TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 1517
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oy, AOR, Mr. Ankit Roy, Adv., Mr. Ishaan Borthakur, Adv., Ms. Nimisha Menon, Adv., Shri. Gaichangpou Gangmei, AOR, Mr. Raj Kishor Choudhary, AOR, Mr. Umesh Bhagwat, AOR, Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR, Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, AOR, Mr. Gopal Singh, AOR, Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma, AOR, Ms. C. K. Sucharita, AOR, Mrs. B. Sunita Rao, AOR, Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, AOR, M/S. Corporate Law Group, AOR, Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, AOR, Mr. P. N. Gupta, AOR, Meghalaya Pollution Control Board : Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR, Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv., Ms. Chubalemla Chong, Adv. St. of Sikkim : Mr. Raghvendra Kumar, Adv., Mr. Anand Kr. Dubey, Adv., Ms. Rajlakshmi Singh, Adv., Mr. Nishant Verma, Adv., Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha, Adv., Simanta Kumar, Adv., Mr. Sunil Saraogi, Adv., Mr. Narendra Kumar, AOR State of A.P. : Mr. Mahfooz A. Nazki, AOR, Mr. Polanki Gowtham, Adv., Mr. Shaik Mohamad Haneef, Adv., Mr. T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Adv., Mr. K.V. Girish Chowdary, Adv., Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, Adv., Ms. Aruna Gupta, Adv., Ms. Sumita Hazarika, AOR For Arunachal Pradesh : Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, AOR, Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv. West Bengal : Mr. Suhaan Mukerji, Adv., Mr. Nikhil Parikshith, Adv., Mr. Vishal Prasad, Adv., Mr. Abhishe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Saifali Mitra, Adv., Mrs. Rani Chhabra, AOR, Mr. V. Balachandran, AOR, Mr. P. R. Ramasesh, AOR, Mr. Rajiv Mehta, AOR, Mr. Rathin Das, AOR, Mr. Sudhir Kulshreshtha, AOR, Ms. Pratibha Jain, AOR, Mr. Prashant Kumar, AOR, Mr. P. Parmeswaran, AOR,, Mr. E.R. Kumar, Adv., Mr. Lalit Chauhan, Adv., Mr. Abhiram Naik, Adv., Ms. Nitika Pandey, Adv., for M/S Parekh and Co., AOR, Mr. H. S. Parihar, AOR, Ms. Bina Madhavan, AOR, Mr. T. N. Singh, AOR, Mr. A. N. Arora, AOR, Mr. G. Prakash, AOR, Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay, AOR, Mr. Sudarsh Menon, AOR, Mr. Vikrant Singh Bais, AOR, Mr. Rajesh Singh, AOR, Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR, Mr. Somesh Chandra Jha, AOR, Ms. Adarsh Nain, AOR, Ms. Ruchira Goel, AOR, Mrinal Gopal Elker, AOR State of M.P. : Mr. Saurabh Mishra, AAG, Ms. Samridhi Jain, Adv., Mr. Sunny Choudhury, AOR, Ms. Seita Vaidyalingam, AOR, Mr. Siddhartha Jha, AOR, Mr. Nikhil Goel, AAG, Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, AOR, Mr. P. K. Manohar, AOR, Mr. Nishanth Patil, AOR, Mr. Vinod Sharma, AOR For State of Rajasthan : Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv.,, Mr. Arpit Parkash, Adv., Mr. Sandeep Kumar Jha, AOR, Mr. Balbir Singh, ASG, Mr. D.L.Chidananda Adv., Ms. Suhasini Sen, Adv., Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Adv., Mr. Salvado....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was instituted for protection of forest lands in the Nilgiris district of the State of Tamil Nadu. Subsequently, the scope of that writ petition was enlarged so as to protect such natural resources throughout the country. The original writ petitioner has since passed away (on 1st June 2016) but in an order passed on 3rd February 2017, this Court opined that being a public interest litigation, there was no requirement for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner. The writ petition, in substance, continued with the cause title "in Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors". Various Orders have been passed from time to time in this writ petition to ensure preservation of forest resources of this country in balance with economic activities. By an Order of this Court dated 9th May 2002, a Central Empowered Committee ("CEC") was directed to be formed primarily for monitoring implementation of this Court's orders and to place the incidents of non­compliance before us. Subsequently, by a notification issued on 17th September 2002 by the Ministry of Environment and Forest in exercise of power under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioned by the competent authority and the conditions mentioned herein under are fully complied with; (ii) presently a safety zone of twenty five meter has been fixed for Jamua Ramgarh Sanctuary and other sanctuaries in Rajasthan as against 500 meter for Ranthambhore National Park in Rajasthan itself. In Madhya Pradesh safety zone of 250 meter for all the 20 forest area has been fixed. The CEC is of the view that minimum 500 meter safety zone around National Parks and Sanctuaries is necessary where no mining, construction and other projects should be allowed. Without a reasonable safety zone the habitat and wild life in the National Parks and Sanctuaries are adversely affected. Although stringent conditions are imposed at the time of the sanction of the mining leases, none are practically complied with due to weak enforcement of the laws. The mining causes heavy disturbance in the area due to blasting, removal of over burden, chiseling, transportation, flying debris and movement of a large number of labourers and other persons. The safety zone of twenty five meter presently prescribed by the Rajasthan Forest Department is totally in adequate as the rocks torn apart during blasting....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... boundary of the sanctuary is demarcated on the ground and the boundary pillars are verified with the fixed reference points; (ix) disciplinary action should be taken in a time bound manner against the erring officials in the Mines and the Forest Departments of the State of Rajasthan and the MoEF for allowing mining in violation of the F.C. Act, the W. P. Act and/or this Hon'ble Court's order;" (quoted verbatim from paperbook) 3. This Court had converted this report with its set of recommendations into an Interlocutory Application and was allocated registration number I.A. 1000 of 2003. 4. On 20th September 2012, a second report was submitted by the CEC. The recommendations made in the second report went beyond the Jamua Ramgarh Sanctuary and dealt with creation of identification and declaration of safety zones around protected forests all across the country. The question of having ESZ around the protected forests was examined by this Court earlier in another Writ Petition [W.P. (Civil) No. 460 of 2004] in Goa Foundation v. Union of India. In the said writ petition, the following order was passed on 4th December 2006 [reported in (2011) 15 SCC 791]: ­ "4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Sanctuaries is to create some kind of "Shock Absorber" for the Protected Areas. They would also act as a transition zone from areas of high protection to areas involving lesser protection. As has been decided by the National Board for Wildlife, the activities in the Ecosensitive zones would be of a regulatory nature rather than prohibitive nature, unless and otherwise so required. 4. Extent of Eco­Sensitive Zones: 4.1 Many of the existing Protected Areas have already undergone tremendous development in close vicinity to their boundaries. Some of the Protected Areas actually lying in the urban setup (Eg. Guindy National Park, Tamil Nadu, Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Maharashtra, etc). Therefore, defining the extent of eco­sensitive zones around Protected Areas will have to be kept flexible and Protected Area specific. The width of the Eco­sensitive Zone and type of regulations will differ from Protected Area to Protected Area. However, as a general principle the width of the Eco­sensitive Zone could go up to 10 Kms around a Protected Area as provided in the Wildlife Conservation Strategy­2002. 4.2 In case where sensitive corridors, connectivity and eco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tate Government with copy to the Ministry of Environment and Forests, as and when the proposals (even if it is for single Protected Area) are complete. An indicative list of details that need to be submitted along with the proposals is at ANNEXURE­2. 6.5 It is to mention here that in cases where the boundary of a Protected Area abuts the boundary of another State/Union Territory where it does not form part of any Protected Area, it shall be the endeavour of both the State/ Union Territory Governments to have a mutual consultation and decide upon the width of the ecosensitive zone around the Protected Area in question. 6.6 The State Government should endeavour to convey a very strong message to the public that ESZ are not meant to hamper their day to day activities, but instead, is meant to protect the precious forests/Protected Areas in their locality from any negative impact, and also to refine the environment around the Protected Areas. A copy of the notification of the Sultanpur Eco­sensitive Zone issued by the Ministry is attached herewith at ANNEXURE­3 for reference and guidance. 7. These guidelines are indicative in nature and the State / Union Territory ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... area is about 1,01,389 sq. km (63.44 % of total area of protected areas); ii) CATEGORY­B ­ the protected areas having an area between 200 sq. km. to 500 sq. km. The total number of such protected areas is 115 and their total area is about 38942 sq. km. (24.37 % of total area of protected areas); iii) CATEGORY­C ­ the protected areas having an area between 100 sq. km. to 200 sq. km. The total number of such protected areas is 85 and their total area is about 12,066 sq. km (about 7.55 % of total area of protected areas); and iv) CATEGORY­D ­ the protected areas having an area up to 100 sq. km. The total number of such protected areas is 344 and their total area is about 7,422 sq. km (about 4.65 % of total area of all protected areas). 12. Wherever two or more protected areas are contiguous to each other, such protected areas will be placed in the appropriate category based on the sum total of their areas (and not on the basis of area of individual protected area). The details of some of the contiguous protected areas are given below: i) Corbett National Park (520 sq. km.) and Sonanadi Sanctuary (301 sq. km) ­ total area is 821 sq. km and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....escribed as prohibited activities or regulated activities will be treated as permissible activities. 15. The concerned State/UT will be at liberty to shift a protected area from a lower category to higher category (say from Category­C to Category­B) after considering the importance of the protected area on account of: i) presence of flagship species/endangered species such as Tiger, Lion, Elephant, Rhino, Snow Leopard, Red Panda, Hangul, Musk deer, Great Indian Bustard, Lion Tailed Macaque, floricans; ii) fragile eco­system such as Western Ghats, North Eastern States, areas having high altitude flora and fauna, rain forest, mangroves, marine eco­system; iii) World Heritage sites; and iv) Wetland eco­systems 16. The concerned State/UT Governments may after detailed examination of the status of habitation, existing industries and other activities and other relevant factors, and, if found desirable and in public interest forward the proposal(s) for shifting a protected area from a higher category to a lower category. They may also forward the proposal(s) for exclusion of the areas of cities falling within the Safety Zone. The MoEF thereafter will ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submitted. This report is also in connection with notifying the ESZ around protected forests. The following passage from this report is relevant: ­ "4. After considering the inordinate delay which has already taken place in notifying the safety zone around National Parks/ Wildlife Sanctuaries and considering the ground situation as it exists, the CEC is of the considered view that it may be appropriate that an early decision is taken regarding the safety zones around National Park/ Sanctuaries. The proposal submitted by the CEC while ensuring that effective restrictions and regulations are put in place immediately and implemented in an objective manner also, after detailed examination, provides for adequate flexibility to modify the areas of the safety zones." (quoted verbatim from paperbook) 12. In connection with the I.A. No. 1000 of 2003, several other applications have been filed, mainly by miners concerning the Jamua Ramgarh wildlife sanctuary. The order passed on 4th August 2006 by this Court [reported in (2010) 13 SCC 740] in relation to grant of temporary working permits was made subjecting them to compliance of certain pre conditions. These preconditions, in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e validity of the lease. No TWP can be granted in respect of, or extending to either unbroken area or the areas which have been broken after the expiry of the mining lease or have been broken in violation of the FC Act or any other law for the time being in force; (viii) In no circumstances can the duration of a TWP extend beyond the period of one year. Where an application for the grant of permission under the FC Act is not disposed of during the currency of TWP, the applicant, on the strength of the same TWP, may continue to operate for a period not exceeding three months unless specific orders are obtained from this Court; and (ix) A valid lease under the MMRD Act exists [including by way of a deemed extension in terms of Rule 24­A(6) of the Mineral Concession Rules] in respect of the area of the TWP." 13. We shall now briefly refer to the individual I.A.s filed in connection with I.A No. 1000 of 2003:­ (i) Applicants in I.A. Nos. 982­984 of 2003, 1026­1028 of 2004, 1123­1124 of 2004, 1197­1199 of 2004, 1210­ 1211 of 2004, 1250­1251 of 2004 and 1512 of 2006 are firms who claim to be mining lease holders or their representative ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ua Ramgarh Sanctuary. Survey had revealed that mining activities were being carried on inside the wildlife sanctuary. The report of CEC dated 27th May 2003 found number of mines operating around or in two villages, Sankotda and Thali, which were within the sanctuary and the CEC also found that the earlier finding of a Committee could not be taken as conclusive proof that the area involved was a non­forest land and fell outside the sanctuary. The State of Rajasthan, however, has taken a stand in their affidavit affirmed on 15th April 2004 that delineation and demarcation of the boundaries have already been done. (v) In I.A. No. 1512 of 2006, M/s. Andhi Marbles Pvt. Ltd are the applicants. They have prayed for permission to resume mining operations excluding the land to the extent of 100 metres from the forest/sanctuary. (vi) In I.A. No. 3880 of 2015, the applicant is the State of Rajasthan. Prayer has been made in this application for appropriate direction for issuing the ESZ of wildlife sanctuaries and national parks and to keep in abeyance a letter issued by CEC on 21st October 2014 by which one kilometre distance has been required to be maintained in respect of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....report to this Court. In the present application the applicants want grant of license considering condition no.3 of the Government's Notification dated 16th July 1981. (ii) Applicants in I.A. No. 117831 of 2019 are Maharashtra Timber Laghu Udyog Mahasangha alongwith the Poona Timber Merchant (64 saw mills owners) in connection with grant of licenses for operating saw mills. In the present order, we are confining our examination of proceedings arising out of I.A. No. 1000 of 2003. As such, the aforesaid applications ought to be listed independently before the appropriate Bench. 15. The applicant in I.A. No. 96949 of 2019 is the State of Maharashtra. On 11th December 2018, this Court had passed an order in respect of 21 National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries, which included Thane Creek Flamingo Sanctuary. This order, inter­alia, records and directs: ­ "It is submitted by the learned Amicus that this issue has been pending since sometime in December, 2006. 12 years have gone­by but no effective steps have been taken by the State Governments in respect of the National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries mentioned above. Under the circumstances, we direct ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of CEC as regards maintaining ESZ were made in relation to wildlife sanctuaries and national parks on 20th September 2012. As per the order passed on 11th December 2018, the proposal of the State Government was to be made before the MoEF&CC and it appears that a draft notification dated 8th April 2021 concerning Thane Creek Flamingo Sanctuary has already been published by the MoEF&CC. Let the MoEF&CC take final decision in relation to such draft notification as per the provisions of law. Such decision, if already taken, may be placed before this Court one week after reopening of the Court on conclusion of the summer vacation. If such decision is not taken, then the decision may be taken as per law within a period of six weeks and be placed before us within the same timeframe. This Court shall consider passing appropriate direction thereafter, upon going through such decision. 18. In I.A. No. 1992 of 2007, the M.P. State Mining Corporation Limited has applied for the following reliefs:­ "i. grant permission to file present Application for Clarification; ii. clarify that the directions as contained in interim Order dated 4.8.2006 of this Hon'ble Court in I.A. Nos.&....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... all statutorily recognised forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose of Section 2(i) of the Forest Conservation Act. The term "forest land", occurring in Section 2, will not only include "forest" as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership. This is how it has to be understood for the purpose of Section 2 of the Act. The provisions enacted in the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 for the conservation of forests and the matters connected therewith must apply clearly to all forests so understood irrespective of the ownership or classification thereof. This aspect has been made abundantly clear in the decisions of this Court in Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat [(1987) 1 SCC 213], Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. [1989 Supp (1) SCC 504] and recently in the order dated 29­11­1996 (Supreme Court Monitoring Committee v. Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority [ WP (C) No 749 of 1995 decided on 29­11­1996] ). The earlier decision of this Court in State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi [(1985) 3 SCC 643] has, therefore, to be und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tated that the Guidelines for Declaration of ESZ have been notified by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India. For the purpose of formulation of ESZ in relation of individual protected forest area, Para 6 of the said Guidelines has been brought to our notice. A detailed hierarchy has been prescribed for declaration of ESZ. Referring to the case of the Goa Foundation (W.P. (C) No. 435/2012), it has been stated in this affidavit that mining activity is prohibited within a distance of 1 kilometre or the specified ESZ, whichever is higher. 24. On the pleas of M/s. Andhi Marbles Pvt. Ltd. and another leaseholder, Munni Devi, in subsequent affidavit verified on 29th April 2004 the MoEF&CC had justified granting of working permit to the said firms. 25. The next affidavit of MoEF&CC was verified on 14th September 2005 and this affidavit deals with fixing of buffer zones for activities outside sanctuaries/forests. In this affidavit, it has been admitted that with respect to the details given in the earlier affidavit dated 29th April 2004 the decision taken by the Ministry at that point of time while granting temporary working permission on already....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eing declared as ESZ. 28. The role of the State cannot be confined to that of a facilitator or generator of economic activities for immediate upliftment of the fortunes of the State. The State also has to act as a trustee for the benefit of the general public in relation to the natural resources so that sustainable development can be achieved in the long term. Such role of the State is more relevant today, than, possibly, at any point of time in history with the threat of climate catastrophe resulting from global warming looming large. This Court has highlighted the Public Trust Doctrine in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Others [(1997) 1 SCC 388] and opined that the Public Trust Doctrine is part of the law of land. In Paragraph 25 of the said judgment, as reported, this doctrine has been explained with reference to writings of Joseph L. Sax, Professor of Law, University of Michigan, the proponent of Modern Public Trust Doctrine:­ "25. The Public Trust Doctrine primarily rests on the principle that certain resources like air, sea, waters and the forests have such a great importance to the people as a whole that it would be wholly unjustified to make them a subject o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titute over 20% of the total geographic area. On this basis, they seek appropriate directions. It has also been brought to our notice that notifications have been issued in respect of several sanctuaries stipulating the ESZ boundaries. Written submissions have also been filed by Goa Foundation [the petitioners in W.P. (C) 460/2004] and W.P. (C) 435/2012 in which it has been urged that minimum extent of ESZ ought to be as per the CEC recommendations incorporating therein the modifications/suggestions by the learned Amicus Curiae. So far as State of Goa is concerned, the scope of mining activities is being dealt with in the case of Goa Foundation (supra). In the present I.A., we would not address issues specific to the said case. But the directives we shall make, as we have already indicated, which are not covered by the issues involved in the case of Goa Foundation (supra) shall apply to the protected forest and adjacent areas. 31. On the point of buffer zone for activities outside the sanctuaries/national parks, the National Board of Wildlife in its 21st meeting held on 21st January 2002 adopted National Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Paragraph 9 of the Strategy document concerns....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Organic farming (iv) Use of renewable energy sources (v) Adoption of green technology for all activities. 33. In the affidavit of the Standing Committee of National Board of Wildlife, the views of the non­official members of the Standing Committee have been placed on record, which essentially contemplates continuation of the 10 kilometres buffer zone. Order passed by this Court on 4th December 2006 in the case of Goa Foundation (W.P. (C) 460/2004) proposes following such a course if there is delay in site­specific preparation of ESZ for individual States/Union Territories. On the aspect of having site­specific ESZ under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the view of the National Board of Wildlife, appears to be unanimous. It is their opinion that some protected areas, because of their smaller size, may require larger safety zone around it. 34. We shall deal first with the question of impleadment of firms and individuals who had some kind of permission for carrying on mining activities in Jamua Ramgarh sanctuary. The Interlocutory Applications which we are dealing with arise out of a public interest litigation and there is no doubt that orders passed in li....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Forum v. Union of India, this Court held that the 'Precautionary Principle' is an essential feature of the principle of 'Sustainable Development'. It went on to explain the precautionary principle in the following terms: ­ (i) Environmental measures - by the State Government and the statutory authorities - must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation. (ii) Where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. (iii) The "onus of proof" is on the actor or the developer/industrialist to show that his action is environmentally benign. 17. The principle of precaution involves the anticipation of environmental harm and taking measures to avoid it or to choose the least environmentally harmful activity. It is based on scientific uncertainty. Environmental protection should not only aim at protecting health, property and economic interest but also protect the environment for its own sake. Precautionary duties must not only be triggered by the suspicion of concrete danger but also by justified concern or risk potenti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....adhu Agarwal have taken a point that there was improper declaration of Jamua Ramgarh as a sanctuary. The notification made under Section 18 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 bearing No. F.11(19) Raj.­8/81 Jaipur dated 31st May 1982 has been annexed to the I.A. Nos. 982­984 of 2003 the applicant therein, being Magan Devi Meena. Initially, there was declaration of the said sanctuary as reserved forest under the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953. Thereafter, the notification of 31st May 1982 came into operation under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. 38. In I.A. No. 1000 of 2003, it has been disclosed that the settlement of rights were completed by the District Collector Jaipur under Sections 19 to 26 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. So far as Section 26A is concerned, which deals with declaration of area as sanctuary the said provision was incorporated in the statute with effect from 2nd October 1991. That amendment came by way of Act 44 of 1991. After amendment, Section 18 of the Act stipulates:­ "18. Declaration of sanctuary:- (1) The State Government may, by notification, declare its intention to constitute any area other than an area co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... across a horrible and unbelievable picture of devastated eco ­ system due to indiscriminate mining activity in blatant violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, Wild Life (Protection) Act and even this Hon'ble Court's orders. The sanctuary is littered with hundreds of deep mining pits, randomly scattered "over burdens", scores of cranes and mined boulders and stones scattered all over the place. It is rare to see such a destruction even in a non forest area, least of all inside a sanctuary. It is a horror story that has to be seen to be believed. This is a site where all the laws and conventions that govern the natural world have been violated for commercial gains. Instead of being managed as a wild life sanctuary, it appears to have been managed as a mining sanctuary. In the present form it may be more appropriate to rename the area as "Jamua Ramgarh Wild Life Graveyard". A photographic report is appended hereto at ANNEXURE­A graphically showing the ground situation. 5. The forest of Jamua Ramgarh forms the critical catchment area of the lake which is the main source of water supply to the city of Jaipur. Notwithstanding this 69 mining leases were sanctioned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for maintaining a 10 kilometre wide safety zone from the boundaries in respect of sanctuaries and national parks as there was lack of response from the States and Union territories in relation to queries on various aspects in respect of wildlife conservation. The proposal for having an ESZ of 10 kms from the boundaries of the national parks and wildlife sanctuaries was originally mooted on 21st January 2002 in the meeting of the Indian Board for Wildlife, as it appears from the order passed by this Court in the case of Goa Foundation [W.P. (C) No. 460 of 2004] on 30th January 2006. We have to collate the views of these experts' bodies including the CEC, who have been assisting this Court through the different stages of this litigation. 42. In our opinion, the Guidelines framed on 9th February 2011 appears to be reasonable and we accept the view of the Standing Committee that uniform Guidelines may not be possible in respect of each sanctuary or national parks for maintaining ESZ. We are of the opinion, however, that a minimum width of 1 kilometre ESZ ought to be maintained in respect of the protected forests, which forms part of the recommendations of the CEC in relation to C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... wider margin as ESZ shall prevail. If such wider buffer zone beyond one kilometre is proposed under any statutory instrument for a particular national park or wildlife sanctuary awaiting final decision in that regard, then till such final decision is taken, the ESZ covering the area beyond one kilometre as proposed shall be maintained. (c) The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests as also the Home Secretary of each State and Union Territory shall remain responsible for proper compliance of the said Guidelines as regards nature of use within the ESZ of all national parks and sanctuaries within a particular State or Union Territory. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests for each State and Union Territory shall also arrange to make a list of subsisting structures and other relevant details within the respective ESZs forthwith and a report shall be furnished before this Court by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests of each State and Union Territory within a period of three months. For this purpose, such authority shall be entitled to take assistance of any governmental agency for satellite imaging or photography using drones. (d) Mining within the national parks and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... regard is arrived at. (i) I.A. No. 1412 of 2005 and I.A.No.117831 of 2019 do not relate to the issues involved in I.A. No. 1000 of 2003. These applications may be placed before the appropriate Bench to be heard independently. (j) For the same reason, I.A. No. 1992 of 2007 shall also be dealt with independently by the appropriate Bench and no order is being passed concerning this application at this stage. (k) The application of the State of Rajasthan registered as I.A. No. 3880 of 2015 relates to clarification of an order passed in the case of Goa Foundation (W.P.(C) No. 460 of 2004). Let this application be placed before the Bench taking up the case of Goa Foundation. (l) I.A.No.96949 of 2019 and I.A.No.65571 of 2021 are disposed of with directions that the MoEF&CC as also CEC shall proceed to take a decision in regard to the draft proposal for ESZ made by the State of Maharashtra to the extent of 0­3.89 kilometres and the MoEF&CC shall take final decision on that basis within a period of three months, if said decision has not already been taken. (m) Prayers for impleadment of the applicants in I.A. Nos. 984 of 2003, 1026 of 2004, ....