CEC duly approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and conducting the auctions of River Sand Mining following the procedure listed under Para-11 (iii) of the CEC Report is concerned, the reply would show the presumption of the Respondent that the said procedure listed under Para-11 (iii) of the CEC Report relates to the Leases/LOls granted since 2013 and it has nothing to do with the present auctions being conducted from 2024. Furthermore, the concept of dividing entire lease area in five linear annual blocks having nearly equal quantity of sand and no collection of sand from any of the annual blocks from where sand has already been mined during any of the 05 years period of Lease, meant to allow the annual block for replenishment during the next 05 year period, is not applicable to the present auctions as this concept is neither feasible nor applicable to the present Leases. However, there is no explanation as to how the conclusion has been drawn and such presumption is made that the Para 11 (iii) of CEC Report is not applicable to the present Mining Leases contrary to the SOP dated 07.10.2023, relied upon and placed before this Court by the Respondent, which inter alia prescribes under Para-25 of the SOP that the Lease Holder has to comply with the Para-11 (iii) of CEC Report, submitted before Hon'ble Supreme Court. The same identical Clause has also been inserted in the e-auction notices under Para- 20 of the respective notice. Therefore, once the condition for compliance to Para-11 (iii) of CEC Report has been imposed upon the Lease Holders, to whom the Leases are to be granted under the present auction process, how could the contrary assumption be drawn in the reply by the Respondents. The Petitioner has also raised serious objection to the preliminary reply regarding non- enforceability of order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 11.11.2021 in SLP (C) No. 10587/2019 being interim order. It is contended by the Petitioner that the Respondents have lost sight to the order dated 19.02.2020 by which the CEC was directed to carry out the mandate of Hon'ble Apex Court which inter alia include overall River Sand Mining activities in the Rajasthan State thereby the CEC Report is submitted as per mandate of Apex Court considering all the aspects of River Sand Mining in the Rajasthan State and was not meant to a particular SLP. Furthermore, the judgment dated 11.11.2021 has attained finality, wherein the Respondent State had requested to Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing IA to accept the recommendations of CEC. Furthermore, the judgment dated 11.11.2021 has attained finality, wherein the Respondent State had requested to Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing IA to accept the recommendations of CEC. It is also contended by the Petitioner in the Rejoinder that in so far as preliminary objections of the Respondents pertaining to the concealment of facts is concerned, the matter adjudicated before NGT pertains to the violation of Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020 (EMGSM) while preparing DSR for District Bhilwara and Tonk, which has no relevancy with the present matter being adjudicated before this Court. Furthermore, the M.A. 19/2024 also pertains to clarification sought by the Petitioner from NGT in respect of order dated 30.09.2024 thereby all the adjudication proceedings before NGT as well as Principal Seat of this Court pertains to the preparation of DSR and compliance to the Guidelines, while preparing DSR, which being irrelevant to the present matter there was no need to narrate unnecessary facts to burden the present Petition. It is stated in the Rejoinder by the Petitioner that if for argument, the presumption regarding non-applicability of Para-11 (iii) of CEC Report in respect of auctions conducted by the Respondents in 2024 onwards are accepted, the whole auction proceedings become void ab initio, non-est and null in law inasmuch as the SOP as well as e-auction notices mandate to the Lease Holder to comply with Para-11 (iii) of CEC Report thereby no contrary view against SOP as well as e-auction notices is permissible under law. The Petitioner also objected to the non-compliance of the orders of this Court dated 16.05.2025 inasmuch as the Report of Committee was not placed before this Court by the Respondents. 8. During the course of hearing on 20.08.2025, the Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that an Application (No. 3/2025) has been filed on 20.08.2025 itself for taking the Report on record as submitted by the Committee, constituted in compliance of the Order dated 16.05.2025 passed by this Court. A copy of the said Report was placed before the Court for perusal. Upon perusal of the Report placed before the Court, it was noticed that the Committee failed to carry out the mandate of order dated 16.05.2025 passed by this Court, therefore, following orders were again passed by this Court on 20.08.2025: "1. A copy of the said Report was placed before the Court for perusal. Upon perusal of the Report placed before the Court, it was noticed that the Committee failed to carry out the mandate of order dated 16.05.2025 passed by this Court, therefore, following orders were again passed by this Court on 20.08.2025: "1. An application (No. 3/2025) has been filed today by the learned Additional Advocate General for taking the report on record as submitted by the Committee, constituted in compliance of the order dated 16.05.2025 passed by this Court. 2. We have perused the copy of the report of the Committee. 3. This Court, vide order dated 16.05.2025, had issued the following direction: "After hearing learned counsel for the parties, as an interim measure, it is directed that the respondents-State shall constitute a committee of three senior officials, who shall examine whether in the matter of grant of mining lease for bajri, the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as referred to hereinabove, are being scrupulously complied with or not. Clearance shall be granted only in those cases, where the committee forms an opinion that the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are being fully complied with." 4. We find that the Committee was constituted comprising Superintending Mining Engineer, Jaipur, Additional Director (Mines) Kota, Additional Director (Geology), Jaipur and Additional Director (Environment & Development). 5. Upon perusal of the report placed before us, we find that all the exercise as directed by this Court was conducted, the language used in all the cases relating to different plots allotted for mining across various districts is entirely stereotyped. Except for the dates, not a single word has been altered. 6. We are pained to observe that a Committee comprised of senior officials has failed to apply its mind to the individual aspects of each case. The Committee has not even bothered to examine whether the guidelines as laid down by the Apex Court were followed or not. The report seems to be based on presumptions. 7. It is evident that since the leases were granted earlier which ended in the year 2023, and demarcation was conducted by the halka Patwari, and there is no objection from the sub-committee, sanction was granted by the Committee to continue the mining leases. 8. The report seems to be based on presumptions. 7. It is evident that since the leases were granted earlier which ended in the year 2023, and demarcation was conducted by the halka Patwari, and there is no objection from the sub-committee, sanction was granted by the Committee to continue the mining leases. 8. We noticed that the Committee's report relating to mining leases for particular district are signed on one single day. For instance, in respect of mining leases of District Bhilwara, the same have been signed on 30.06.2025 and 11.08.2025, merely by changing the dates, with the same language. Likewise, for District Balotra, they are signed on 15.07.2025. Similarly, for District Barmer, they are signed on 15.07.2025; for District Tonk, on 24.06.2025, and for District Sirohi, on 04.07.2025. The signatures on the same day for various leases reflect that there has been no application of mind and the Committee has not actually examined as to whether the guidelines laid by the Apex Court were duly followed by the lease holders in carrying out such mining activity. The Committee has failed to address this issue in light of the directions issued by the Apex Court in "Bajri Lease Lol Holders Welfare Society Through its President Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors." [Interlocutory Application No.29984/2021 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.10587/2019] , which are as under: "(f) No sand will be collected from any of the annual blocks from where sand has already been mined during any of the 5 year period of the lease. 9. The Apex Court has further recommended which is as under: (D) River Sand Mining in Rajasthan is permitted to be conducted after obtaining all statutory clearances and payment of dues and applicable taxes following the procedure listed in Para 11 (iii) of this Report. (H) The State Government will auction the sand mining leases after proper ground demarcation and after assessing the extractable sand resources as given in the approved DSR and after obtaining no objection certificates from all concerned authorities. The sale of Mining Blocks objected to by any of the Government Departments shall not be put up for Tender/Auction." 10. In view of the above, we direct the Committee to submit a fresh report on the aforesaid issues, supported by an affidavit. 11. The application (No. 3/2025) is disposed of. 12. The sale of Mining Blocks objected to by any of the Government Departments shall not be put up for Tender/Auction." 10. In view of the above, we direct the Committee to submit a fresh report on the aforesaid issues, supported by an affidavit. 11. The application (No. 3/2025) is disposed of. 12. The Members of the Committee shall remain present in the Court on the next date of hearing along with their fresh report. 13. List the case again on 08.10.2025." 9. Meanwhile, the Petitioner on 07.10.2025 filed objections to the Report submitted by the Committee raising the objection that the Committee has examined the recommendation "H" of CEC Report, for which no directions were issued by this Court in order dated 16.05.2025 and the recommendation "D" read with Sub Para (f) of Para-11 (iii) of CEC Report was not examined at all, for which specific directions were issued by this Court vide order dated 16.05.2025. It was also contended that in the individual reports, the Committee has duly admitted that in its Report for individual plots, the said Plots were forming part of Old Mining Leases, which were valid in 2023 and 2024 thereby the mining was going on in these Plots till 2024. Once, the facts are admitted by the Committee that the Mining of River Sand was carried out in these Plots during 2023 and 2024, then the Committee has misdirected itself to hold that there is compliance of the orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court. It was also contended that the Petitioner under Para-11 of the Writ Petition furnished details of 93 Plots, however, even Reports for all these Plots have not been furnished by the Committee. In any case, this Court vide order dated 20.08.2025 has already directed to carry out a fresh exercise and submit fresh report. 10. The additional Affidavit in compliance of order dated 20.08.2025 along with fresh report of the Committee was filed on 28.10.2025, wherein the Committee instead of filing fresh report on each Plot regarding compliance to the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India with specific reference to recommendation "D" read with Para 11 (iii) (f) of CEC Report, has furnished a general report, wherein the contention raised under reply by the Respondents have been repeated without adverting to specific compliance, as sought by this Court vide order dated 20.08.2025. The relevant part of the report pertaining to the compliance of this Court Order dated 20.08.2025 is reproduced below: "A. All the Khatedari leases located within 5 kms from the river bank as well as leases where violation of the lease conditions including misuse of e-ravannas are detected are terminated forthwith and the State Government shall not issue fresh Khatedari leases except for Palaeo deposits in the District of Bikaner without the approval of this Hon'ble Court. B. The State Government shall dispense with the Excess Royalty Collection Contract system in respect of any kind of sand mining leases forthwith and the royalty shall be paid online by the lessee to the State Government and generate royalty paid e-ravanna before transporting of sand from the mining site; C. The MoEF&CC will issue EC in respect of all the valid Lol holders recommended by the EAC in its meeting held during 2014-2016 without insisting on submission of scientific study report as a pre-condition for grant of EC within a period of three months. MoEF&CC shall also prescribe detailed methodology in consultation with CMPDI for undertaking replenishment study during the course of mining as discussed in para 11 (iii) of this Report. D. River sand mining in Rajasthan is permitted to be conducted after obtaining all statutory clearances and payment of dues and applicable taxes following the procedure listed in para 11 (iii) of this report. E. The MoEF&CC shall arrange for scrutiny of the DSR prepared as provided in MoEF&CC Guidelines of 2016 and 2020 and the production figures approved in the DSR are scrupulously followed by the authorities under the EP Act 1986 while issuing the EC. F. The period of actual mining of sand under TWP should be adjusted against the five year lease period. G. Government of Rajasthan will constitute an Empowered Committee headed by the Chief Secretary to consider and settle claims of excess payments collected from the Lol holders during the period of working under TWP. The Committee shall examine each of the cases and take a decision in this regard within a period of six months from the date of orders. Monthly progress reports in this regard may be sent to CEC. The Committee shall examine each of the cases and take a decision in this regard within a period of six months from the date of orders. Monthly progress reports in this regard may be sent to CEC. H. The State Government will auction the sand mining leases after proper ground demarcation and after assessing the extractable sand resources as given in the approved DSR and after obtaining no objection certificates from all concerned authorities. The sale of mining blocks objected to by any of the government departments shall not be put up for tender/auction. I. State Government to review the amendments to Rule 5(4) of RMMCR, 2017 so that it will not be an impediment for execution of sand mining lease. J. For brazen violation of this Hon'ble Court order dated 16.11.2017 exemplary penalty of Rs.10 lakhs per vehicle and Rs.5 lakhs per cu.m of sand seized may be imposed as a deterrent. This will be in addition to what has already been ordered/collected by the State agencies as penalty/compensation. K. State Government of Rajasthan is directed to conduct drone survey in respect of all the remaining Khatedari leases and complete the same within the next four months to assess the irregularities if any committed by them. A copy of this Report may also be made available to CEC". "Keeping in view the special agro climatic condition prevalent in the State of Rajasthan and considering that no regular replenishment is noticed during monsoon and that District Survey Report (DSRs) as prescribed in the Sustainable Sand Mining and Management Guidelines, 2016 have been submitted to the MoEF&CC and considering the observation and recommendation in the CMPDI Study Report, CEC suggests the following procedure in respect of persons holding valid Lol for grant of sand mining lease and EC for river sand mining in the State of Rajasthan; (a) The entire Lease area along the river is divided into five linear annual blocks having nearly equal quantity of sand resource for annual extraction during the 5 year period of lease. The boundaries of the river to be leased for Sand Mining are to be demarcated after following the procedure laid down by the EAC in its meeting held on 8th January, 2018. An extract of the minutes dated 08.01.2018 is enclosed as Annexure-R-21 to this Report. The boundaries of the river to be leased for Sand Mining are to be demarcated after following the procedure laid down by the EAC in its meeting held on 8th January, 2018. An extract of the minutes dated 08.01.2018 is enclosed as Annexure-R-21 to this Report. (b) During the course of Mining 1/3 width of the river in central part will be dugout all along the length of the annual block without any gap to maintain continuity of channel and the depth of the mining will be maintained at uniform 1M until the replenishment study is undertaken. The remaining 1/3 width of the river on either side of the river shall not be less than 7.5 M each and which is the minimum width of safety zone prescribed in the Mining Rules. (c) No mining will be permitted during rainy season. (d) No mining will be permitted below river quarter level. (e) Sand is permitted to be collected only from dry sand bars/ beds exposed above water level. (f) No sand will be collected from any of the annual blocks from where sand has already been mined during any of the 5 year period of the lease. (g) The lease condition shall include mandating the lessee to undertake annual replenishment studies over the entire period of the lease during the monsoon season in respect of each of the annual blocks already mined by the lessee and make available the same to the State Authorities. (h) The result of replenishment study will be used by the state authorities to update the District Survey Report and to fix the annual permissible limit in respect of such blocks in future. (i) MoEF&CC shall issue within three months EC to all the applicants having valid Lol and whose applications were recommended by the EAC during 2014-2016 prescribing appropriate conditions. (j) MoEF&CC shall prescribe detail methodology for undertaking sand replenishment study in consultation with CMPDI and the same methodology shall be followed by the mining lease holders. (k) The total period of lease including the period availed under TWP shall not exceed 5 years. (l) The lessee shall not sell and despatch the mining sand directly from the river bed to customer destinations. (k) The total period of lease including the period availed under TWP shall not exceed 5 years. (l) The lessee shall not sell and despatch the mining sand directly from the river bed to customer destinations. Instead the lessee shall first transport mined sand to the designated transit depot to be maintained within 5 kms radial distance from the river bank and sell and despatch sand to customer destinations only from the transit depot. H. The State Government will auction the sand mining leases after proper ground demarcation and after assessing the extractable sand resources as given in the approved DSR and after obtaining no objection certificates from all concerned authorities. 11. The matter was finally heard on 31.10.2025, when rival Parties advanced their submissions. The Parties were allowed to furnish written submissions, if they so desire. The Petitioner has furnished written submission. 12. The Learned Senior Counsel appearing for Petitioner argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 19.02.2020 directed the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to go into the issue of Sand Mining in the Rajasthan and submit a Report to Hon'ble Supreme Court on the problems relating to Sand Mining faced by the Traders, the Consumers, the Transporters, the State and other Stakeholders. Thus, the CEC was to carry out mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India regarding overall perspective of River Sand Mining in the State of Rajasthan and the mandate was not meant for particular LOI Holders thereby no narrow interpretation can be drawn and the Report of the CEC cannot be restricted to particular LOI Holders inasmuch as the said Report pertains to the problems of River Sand Mining in the State of Rajasthan. The Learned Senior Counsel has drawn our attention to Para-11 (iii) (a) of CEC Report, which inter alia provides that the entire lease area along the river is divided into five linear annual blocks having nearly equal quantity of sand resource for annual extraction during the five years period of lease. The said Para has its relevance to Para-11 (iii) (f), which mandates that no sand will be collected from any of the annual blocks from where sand has already been mined during any of the five years period of lease. The aforesaid mandate meant to have adequate period for replenishment inasmuch as annual replenishment is not noticed in the Rajasthan. The said Para has its relevance to Para-11 (iii) (f), which mandates that no sand will be collected from any of the annual blocks from where sand has already been mined during any of the five years period of lease. The aforesaid mandate meant to have adequate period for replenishment inasmuch as annual replenishment is not noticed in the Rajasthan. The importance and necessity for replenishment has been discussed in the CEC Report. The Learned Counsel further argued that vide order dated 16.05.2025 passed by this Court, the Respondent State was directed by this Court to constitute a Committee of 03 Senior Officials, who shall examine in the matter of grant of Mining Lease for Bajri, the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as referred to in the order dated 16.05.2025, are being scrupulously complied with or not. The perusal to the order dated 16.05.2025 passed by this Court would show that the Committee was specifically directed to examine the implementation of recommendation "D", as approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India with specific reference to Sub Para (f) of Para-11 (iii) of CEC Report thereby the Committee had to submit the Report that is in the light of directions under Para- 11 (iii) (f) that no sand will be collected from any of annual blocks, whether the said recommendation as well as Para-11 (iii) (f) has scrupulously been complied with or not, while conducting the auctions of river sand mining. However, despite the specific directions of this Hon'ble Court in order dated 16.05.2025, the Committee submitted its Report before this Hon'ble Court on 20.08.2025, where the Committee did not examine the implementation of recommendation "D" vis-a-vis Para-11 (iii) (f) of the CEC Report. Instead of complying with mandate of this Court, as directed vide order dated 16.05.2025, the Committee submitted its Report for Recommendation "H", for which no directions were issued by this Court in order dated 16.05.2025. Thus, the Committee miserably failed to carry out mandate of this Court, as directed under Order dated 16.05.2025. This Court noticed that the language used in all the cases relating to different Plots allotted for mining across various districts is entirely stereotyped, therefore, this Court vide order 20.08.2025 negated the first Report furnished by the Committee and directed to submit a fresh report. This Court noticed that the language used in all the cases relating to different Plots allotted for mining across various districts is entirely stereotyped, therefore, this Court vide order 20.08.2025 negated the first Report furnished by the Committee and directed to submit a fresh report. The Learned Counsel submitted that the Petitioner has furnished a list of Plots under Para-11 of the Writ Petition, where Sand Mining was going on till 2024 and despite admitting the said facts, no Report was furnished by the Committee in this regard. It was pointed out that the Para-11 of Writ Petition is containing details of 34 Plots of District Tonk, 48 Plots of District Bhilwara, 09 Plots of District Ajmer and 02 Plots of District Sawaimadhopur, against which no Report has been furnished in respect of 46 Plots of District Bhilwara, 09 Plots of District Ajmer and 02 Plots of District Sawaimadhopur, which were mentioned under Para-11 of the Writ Petition. Thus, the First Report furnished by the Committee was just an eye-wash and in fact no any exercise was carried out by the Committee and it filed a misleading Report. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner took strong exceptions to the fresh Report submitted by the Committee. It was pointed out that no Plot-wise Report has been filed by the Committee, despite the directions of this Court dated 20.08.2025 and a common report on the basis of assumptions, presumptions, surmises and conjectures has been submitted by the Committee, wherein they have washed their hands by drawing their own conclusion that (1) the Para-11 (iii) relates to the prevailing LOI Holders of that time and it is not applicable to the present auctions conducted by the Mining Department. (2) The Sand Mining was carried out under old Mining Leases for the period of 47 months under TWP and for the remaining period of about 01 year under Lease Deed thereby there was no requirement and need to divide the Lease Area into 05 Linear Blocks, as per Para-11 (iii) (a) of the CEC Report and (3) Para-11 (iii) (f) is not applicable for the small Plots, auctioned by the Mining Department, which has been delineated following the SOP dated 07.10.2023, issued by the State Government. The Learned Senior Counsel vehemently argued that the aforesaid conclusion drawn by the Committee is contrary and incorrect on the face of record. The Learned Senior Counsel vehemently argued that the aforesaid conclusion drawn by the Committee is contrary and incorrect on the face of record. The Learned Senior Counsel has pointed out that the Committee has annexed with its fresh Report, the SOP dated 07.10.2023, issued by the State Government and the same has been relied upon by the Committee, while drawing the aforesaid assumptions. It is pointed out that under the SOP dated 07.10.2023, it is mandated under Para-25 of the SOP that Lease Holder has to comply with Para-11 (iii) of CEC Report and the identical condition has been incorporated in the E-Auction Notices under Para-D.20 of each E-Auction Notice mandating the Lease Holders to comply with Para-11 (iii) of CEC Report. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the Committee that Para-11 (iii) and Para-11 (iii) (f) is not applicable to the present auction, is having no leg to stand. It is contrary to the proven facts and it is not only misleading and misguiding statement but also shows overreaching the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and State Government. It is also pointed out that instead of carrying out mandate of this Court's order dated 20.08.2025, the Committee has incorporated all the facts and annexed the documents, which has already been mentioned and filed by the Respondents in their reply. It is surprising that the Committee at one hand has opined that the Para-11(iii) pertains to Old Mining Leases, at the other hand, it has opined that there was no need for dividing the Lease Area in Linear Annual Blocks for Old Mining Leases, as mandated under Para-11 (iii) (a) of the CEC Report thereby the complete contradictory report has been furnished by the Committee without appreciating the facts available on record. It is vehemently argued that the opinion of the Committee regarding non-application of Para-11 (iii) and Para-11 (iii) (f) to the new auctions is completely misplaced and contrary to the SOP of State Government and E- Auction Notices, which mandate compliance to Para-11(iii) of CEC Report from the new Lease Holders. Thus, the Report of the Committee is in the teeth of Orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and SOP issued by the State Government thereby the Report furnished by the Committee has no sanctity at all inasmuch as the Committee failed to adhere to the directions of this Court dated 20.08.2025. Thus, the Report of the Committee is in the teeth of Orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and SOP issued by the State Government thereby the Report furnished by the Committee has no sanctity at all inasmuch as the Committee failed to adhere to the directions of this Court dated 20.08.2025. It has been pointed out that the list of Plots auctioned by the Respondents, under Para-11 of the Writ Petition, would show that in Tonk District, the Area of Plots to be leased runs from 12.6858 hectares to 99.11 hectares. Similarly, in Bhilwara District, the Area of Plot to be leased runs from 17.2423 hectares to 99.99 hectares. Thus, the Plots for River Sand Mining have been created as small as 12.6858 hectares and 17.2423 hectares. It is the case of Respondents that no 05 Linear Annual Blocks would be created in the Mining Area, therefore, as a consequence, the whole Mining Area has been permitted to be mined during the all 05 years period of Lease despite the facts that the said Area was also under Mining till 2024. It is pointed out that there is no annual replenishment in the Rivers of Rajasthan and the said facts are undisputed. Thus, if the case of Respondents is accepted, it would show that the area already under mining would further continuously be mined for next five years and thereafter would remain continued under mining, which would have devastating and irreparable loss and damage to environment and would result in rivers dying. The continuous extraction of River Sand in the present area would cause deep erosion of river beds, loss of riparian vegetation and alteration of the natural river flow. Once, the natural sand layer is removed, riverbeds lose their capacity to retain water, resulting in a decline of ground water recharge and drying of the adjoining wells. The continued River Sand Mining in the same mining area leads to lowering of the water table, collapse of river banks and permanent loss of fertile topsoil. The Petitioner by referring to various studies has pointed out that the pattern of mining has already exhausted river stretches, without allowing for natural replenishment, undermines ecological sustainability and violates the precautionary and public trust principles enshrined under environmental jurisprudence. The Petitioner by referring to various studies has pointed out that the pattern of mining has already exhausted river stretches, without allowing for natural replenishment, undermines ecological sustainability and violates the precautionary and public trust principles enshrined under environmental jurisprudence. The State, as Trustee of natural resources, is duty bound to ensure that economic activity does not proceed at the cost of environmental survival and inter-generational equity. Therefore, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has prayed that in the light of undisputed and admitted fact on record showing non-compliance to Para-11 (iii) and more particularly Para-11 (iii) (f) of CEC Report read with recommendation "D", duly approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, while conducting e-auctions for river sand mining in the State of Rajasthan, all the auctions conducted by the Respondents are void ab initio and non-est thereby the same are required to be quashed and set aside from their very inception and all such proceedings/collections undertaken in pursuance to the said void ab initio and non-est auctions have to be reverted to ground zero. 13. Learned Advocate General, on behalf of the Respondents argued that neither the recommendation nor the particular Sub Para of Para-11 (iii) can be read with in isolation. Learned Advocate General has pointed out that State has to allow legal mining and legal mining cannot be stopped. It is pointed out that under Recommendation "H" the State Government has been directed to auction the sand mining leases after proper ground demarcation and after assessing the extractable sand resources as given in the approved DSR and after obtaining No Objection Certificate from all concerned Authorities. Accordingly, the State Government has carried out the auction for the sand mining leases after proper demarcation. It is further pointed out that the recommendation "C" pertaining to the issuance of EC in respect of valid LoI Holders, recommendation "F" for adjusting the period of TWP against the 05 years lease period, recommendation "G" for constituting Empowered Committee headed by Chief Secretary would show that the recommendations were pertaining to the prevailing LoI Holders at that time thereby it is assumed by the Respondents that the recommendations were related to the LoI Holders, for which SLP was pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and it is not related to the new auctions. While pointing out the Para-11 (iii) of CEC Report, Learned Advocate General argued that in the said Para, it is mentioned that "CEC suggests the following procedure in respect of persons holding valid LoI for grant of Sand Mining Lease and EC for River Sand Mining in the State of Rajasthan" thereby the Respondents were of the opinion that the Para-11 (iii) is having no implication in respect of auctions to be conducted by the State. The Learned Advocate General vehemently argued that if the contention of Petitioner is accepted then the River Sand Mining is allowed for 05 years and thereafter it has to be left for next 05 years and thereafter mining for 05 years could be allowed, which cannot be interpreted, as per CEC Report. Learned Advocate General, therefore, argued that the no recommendation and Sub Para of Para 11 (iii) of CEC Report are to be read with in isolation and the overall implementation and rationale behind the same is to be looked into. Learned Advocate General further submitted that the auctions were carried out by the Respondents on the basis of interpretation drawn as above, however, the directions of this Court would be complied with. 14. We have heard the rival submission advanced by the Learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner and Learned Advocate General for Respondents and have also perused the written submissions, which we have noted earlier. 15. As regards, the preliminary objections raised by the State are concerned, we find that so far as orders passed by the NGT and in the earlier petition are concerned, they were of different facts altogether. In this case, this Court conducted the exercise of asking the Department itself to submit its report which reflects the approach of the State while examining the aspect in respect to public interest and considering the law as already noticed hereinabove. We find that this Court cannot close its eyes to the rampant illegal sand mining being conducted in the State of Rajasthan on the river beds while already there is a paucity of water resources in Rajasthan, on account of the rampant mining activities going deep down the river beds. The entire physical topography of the State in relation to the river beds has been seriously damaged. We, therefore, reject the technical objections raised by the respondents. 16. The entire physical topography of the State in relation to the river beds has been seriously damaged. We, therefore, reject the technical objections raised by the respondents. 16. The short question for consideration before us is whether the new auctions for river sand mining conducted since 2024 are in violation to the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India approving the recommendation of CEC and if so, relief to be granted. 17. The matter pertaining to the river sand mining has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in catena of judgments and have raised serious concern on devastating effect on the environment. Thus, before adverting to the rival submissions of the Party, it would be apposite to consider the concern raised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the following judgments: (a) In Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2012) 4 SCC 629 , the Apex Court examined the matter pertaining to the unabated river sand mining and observed that: "8. We have no materials before us to come to the conclusion that the removal of minor minerals, boulders, gravel, sand quarries, etc. covered by the auction notices dated 3-6-2011 and 8-8-2011, in the places notified therein and also in the riverbeds of Yamuna, Ghaggar, Tangri, Markanda, Krishnavati River basin, Dohan River basin, etc. would not cause environmental degradation or threat to the biodiversity, destroy riverine vegetation, cause erosion, pollute water sources, etc. Sand mining on either side of the rivers, upstream and instream, is one of the causes for environmental degradation and also a threat to the biodiversity. Over the years, India's rivers and riparian ecology have been badly affected by the alarming rate of unrestricted sand mining which damage the ecosystem of rivers and the safety of bridges, weakening of riverbeds, destruction of natural habitats of organisms living on the riverbeds, affects fish breeding and migration, spells disaster for the conservation of many bird species, increases saline water in the rivers, etc. 9. Extraction of alluvial material from within or near a streambed has a direct impact on the stream's physical habitat characteristics. These characteristics include bed elevation, substrate composition and stability, instream roughness elements, depth, velocity, turbidity, sediment transport, stream discharge and temperature. Altering these habitat characteristics can have deleterious impacts on both instream biota and the associated riparian habitat. 9. Extraction of alluvial material from within or near a streambed has a direct impact on the stream's physical habitat characteristics. These characteristics include bed elevation, substrate composition and stability, instream roughness elements, depth, velocity, turbidity, sediment transport, stream discharge and temperature. Altering these habitat characteristics can have deleterious impacts on both instream biota and the associated riparian habitat. The demand for sand continues to increase day by day as building and construction of new infrastructures and expansion of existing ones is continuous thereby placing immense pressure on the supply of the sand resource and hence mining activities are going on legally and illegally without any restrictions. Lack of proper planning and sand management cause disturbance of marine ecosystem and also upset the ability of natural marine processes to replenish the sand". "25. Quarrying of river sand, it is true, is an important economic activity in the country with river sand forming a crucial raw material for the infrastructural development and for the construction industry but excessive instream sand and gravel mining causes the degradation of rivers. Instream mining lowers the stream bottom of rivers which may lead to bank erosion. Depletion of sand in the streambed and along coastal areas causes the deepening of rivers which may result in destruction of aquatic and riparian habitats as well. Extraction of alluvial material as already mentioned from within or near a streambed has a direct impact on the stream's physical habitat characteristics". [Emphasis supplied] (b) In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjay, (2014) 9 SCC 772 as well, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India raised concern on illegal river sand mining and observed that: "33. The mining of aggregates in rivers has led to severe damage to rivers, 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 Vembanad Lake catchment in India has led to the lowering of the riverbed by 7 to 15 cm a year. Incision can also cause the alluvial aquifer to drain to a lower level, resulting in a loss of aquifer storage. It can change the riverbed itself. The removal of more than 12 million tonnes of sand a year from Vembanad Lake catchment in India has led to the lowering of the riverbed by 7 to 15 cm 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 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. 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. 60. There cannot be any two opinions that natural resources are the assets of the nation and its citizens. 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. 60. There cannot be any two opinions that natural resources are the assets of the nation and its citizens. It is the obligation of all concerned, including the Central and the State Governments, to conserve and not waste such valuable resources. Article 48-A of the Constitution requires that the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. Similarly, Article 51-A enjoins a duty upon every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for all the living creatures. In view of the constitutional provisions, the doctrine of public trust has become the law of the land. The said doctrine rests on the principle that certain resources like air, sea, water and forests are of such great importance to the people as a whole that it would be highly unjustifiable to make them a subject of private ownership". [Emphasis supplied] (c) Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 14170 of 2024 titled State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr Vs. Gaurav Kumar & Ors, 2025 INSC 650 has examined the issue pertaining to the river sand mining and has observed that: "1. Affirmation: We unequivocally uphold the law and the regulations governing sand mining demanding zero tolerance for unauthorized activities. Strict adherence to these regulations is non-negotiable. 1.1. Unregulated sandmining disrupts riverine ecosystems, alters natural flow patterns, and leads to erosion and habitat loss. Aquatic biodiversity suffers as spawning grounds are destroyed and water quality deteriorates. The destabilisation of riverbanks increases flooding, risking human life and animal habitat alike. Moreover, the illicit sand trade often operates under the shadow of organized crime, undermining the rule of law and weakening governance structures. Therefore, absolute standards with get tough policies, strict enforcement and quick accountability are compelling for effective regulatory control". "4. Sandmining and its impact on Environment : Sand holds significant ecological and environmental value. Coastal dunes, river and sea-beds act as natural buffers against storms, floods, and rising sea levels, thereby enhancing climate resilience. Therefore, absolute standards with get tough policies, strict enforcement and quick accountability are compelling for effective regulatory control". "4. Sandmining and its impact on Environment : Sand holds significant ecological and environmental value. Coastal dunes, river and sea-beds act as natural buffers against storms, floods, and rising sea levels, thereby enhancing climate resilience. Sand also supports vital ecosystems by providing habitat for numerous plant and animal species, including microorganisms crucial to nutrient cycling and water purification. Its role in maintaining the structural integrity of freshwater and marine systems underscores its contribution to biodiversity and environmental sustainability. As such, the stewardship of sand resources is not only an economic imperative but also an ecological necessity. 4.1 As per a study 4 [ 4 UNEP (2019). Sand and sustainability: Finding new solutions for environmental governance of global sand resources: synthesis for policy makers. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi.] undertaken by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), approximately 50 billion tonnes of aggregate sand and gravel are reportedly removed globally each year. With the rapid increase in global population and urbanization, the demand for sand continues to rise at an unprecedented rate. 5 [ 5 Yi Han, et al., 'Ecological impacts of unsustainable sand mining: urgent lessons learned from a critically endangered freshwater cetacean', Proceedings of the Royal Society, 2023.] Consequently, it has become the most extracted mineral on the planet, with billions of tons being mined annually from riverbeds, lakes, coastlines, and deltas. 4.2. The rate at which we are mining sand, for whatsoever purposes, is much higher than the replenishment rate. This imbalance between consumption and natural replenishment is what becomes the cause of worry. [Marco Hernandez, Simon Scarr & Katy Daigle, The Messy Business of Sand Mining Explained, REUTERS (Feb. 18, 2021),] The geological processes that produce sand-like the weathering of rocks and the movement of sediments through rivers cannot match the rate at which we are extracting sand from nature. Further, human interventions, such as damming rivers or diverting their natural courses block the natural downstream flow of sediment. As a result, sand fails to reach the places where it would normally accumulate, the river deltas and coastal areas. Further, human interventions, such as damming rivers or diverting their natural courses block the natural downstream flow of sediment. As a result, sand fails to reach the places where it would normally accumulate, the river deltas and coastal areas. Beaches are wearing away faster than natural forces can restore them, and riverbeds are being emptied more quickly than upstream erosion can replenish them." [E.S. Rentier & L.H. Cammeraat, The environmental impacts of river sand mining, Science of The Total Environment, Volume 838, Part 1, 2022,] 4.3. The need for development, and the concern to preserve ecology stands at crossroads when it comes to the issue of sand mining. The urgent need is to raise awareness that while sand is a crucial resource for economic and industrial development, it also plays a vital role in climate resilience and preserving healthy ecosystems. 4.4. While a complete ban on sand mining would certainly restore ecology and preserve environment, we all know that such a measure is impractical. Way ahead is sustainable development with effective regulation. While development may be necessity for societal progress, it must be pursued with a balanced approach that prioritizes environmental conservation. [Naveen Kumar, Sand Mining in India - Grain of Despair: Failure of Regulatory Machinery, 2023 SCC OnLine Blog OpEd 44.] It is imperative for regulatory authorities to design an effective and an efficient regulatory regime and implement it by maintaining absolute standards and strict enforcement". [Emphasis supplied] (d) In a recent judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has emphasized the need for replenishment before river sand mining. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 8055 of 2022 titled Union Territory of J&K (Previously State of Jammu & Kashmir) & Anr. Vs. Raja Muzaffar Bhat & Ors. 2025 INSC 1025 has held that: "2. Just as forest conservation requires assessment of tree growth rate before permitting timber harvesting to ensure that felling of trees does not exceed tree growth, a replenishment study enables us to take an informed decision as to whether sand mining can be permitted without degrading the rivers' natural balance. Importance of replenishment study is explained in the Sand Mining Guidelines 2020 as follows: "The need for replenishment study for river bed sand is required in order to nullify the adverse impacts arising due to excessive sand extraction. Importance of replenishment study is explained in the Sand Mining Guidelines 2020 as follows: "The need for replenishment study for river bed sand is required in order to nullify the adverse impacts arising due to excessive sand extraction. Mining within or near riverbed has a direct impact on the stream's physical characteristics, such as channel geometry, bed elevation, substratum composition and stability, in-stream roughness of the bed, flow velocity, discharge capacity, sediment transport capacity, turbidity, temperature etc. Alteration or modification of the above attributes may cause an impact on the ecological equilibrium of the riverine regime, disturbance in channel configuration and flow- paths. This may also cause an adverse impact on in-stream biota and riparian habitats. It is assumed that the riparian habitat disturbance is minimum if the replenishment is equal to excavation for a given stretch. Therefore, to minimize the adverse impact arising out of sand mining in a given river stretch, it is imperative to have a study of replenishment of material during the defined period." 25. Explaining the method and manner by which sustainable sand and gravel mining are to be undertaken, the guidelines provide that: The broad principle on which any sustainable sand mining Guidelines / policy can be based is that river/natural resources must be utilized for the benefit of the present and future generation, so river resources should be prudently managed and developed. The preparation of District Survey Report is an important initial step. The Processes under the Guidelines: (a) Identification of areas of aggradation/deposition where mining can be allowed; and identification of areas of erosion and proximity to infrastructural structures and installations where mining should be prohibited. Use of satellite imagery for identifying areas of sand deposit and quantity be done. (b) Calculation of annual rate of replenishment and allowing time for replenishment after mining in area. 30. Over the past two decades, environmental statutory and regulatory law in India has undergone significant evolution, particularly in response to the challenges posed by unregulated and unsustainable sand mining. Recognizing the adverse ecological impacts of such activities, successive legal and policy frameworks have progressively tightened the requirements for environmental compliance. In order to appreciate the present controversy, it was necessary to retrace the legal trajectory. Recently, this Court has discussed, in detail, the legal regime surrounding the preparation, nature, scope and importance of DSR in Gaurav Kumar (supra). Recognizing the adverse ecological impacts of such activities, successive legal and policy frameworks have progressively tightened the requirements for environmental compliance. In order to appreciate the present controversy, it was necessary to retrace the legal trajectory. Recently, this Court has discussed, in detail, the legal regime surrounding the preparation, nature, scope and importance of DSR in Gaurav Kumar (supra). However, the focal point for present discussion is the value that must be appended to replenishment study before EC is granted to mining operations. 31. Demand for construction-grade sand is growing at a tremendous rate and it is said that the world is expected to run out of this resource by 2050. Construction-grade sand, can be found in aquatic environments, such as rivers and is a provisioning ecosystem service. Even under controlled circumstances, the practice of extracting sand from the riverbed and banks impacts the environment. In the physical environment, the primary effects are riverbed widening and lowering. In the biological environment, the overarching effect is a reduced biodiversity and stretches from the aquatic and shoreline flora and fauna to the whole floodplain area. Due to easy access, river sand and gravel have been used extensively in construction projects. Depending on the mining operation method as well as morphologic and hydraulic characteristics of the river, sand mining may cause bed and bank erosion or other negative consequences for the river eco-system. It is, therefore, necessary to conduct appropriate studies, including that of replenishment to explore sustainable and cost-effective methods for river mining." 18. What has transpired hereinabove, it is noticed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Order dated 19.02.2020 passed in SLP (C) No. 10587/2019 find that the issue of sand mining in the State of Rajasthan has become extremely complicated and probably chaotic thereby the CEC was directed to go into this issue and submit a report on the problems relating to sand mining that are faced by the traders, the consumers, the transporters, the State and other stakeholders. The CEC was also directed to go into the question of illegal mining and suggest measures for stopping such illegal mining. The aforesaid orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India would show that the CEC was directed to examine and enquire the entire sand mining issue of the Rajasthan State, which inter alia include illegal sand mining. The CEC was also directed to go into the question of illegal mining and suggest measures for stopping such illegal mining. The aforesaid orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India would show that the CEC was directed to examine and enquire the entire sand mining issue of the Rajasthan State, which inter alia include illegal sand mining. Therefore, the contention of the State and Committee that the recommendations of CEC pertain to the LoI Holders, prevailing at that time, is not acceptable. Even otherwise, on bare perusal of the CEC Report, no other view is possible in the light of the fact that after examining all the aspects of sand mining in the State of Rajasthan, the recommendations "A" to "K" have been submitted for kind consideration of Hon'ble Apex Court. For arriving at such recommendations, the aspects taken under consideration have been explained under Para-12 of the report, which inter alia includes (i) rivers in the Rajasthan are ephemeral in nature and sand in these rivers are not replenished annually; (ii) average rainfall in the State is scanty and distribution of rainfall within the State is not uniform; (xiv) the commencement of legal mining of river sand is necessary to overcome the illegal river sand mining in the State of Rajasthan; and (xv) effective measures are required to be put in place for ensuring regulation of river sand mining at sustainable levels. 19. Thus, the aforesaid report was accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 11.11.2021 to the extent of recommendation "D" of the said CEC report which provided that the river sand mining in Rajasthan would be permitted to be conducted after obtaining all statutory clearance and payments of dues and applicable taxes and after following the procedures as vested in Para-11(iii) of the report. 20. As such, the procedures listed in Para 11(iii) of the report was binding upon the State Government and the State Government could not have chosen to avoid the instructions laid down therein. No possibility to take a different interpretation could be made to the plain language of the recommendations, as has been noticed in the foregoing paras. Para 11(iii) was also incorporated in the SOP laid down for the purpose of auctions of the sand mining leases by the Mining Department. No possibility to take a different interpretation could be made to the plain language of the recommendations, as has been noticed in the foregoing paras. Para 11(iii) was also incorporated in the SOP laid down for the purpose of auctions of the sand mining leases by the Mining Department. However, we notice that while the State Mining Department does not dispute that the mining leases have been auctioned for the plots which were forming part of the old mining leases falling in the District of Ajmer, Bhilwara, Sawai Madhopur and Tonk and the then existing lease holders were mining Bajri in the same blocks for which 93 mining leases were put up for auction again. Apparently, in Tonk District 34 leases, in Bhilwara District 46 leases, in Sawai Madhopur District 4 leases and in Ajmer District 9 leases were put up for auction in March, 2024. 21. This Court, at the first instance, as noticed above, directed to form a committee of three senior officers of the Mining Department to submit a report, however, a slip - shod report prepared in a mechanical fashion mentioning in a stereotype manner without actually verifying the individual auctioned plots, was prepared, resulting it being rejecting by this Court vide order dated 20.08.2025 (supra). 22. With a view to give another opportunity to the Mining Department, this Court directed them to submit a fresh report. However, despite specific directions, the Committee instead of conducting the exercise, asserted that the orders of the Supreme Court and the recommendations under Para 11(iii) would not be applicable to the auctions as for the purpose of mining the plots for auction are of smaller size and delineated, adopting the SOP dated 07.10.2023 is much different from the directions as issued by the Supreme Court in its order dated 11.11.2021 which require the entire lease area along the river to be divided into 5 linear annual blocks having nearly equal quantity of sand resources for annual extractions during the 5 years period of lease. The Committee has thus, admitted that the State Government did not divide the lease area into 5 linear annual blocks and the entire lease area was divided into small blocks of 100 hectares each in a fashion that the complete lease area of the river has been auctioned for mining without keeping into consideration the specific directions issued under 11(iii)(f) which provide, "no sand will be collected from any of the annual block from where the sand has already been mined during any of the 5 years period of lease". 23. As has come on record, in Tonk District, the area of plot to be leased runs from 12.6858 hectares to 99.11 hectares and in Bhilwara District, the area of plot to be leased runs from 17.2423 hectares to 99.99 hectares. But in the present auction process, there is no annual block marked for not mining for five years. In fact, even if the entire area was to be of 100 hectares then too the exercise was required to be conducted for dividing the said area of 100 hectares into 5 equal blocks and each block was required to be kept separately for the purpose of replenishment. Thus, while mining activity could be done in one block for one year, the same was required to be thereafter left for replenishment for 5 years and the second block was required to be then acted upon. 24. But, we are saddened to note that so far as State Mining Department is concerned, they have not taken care to comply with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, nor they have bothered to take any steps for replenishment and maintenance of the eco-environment. 25. The very purpose of the CEC report has been sought to be undermined by stating in the report that because the plots are of smaller area, therefore, the recommendations of 11(iii)(f) would not be applicable. The Officers' view is not only contemptuous but is a blatant attempt to allow sand mining in the entire lease area without providing for the necessary replenishment process. The Officers' view is not only contemptuous but is a blatant attempt to allow sand mining in the entire lease area without providing for the necessary replenishment process. It is with such intention that the officers holding the post of Additional Director (Environment and Development), Additional Director (Mines), Additional Director (Geology) and Superintending Mining Engineer, namely Mahesh Mathur, Avinash Kuldeep, Alok Jain and N.S. Shaktawat respectively, prepared a misleading report asserting the contentions of the Mining Department claiming that because the auctions are for an area of less than 100 hectares, the CEC report shall not be applicable. 26. We are amazed with the stand taken by the Mining Department as it goes completely contrary to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We notice that neither the CEC report mentions of any such observations relating to mining lease being given for area less than 100 hectares, nor the Supreme Court passed any such observations. It is clearly a case of the mockery of the Court's orders. We, therefore, have no other option, but to quash the entire auctions conducted by the Department relating to the mining leases granted for 50 years or more for the entire area which would result in virtually removing every single part of the sand in the river bed without there being any replenishment. 27. The adamant approach of the Officers reflects that they have no respect to the Court's orders and they have tried to create a ploy to overreach the process of Court which is strongly deprecated by this Court. It has already come on record that in the same area, earlier the mining activity was being conducted by earlier lease holders for a period of 47 months, i.e., for almost four years and therefore, those areas where the mining activity had already been conducted were required to be left from being allowed to be further made available for mining purposes. 28. While quashing all the auctions conducted for aforesaid 93 leases, i.e. in Tonk District 34 leases, in Bhilwara District 46 leases, in Sawai Madhopur District 4 leases and in Ajmer District 9 leases, we direct as under: (a). 28. While quashing all the auctions conducted for aforesaid 93 leases, i.e. in Tonk District 34 leases, in Bhilwara District 46 leases, in Sawai Madhopur District 4 leases and in Ajmer District 9 leases, we direct as under: (a). The State authorities shall conduct a specific exercise as required under Para 11(iii) of the CEC report and prepare a complete plan which would be placed before this Court or before the Supreme Court in pending case, i.e. SLP (C) No.10587/2019 titled Bajri Lease LOI Holders Welfare Society Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. and after due approval thereof, the auctions would be conducted strictly in confirmity with the provisions of Para 11(iii)(f) of the Report by restricting the auctioners from carrying out sand mining activity in all the blocks. The mining would be done blockwise in 5 blocks, even for the leases which may be of 100 hectares or less. Such condition would be incorporated in the bid document and the area to be kept for replenishment shall be clearly demarcated. (b). The State Mining Department shall conduct the aforesaid exercise within a period of four months. Till then, no further sand mining activity shall be allowed to be conducted at the sites put up for auction. (c). It is made clear that as we have cancelled the auctions, any amount deposited by way of surety or security by all the bidding participants shall be returned to the concerned parties without interest. 29. The public interest litigation petition is disposed of accordingly. 30. All pending applications also stand disposed of.