Environmental protection in protected zones prevails where a housing project threatens a wildlife sanctuary and lake catchment.

The discussion examines a housing project proposed 123 metres from a wildlife sanctuary and within a lake catchment area, where environmental clearance was challenged on the basis of protected-area restrictions. It notes that the governing framework under the Environmental (Protection) Act, the Environment (Protection) Rules and the eco-sensitive zone notification required strict control over construction in the protected zone, reinforced by the State's constitutional duties under Articles 48A and 51A(g) and the Public Trust Doctrine. On that basis, the project was treated as impermissible in an ecologically fragile area, and the clearance and related permissions were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the proposed housing project could be permitted at a distance of 123 metres from the Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary and within the catchment area of Sukhna Lake, and whether the environmental clearance and permissions granted for the project were liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The project site was found, on the materials relied upon, to lie within the catchment area of Sukhna Lake and only 123 metres from the wildlife sanctuary. The statutory framework governing environmental clearance under the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, together with the later eco-sensitive zone notification, required strict regulation of construction in the protected zone. The Court also relied on the constitutional duties under Articles 48A and 51A(g), and on the Public Trust Doctrine, to hold that the State could not permit high-rise development in an ecologically fragile area where the authorities had failed to protect the sanctuary and lake system.

Conclusion: The project could not be allowed to come up at that location, and the environmental clearance and related permissions were quashed.

Final Conclusion: The decision gives primacy to environmental protection over private development rights in a protected and ecologically sensitive area, and the challenge to the project therefore fails.

Ratio Decidendi: Construction of a high-rise project cannot be permitted in a protected or eco-sensitive area where the project would adversely affect a wildlife sanctuary or lake catchment and the statutory and constitutional duty to preserve the environment requires refusal of clearance.

---