Sand mining to resume in Kerala rivers after long gap of nine years

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: River sand mining is set to resume in Kerala after a gap of nine years. The revenue department recently issued an order on the standard operating procedure (SOP) for mining activities. The SOP is the first step in a series of procedures involving different government departments.
The SOP is based on the directives issued by the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), Supreme Court and the National Green Tribunal. Under this, District Survey Reports are to be prepared for districts where mining is planned. It should be prepared by an agency approved by the National Accreditation Board for Education and Training.
The state has so far prepared DSRs for 11 districts with the support of NABET-approved CSIR-NIIST. Of them, four were approved by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) and the remaining are under different stages of review.
The report has information on the mining potential of rivers in the districts and their environmental impact. The primary data would be the sand auditing report for each district prepared earlier under government supervision.
So far, audits have been conducted for 32 of the 44 rivers. Of them, 17 rivers in 10 districts were recommended for restricted mining activities. They are Mogral, Uppala, Shiriya,Chandragiri, Valapattanam, Perumba, Sreekandapuram, Mahe, Kadalundi, Chaliyar, Bharathappuzha, Muvattupuzha, Periyar, Manimala, Pampa, Achankovil and Kulathupuzha.
Rules amendment
After the SOP, the state mining and geology department should give a letter of intent. Since existing mines and mineral rules do not provide for an LoI, an amendment should be brought to it. Following this, the RDO of a district can apply for environmental clearance.
Based on the clearance, the mining and geology department will issue permits for mining from each river. As per the present plan, mining activities would be under the supervision of the Kadavu committee formed for specific banks of a river. The committee to be constituted by the district collector will have the grama panchayat president or the municipal chairperson as its ex-officio president and LSGI secretary as ex-officio secretary.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Hindu

8 hours ago

• The Hindu

High courts not custodian of revenue department, says Supreme Court; stays Bombay HC order

High courts are not the "custodian" of the revenue department, the Supreme Court has said while dealing with a petition challenging a Bombay High Court order that stayed a tribunal's direction for a refund of ₹256.45 crore to a firm. A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan observed that prima facie, the High Court could not have stayed the order after holding that the appeal filed by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Belapur Commissionerate, was not maintainable. "A high court is not the custodian of the revenue," the Supreme Court, which stayed the High Court's June 12 order, observed. "Prima facie, the high court could not have passed the order of stay after holding the appeal to be not maintainable and after recording that the writ petition and the appeal are disposed of as not pressed," the bench said in its order passed on June 20. The Supreme Court passed the order while hearing a plea filed by the firm, challenging the High Court order. The bench noted that the high court had disposed of a writ petition as well as an appeal filed by the revenue department. It also noted that the appeal was filed under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against a January 2025 order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Mumbai that allowed the Service-Tax appeal of the firm. The Supreme Court said subsequently, the company filed an application for the release of the amount, which was allowed in May. It noted that the high court had recorded in its June 12 order that both the petition and the appeal were "disposed of as not pressed with liberty to the respondent to prefer appeal before the Supreme Court, the High Court has stayed the direction of CESTAT for refund for a period of eight weeks". The bench issued a notice to the revenue department, seeking its response within six weeks on the firm's plea challenging the high court order. "In the meanwhile, impugned order of the high court dated June 12, 2025 shall remain stayed," the bench said. "This order shall, however, not preclude the respondent from filing appeal before this court under section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, if not already filed, which shall be decided on its own merits and/or limitation," the bench said and posted the matter for further hearing on July 2.

Business Standard

9 hours ago

• Business Standard

HCs not custodian of revenue department, says SC; stays Bombay HC order

High courts are not the "custodian" of the revenue department, the Supreme Court has said while dealing with a petition challenging a Bombay High Court order that stayed a tribunal's direction for a refund of Rs 256.45 crore to a firm. A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan observed that prima facie, the high court could not have stayed the order after holding that the appeal filed by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Belapur Commissionerate, was not maintainable. "A high court is not the custodian of the revenue," the apex court, which stayed the high court's June 12 order, observed. "Prima facie, the high court could not have passed the order of stay after holding the appeal to be not maintainable and after recording that the writ petition and the appeal are disposed of as not pressed," the bench said in its order passed on June 20. The top court passed the order while hearing a plea filed by the firm, challenging the high court order. The bench noted that the high court had disposed of a writ petition as well as an appeal filed by the revenue department. It also noted that the appeal was filed under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against a January 2025 order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Mumbai that allowed the Service-Tax appeal of the firm. The apex court said subsequently, the company filed an application for the release of the amount, which was allowed in May. It noted that the high court had recorded in its June 12 order that both the petition and the appeal were "disposed of as not pressed with liberty to the respondent to prefer appeal before the Supreme Court, the high court has stayed the direction of CESTAT for refund for a period of eight weeks". The bench issued a notice to the revenue department, seeking its response within six weeks on the firm's plea challenging the high court order. "In the meanwhile, impugned order of the high court dated June 12, 2025 shall remain stayed," the bench said. "This order shall, however, not preclude the respondent from filing appeal before this court under section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, if not already filed, which shall be decided on its own merits and/or limitation," the bench said and posted the matter for further hearing on July 2.

Time of India

9 hours ago

• Time of India

‘High Courts not custodian of revenue': SC stays Bombay HC order blocking Rs 256 crore refund to firm

High courts are not the "custodian" of the revenue department , the Supreme Court has said while dealing with a petition challenging a Bombay High Court order that stayed a tribunal's direction for a refund of Rs 256.45 crore to a firm. A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan observed that prima facie, the high court could not have stayed the order after holding that the appeal filed by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Belapur Commissionerate, was not maintainable. "A high court is not the custodian of the revenue," the apex court, which stayed the high court's June 12 order, observed. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Play War Thunder now for free War Thunder Play Now Undo "Prima facie, the high court could not have passed the order of stay after holding the appeal to be not maintainable and after recording that the writ petition and the appeal are disposed of as not pressed," the bench said in its order passed on June 20. The top court passed the order while hearing a plea filed by the firm, challenging the high court order. Live Events The bench noted that the high court had disposed of a writ petition as well as an appeal filed by the revenue department. It also noted that the appeal was filed under section 35G of the Central Excise Act , 1944 against a January 2025 order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) in Mumbai that allowed the Service-Tax appeal of the firm. The apex court said subsequently, the company filed an application for the release of the amount, which was allowed in May. It noted that the high court had recorded in its June 12 order that both the petition and the appeal were "disposed of as not pressed with liberty to the respondent to prefer appeal before the Supreme Court, the high court has stayed the direction of CESTAT for refund for a period of eight weeks". The bench issued a notice to the revenue department, seeking its response within six weeks on the firm's plea challenging the high court order. "In the meanwhile, impugned order of the high court dated June 12, 2025 shall remain stayed," the bench said. "This order shall, however, not preclude the respondent from filing appeal before this court under section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, if not already filed, which shall be decided on its own merits and/or limitation," the bench said and posted the matter for further hearing on July 2.