IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. on 3 June 2022

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2022] 17 S.C.R.

A

IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD

v.

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

(I.A. No.1000 of 2003)

B

(In Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995)

JUNE 03, 2022

[L. NAGESWARA RAO, B.R. GAVAI ANDANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]

Environment Law – Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 – WildlifeCsanctuaries and National parks – The present set of applicationsarise out of a report of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC)specifically pertaining to Jamua Ramgarh wildlife sanctuary in Stateof Rajasthan – Report stated about exploitation of protected forestmainly by private miners mostly with temporary working permitsDobtained from the Governmental agencies – Supreme Court hadconverted the report with its set of recommendations into anInterlocutory Application – Recommendations made in the secondreport by the CEC, went beyond the Jamua Ramgarh Sanctuaryand dealt with creation of identification and declaration of safetyzones around protected forests all across the country – In the presentEorder Supreme Court dealt with two issues i.e. Scope of miningactivities in and around a wildlife sanctuary in the State of Rajasthan(Jamua Ramgarh) and prescribing Eco sensitive zones (ESZ)surrounding the wildlife sanctuaries and national parks – Held:Each protected forest that is national park or wildlife sanctuaryFmust have an ESZ of minimum one kilometre measured from thedemarcated boundary of such protected – For Jamua Ramgarhwildlife sanctuary, it shall be 500 metres – If the ESZ is alreadyprescribed as per law that goes beyond one kilometre buffer zone,the wider margin as ESZ shall prevail – Mining within the nationalparks and wildlife sanctuaries shall not be permitted – If any activityGis already being undertaken within the one kilometre or extendedbuffer zone (ESZ) of any wildlife sanctuary or national park thatdoes not come within the ambit of prohibited activities, such activitiesmay continue with permission of the Principal Chief Conservatorof Forests of each State or Union Territory – The minimum width ofHthe ESZ may be diluted in overwhelming public interest but for that purpose the State or Union Territory concerned shall approach theCEC and MoEF&CC and both these bodies shall give their respectiveopinions/recommendations before Court – In respect of sanctuariesor national parks for which the proposal of a State or UnionTerritory has not been given, the 10 kilometres buffer zone as ESZshall be implemented – The CEC shall quantify the compensation tobe recovered from each miner indulging in mining activities withinthe Jamua Ramgarh sanctuary in violation of any statutory provisionor order of this Court – Specific recommendations for compensatoryafforestation, reclamation, clearing overburden dumping as alsocompensation in monetary units for degradation of forest resourcesshall also be made – A further set of recommendations concerningconfiscation of earth moving equipments and other machineries lyingwithin or in the periphery of the said sanctuary shall be made bythe CEC.

Disposing the I.A., the Court

HELD : 1. The role of the State cannot be confined to thatof a facilitator or generator of economic activities for immediateupliftment of the fortunes of the State. The State also has to actas a trustee for the benefit of the general public in relation to thenatural resources so that sustainable development can beachieved in the long term. Such role of the State is more relevanttoday, than, possibly, at any point of time in history with the threatof climate catastrophe resulting from global warming loominglarge. This Court has highlighted the Public Trust Doctrine inthe case of M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Others and opined thatthe Public Trust Doctrine is part of the law of land. [Para 28][1152-D-F]

2. In this Court’s opinion, the Guidelines framed on 9thFebruary 2011 appears to be reasonable and accept the view ofthe Standing Committee that uniform Guidelines may not bepossible in respect of each sanctuary or national parks formaintaining ESZ. This Court is of the opinion, however, that aminimum width of 1 kilometre ESZ ought to be maintained inrespect of the protected forests, which forms part of therecommendations of the CEC in relation to Category B protectedforests. This would be the standard formula, subject to changesin special circumstances. This Court has considered CEC’s A

B

C

D

EF

GH

Arecommendation that the ESZ should be relatable to the areacovered by a protected forest but the Standing Committee’s viewthat the area of a protected forest may not always be reasonablecriteria also merits consideration. It was argued before that the1 km wide “no-development-zone” may not be feasible in all casesand specific instances were given for Sanjay Gandhi National ParkBand Guindy National Park in Mumbai and Chennai metropolisrespectively which have urban activities in very close proximity.These sanctuaries shall form special cases. [Para 42][1162-B-E]

3. Turning specifically to Jamua Ramgarh Sanctuary, thefirst report of the CEC proposed 100 metres as ESZ. In the secondCreport, however, one kilometre width has been recommendedfor all protected forests falling under category ‘B’. Having regardto its area, the said sanctuary comes in that category. In the orderof this Court passed on 4th August 2006, the same margin, i.e.one kilometre as buffer zone has been prescribed. In the givenDfacts concerning the Jamua Ramgarh Sanctuary, in our opinionthe margin of 25 metres as contemplated in the 1994 MineralPolicy of the State of Rajasthan is grossly inadequate. This Court,however, treat Jamua Ramgarh sanctuary as a special case forfixing the ESZ as in the past, the buffer zone varied from 25 metresto 100 metres. In opinion of this Court, ESZ of 500 metres wouldEbe a reasonable buffer zone, within which subsisting activitieswhich does not come within the prohibited list as per theGuidelines of 9th February 2011 could be carried on. But forcommencing of any new activity which would be otherwisepermissible, the ESZ norm of one kilometre shall be maintainedFfor Jamua Ramgarh sanctuary. [Para 43][1162-E-H; 1163-A]

4. This Court directed:

(a) Each protected forest that is national park or wildlifesanctuary must have an ESZ of minimum one kilometre measuredfrom the demarcated boundary of such protected forest in whichGthe activities proscribed and prescribed in the Guidelines of 9thFebruary 2011 shall be strictly adhered to. For Jamua Ramgarhwildlife sanctuary, it shall be 500 metres so far as subsistingactivities are concerned.

H

(b) In the event, however, the ESZ is already prescribed asper law that goes beyond one kilometre buffer zone, the widermargin as ESZ shall prevail. If such wider buffer zone beyondone kilometre is proposed under any statutory instrument for aparticular national park or wildlife sanctuary awaiting final decisionin that regard, then till such final decision is taken, the ESZcovering the area beyond one kilometre as proposed shall bemaintained.

(c) Mining within the national parks and wildlife sanctuariesshall not be permitted.

(d) In the event any activity is already being undertakenwithin the one kilometre or extended buffer zone (ESZ), as thecase may be, of any wildlife sanctuary or national park which doesnot come within the ambit of prohibited activities as per the 9thFebruary 2011 Guidelines, such activities may continue withpermission of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests of eachState or Union Territory and the person responsible for suchactivities in such a situation shall obtain necessary permissionwithin a period of six months. Such permission shall be givenonce the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests is satisfied thatthe activities concerned do not come within the prohibited listand were continuing prior to passing of this order in a legitimatemanner. No new permanent structure shall be permitted to comeup for whatsoever purpose within the ESZ.

(e) The minimum width of the ESZ may be diluted inoverwhelming public interest but for that purpose the State orUnion Territory concerned shall approach the CEC andMoeEF&CC and both these bodies shall give their respectiveopinions/recommendations before this Court. On that basis, thisCourt shall pass appropriate order.

(f) In the event the CEC, MoEF&CC, the StandingCommittee of National Board of Wildlife or any other body ofpersons or individual having special interest in environmentalissues consider it necessary for maintaining a wider or largerESZ in respect of any national park or wildlife sanctuary, suchbody or individual shall approach the CEC. In such a situationthe CEC shall be at liberty to examine the need of a wider ESZ in AB

CD

EF

G

H

Arespect of any national park or wildlife sanctuary in consultationwith all the stakeholders including the State or Union Territoryconcerned, MoEF&CC as also the Standing Committee ofNational Board of Wildlife and then approach this Court with itsrecommendations.

B(g) In respect of sanctuaries or national parks for whichthe proposal of a State or Union Territory has not been given, the10 kilometres buffer zone as ESZ, as indicated in the order passedby this Court on 4th December 2006 in the case of Goa Foundation(supra) and also contained in the Guidelines of 9th February 2011shall be implemented. Within that area, the entire set ofCrestrictions concerning an ESZ shall operate till a final decisionin that regard is arrived at.

(h) The CEC shall quantify the compensation to berecovered from each miner indulging in mining activities withinthe Jamua Ramgarh sanctuary in violation of any statutoryDprovision or order of this Court. Specific recommendations forcompensatory afforestation, reclamation, clearing overburdendumping as also compensation in monetary units for degradationof forest resources shall also be made. A further set ofrecommendations concerning confiscation of earth movingEequipments and other machineries lying within or in the peripheryof the said sanctuary shall be made by the CEC.Recommendations shall be made within a period of four monthsbefore this Court in the form of an application. This Court shallconsider passing appropriate order upon going through suchapplication. The exercise concerning such reparation, includingFquantifying compensation shall be undertaken upon giving themining operator, State and MoEF&CC opportunity of hearing.

(i) In the event there is any subsisting order of any HighCourt or any Court subordinate to such High Court covering anyof the issues dealt with by this Court in this order, this orderGshall prevail over any such order which may be contrary to thesedirections. [Para 44][1163-B-D, G-H; 1164-A-H; 1165-G-H; 1166-A-C]

Goa Foundation v. Union of India(2011) 15 SCC 79; M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Others(1997) 1 SCC

H

388 : [1996] 10 Suppl. SCR 12;Goa Foundation v.Union of India and Others(2014) 6 SCC 590 : [2014]5 SCR 302 – referred to.

Case Law Reference

Civil Original Jurisdiction : I.A. No.1000 of 2003(Recommendation Of Cec Dated 20.11.2003) With I.A. Nos.982-984 of 2003 And I.A. Nos.1026-1028 of 2004 And I.A. Nos. 1123-1124 of 2004 And I.A. Nos.1197-1199 of 2004 And I.A. Nos. 1210-1211of 2004 And I.A. Nos.1250-1251 of 2004 And I.A. No. 1412 of 2005 And I.A. No. 1512 of 2006 And I.A. No. 1992 of 2007And I.A. No. 3880 of 2015 And I.A. No. 96949 of 2019 AndI.A. No. 117831 of 2019 And I.A. No. 65571 of 2021.

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995.

(Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India)

Balbir Singh, ASG, Saurabh Mishra and Nikhil Goel, AAGs, A.D.N.Rao, Sr. Adv. [A.C.], Ms. Aparajita Singh, Sr. Adv. [A.C.], Nalin Kohli,Dr. Manish Singhvi, Siddharth Bhatnagar, V. K. Shukla, Sr. Advs.,Siddhartha Chowdhury, Adv. [A.C.], Rahul Mishra, Amit P. Sahi, D.Shiva Shankar, Ms. Ananya Khandhelwal, Agrimaa Singh, M R. ChanchalKumar Ganguli, Syed Mehdi Imam, T. Harish Kumar, M/S. Mitter &Mitter Co., M/S. Lawyer S Knit & Co, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, ShuvodeepRoy, Ankit Roy, Ishaan Borthakur, Ms. Nimisha Menon,. Shri.Gaichangpou Gangmei, Raj Kishor Choudhary, Umesh Bhagwat, E. C.Agrawala, Ranjan Mukherjee, Gopal Singh, Jitendra Mohan Sharma,Ms. C. K. Sucharita, Mrs. B. Sunita Rao, Ejaz Maqbool, M/S. CorporateLaw Group, Himanshu Shekhar, P. N. Gupta, Ms. K. Enatoli Sema,Amit Kumar Singh, Ms. Chubalemla Chong, Raghvendra Kumar, AnandKr. Dubey, Ms. Rajlakshmi Singh, Nishant Verma, Rajiv Kumar Sinha,Simanta Kumar, Sunil Saraogi, Narendra Kumar, Mahfooz A. Nazki,Polanki Gowtham, Shaik Mohamad Haneef, T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy,K.V. Girish Chowdary, Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, Ms. Aruna Gupta,Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Abhimanyu Tewari, Ms. Eliza Bar, Suhaan Mukerji,Nikhil Parikshith, Vishal Prasad, Abhishek Manchanda, Sayandeep Pahari, A

B

C

D

EF

GH

A

B

C

D

EF

GH

ATanmay Sinha, PLR Chambers & Co., Avijit Mani Tripathi, T.K. Nayak,Upendra Mishra, P.S. Negi, S.R. Kochhar, Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, Ms.Madhu Moolchandani, Mohd. Irshad Hanif, Naresh K. Sharma, JaiPrakash Pandey, Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, C. L. Sahu, Ms. Abha R.Sharma, S. R. Setia, Rajat Joseph, Mrs. Nandini Gore, M/S. M. V. Kini& Associates, Pradeep Kumar Bakshi, Ms. Divya Roy, Radha ShyamBJena, Ms. Charu Mathur, T. V. George, Neeraj Shekhar, E. M. S. Anam,Ms. S. Janani, Surya Kant, Amit Anand Tiwari, Mrs. Bina Gupta, M/S.K J John And Co, S. C. Birla, Ms. K. V. Bharathi Upadhyaya, PunitDutt Tyagi, Ratan Kumar Choudhuri, Ms. Binu Tamta, Tejaswi KumarPradhan, Pawan Kumar Sharma, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Ms. SujataCKurdukar, Shibashish Misra, Mrs. M. Qamaruddin, Ms. Baby Krishnan,B V Deepak, Sudhir Kumar Gupta, Irshad Ahmad, Rauf Rahim, RajeevSingh, Ramesh Babu M. R., Shiva Pujan Singh, K. V. Vijayakumar, SaradKumar Singhania, Hitesh Kumar Sharma, S. K. Rajora, AkhileshwarJha, Vivek Sharma, Ms. Meenakshi Kamble, Kuldip Singh, Mrs. RekhaPandey, Avijit Bhattacharjee, Ms. Malini Poduval, Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari,DKamal Mohan Gupta, Rajesh,. Lakshmi Raman Singh, Ashok Mathur,Gopal Prasad, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, P. V.Yogeswaran, Ms. A. Sumathi, Ajit Pudussery, M. C. Dhingra, Ms. SumitaHazarika, Abhishek Chaudhary, T. Mahipal, M/S. Arputham Aruna AndCo, Raj Kumar Mehta, K. L. Janjani, Tarun Johri, Ram Swarup Sharma,EA. Venayagam Balan, Krishnanand Pandeya, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair,Rakesh K. Sharma, Mrs. Kanchan Kaur Dhodi, E. C. Vidya Sagar, IshKaran Singh Chhabra, Shiv Singh Yadav, Ms. Saifali Mitra, Mrs. RaniChhabra, V. Balachandran, P. R. Ramasesh, Rajiv Mehta, Rathin Das,Sudhir Kulshreshtha, Ms. Pratibha Jain, Prashant Kumar, P.Parmeswaran, E.R. Kumar, Lalit Chauhan, Abhiram Naik, Ms. NitikaFPandey for M/S Parekh and Co., H. S. Parihar, Ms. Bina Madhavan, T.N. Singh, A. N. Arora, G. Prakash, Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay, SudarshMenon, Vikrant Singh Bais, Rajesh Singh, M. Yogesh Kanna, SomeshChandra Jha, Adarsh Nain, Ms. Ruchira Goel, Mrinal Gopal Elker, Ms.Samridhi Jain, Sunny Choudhury, Ms. Seita Vaidyalingam, SiddharthaGJha, V.N. Raghupathy, P. K. Manohar, Nishanth Patil, Vinod Sharma,Arpit Parkash, Sandeep Kumar Jha, D.L.Chidananda, Ms. Suhasini Sen,Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Salvador Santosh Rebello, Shyam Gopal,Sughosh Subramanyam, Neeraj K. Sharma, Harsh Singhal, Ms. PriyankaSharma, Manish Tiwari, Prahil Sharma, Ms. Manjula Chaurasia,Harender Singh, Mukesh Verma, Ms. Indira Bhakar, G. S. Makker,H

Sandeep Dubey, Ambuj Saraswat, James P. Thomas, Ms. VanshajaShukla, Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., Sarojanand Jha, Karan Sharma, Ms.Precheta Kar, Aditya Sidhra, Nadeem Afroz, M. R. Shamshad, Ms.Shalini Kaul, Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Ashiwan Mishra, Kamlendra Mishra,S. Gowthaman, Guntur Pramod Kumar, Shubhranshu Padhi, P. S. Sudheer,D. K. Garg, Dinesh K. Garg, Dhananjay Garg, Abhishek Garg, AbhinavMukerji, Mrs. Pragya Baghel, Dr. Monika Gusain, Harim Om Yaduvanshi,Nishe Rajen Shonker, Ms. Anu K. Joy, Alim Anvar, Anando Mukherjee,Gopal Balwant Sathe, Naveen Kumar, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Ms.Deepanwita Priyanka, P. Venkat Reddy, Prashant Tyagi, P. SrinivasReddy, M/s. Venkat Palwai Law Associates, Kaushik Choudhury, SachinPatil, Rahul Chitnis, Aaditya A. Pande, Geo Joseph, Ms. Shwetal Shepal,Ms. Nupur Sharma, Shobhit Dwivedi, Sanjeev Kumar Mahara, B. K.Pal, Saket Singh, Ms. Sangeeta Singh, Ms. Somyashree, Ms. NiranjanaSingh, Chirag M. Shroff, Amandeep Mehta, Abhishek Atrey, AjayMarwah, Sarvam Ritam Khare, Narendra Kumar, M/S. Cyril AmarchandMangaldas Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Aravindh S., Ms. C. Rubavathi,Advs. for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.

These proceedings originate from the Writ Petition under Article32 of the Constitution of India registered as W.P. (Civil) No. 202 of 1995(T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors.), which is inthe nature of a public interest litigation. It was instituted for protection offorest 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 naturalresources throughout the country. The original writ petitioner has sincepassed away (on 1[st] June 2016) but in an order passed on 3[rd] February2017, this Court opined that being a public interest litigation, there wasno requirement for bringing on record the legal representatives of thedeceased petitioner. The writ petition, in substance, continued with thecause title “in Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India &Ors”. Various Orders have been passed from time to time in this writpetition to ensure preservation of forest resources of this country inbalance with economic activities. By an Order of this Court dated 9[th]May 2002, a Central Empowered Committee (“CEC”) was directed tobe formed primarily for monitoring implementation of this Court’s ordersand to place the incidents of non-compliance before us. Subsequently, AB

CD

EF

GH

Aby a notification issued on 17[th] September 2002 by the Ministry ofEnvironment and Forest in exercise of power under Section 3(3) of theEnvironment (Protection) Act, 1986, this committee was constituted understatutory provisions. CEC has been bringing to the notice of this Courtthe steps taken for removal of encroachment, implementation of working plans, compensatory afforestation, plantation and other conservationBissues. In this order, we shall be mainly dealing with two sets of issues.The first set relates to mining activities in and around a wildlife sanctuaryin the State of Rajasthan- known as “Jamua Ramgarh” (also spelt asJamwa Ramgarh). The second set of issues is wider in scope, and involvesprescribing eco-sensitive zones (ESZ) surrounding the wildlife sanctuariesCand national parks. The subject of mining and other commercial activitieswithin the wildlife sanctuaries and national parks (protected forests) shallalso be dealt by us in this order. The applications before us requireexamination in the perspective of a set of recommendations made bythe CEC and we have been urged by a set of applicants to make certainmodifications of this Court’s earlier directions concerning steps to beDtaken for protection of forest resources. The applicants seekingmodifications of our earlier orders include a set of miners, and, in somecases, the State Governments asking for opening up of the protectedforest areas and their buffer zones, on which restrictions have beenplaced in by our earlier orders, for commercial exploitation. There isEdispute as to what would constitute the buffer zones on ESZ in respectof national parks and wildlife sanctuaries, as there are divergence ofviews among the various stakeholders.

2. The present set of applications arise out of a report of the CECdated 20[th] November 2003. This report specifically pertains to JamuaFRamgarh wildlife sanctuary. This sanctuary covers an area of about 300square kilometres. The said report gives a horrific picture of ravaging ofa protected forest mainly by private miners mostly with temporary workingpermits obtained from the Governmental agencies. Followingrecommendations were made in this report:- G“17……… (i) all mining leases which wholly or partly fallwithin the forest area inside the Jamua Ramgarh Sanctuaryand also within the safety zone, should be immediatelycancelled. The mining activity can be allowed to be resumedonly after the new/amended mining leases, after excludingthe forest area and the safety zone are sanctioned by theH

competent authority and the conditions mentioned hereinunder are fully complied with;

(ii) presently a safety zone of twenty five meter has been fixedfor Jamua Ramgarh Sanctuary and other sanctuaries inRajasthan as against 500 meter for Ranthambhore NationalPark in Rajasthan itself. In Madhya Pradesh safety zone of250 meter for all the 20 forest area has been fixed. The CECis of the view that minimum 500 meter safety zone aroundNational Parks and Sanctuaries is necessary where no mining,construction and other projects should be allowed. Without areasonable safety zone the habitat and wild life in the NationalParks and Sanctuaries are adversely affected. Althoughstringent conditions are imposed at the time of the sanctionof the mining leases, none are practically complied with dueto weak enforcement of the laws. The mining causes heavydisturbance in the area due to blasting, removal of overburden, chiseling, transportation, flying debris and movementof a large number of labourers and other persons. The safetyzone of twenty five meter presently prescribed by the RajasthanForest Department is totally in adequate as the rocks tornapart during blasting can travel much beyond the presentsafety zone. However, increasing the safety zone to the desiredlevel of 500 meter will result in closure of large number ofmines. Taking a holistic overall view of the situation, the CECrecommends that for the Jamua Ramgarh wild life sanctuary,for the “existing” mines the safety zone may be fixed as 100meter wherein no mining should be permitted. “For new”mining leases the safety zone may be fixed as 500 meter.

(iii) reclamation and rehabilitation of the area mined insidethe sanctuary should be carried out in a time bound mannerat the cost of the user agency for which a detailed reclamationand rehabilitation plan along with various items of work, costinvolved and time frame should be prepared and implementedon priority basis. The plan presently prepared by the StateGovernment is totally in adequate. It does not provide forreclamation and rehabilitation of the mining pits at all. Noprovision for removal of stones and rocks scattered in thesanctuary has been made. Intensive plantations and protection AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

has not been provided. The revised plan should incorporatethe above and other necessary measures to provide a congenialhabitat for wild life. In the event adequate funds for thispurpose cannot be recovered from the erstwhile mine leaseowners, the same should be made available by the StateGovernment; A

B

(iv) mining around the sanctuary should be allowed to restartonly after a fool proof mechanism is put in place to ensurerecovery of funds for implementation of reclamation andrehabilitation plan by the State Government; C(v) exemplary compensation equivalent to the present marketvalue of the entire mineral removed by the respective mineowners by mining inside the sanctuary in violation of the F.C.Act and/or the W. P. Act should be recovered from them on thebasis of the recorded production or the estimated figuresmentioned in the F.C. Act applications. The money soDrecovered should be used for protection and development ofthe sanctuary to its full potential;

(vi) the left over minerals scattered inside the sanctuary shouldbe directed to be removed immediately.

E(vii) the left over mining equipments such as cranes etc. shouldbe confiscated and removed outside the sanctuary at the costof the erstwhile mine lease holders;

(viii) no mining should be permitted adjoining the sanctuarytill the boundary of the sanctuary is demarcated on the groundFand the boundary pillars are verified with the fixed referencepoints;

(ix) disciplinary action should be taken in a time boundmanner against the erring officials in the Mines and the ForestDepartments of the State of Rajasthan and the MoEF forallowing mining in violation of the F.C. Act, the W. P. Act and/Gor this Hon’ble Court’s order;”

3. This Court had converted this report with its set ofrecommendations into an Interlocutory Application and was allocatedHregistration number I.A. 1000 of 2003.

4. On 20[th] September 2012, a second report was submitted by theCEC. The recommendations made in the second report went beyondthe Jamua Ramgarh Sanctuary and dealt with creation of identificationand declaration of safety zones around protected forests all across thecountry. The question of having ESZ around the protected forests wasexamined 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 writpetition, the following order was passed on 4[th] December 2006 [reportedin (2011) 15 SCC 791]: - “4. The Ministry is directed to give a final opportunity to allStates/Union Territories to respond to its letter dated 27-5-2005. The State of Goa also is permitted to give appropriateproposal in addition to what is said to have already been sentto the Central Government. The communication sent to theStates/Union Territories shall make it clear that if theproposals are not sent even now within a period of four weeksof receipt of the communication from the Ministry, this Courtmay have to consider passing orders for implementation ofthe decision that was taken on 21-1- 2002, namely,notification of the areas within 10 km. of the boundaries ofthe sanctuaries and national parks as eco-sensitive areas witha view to conserve the forest, wildlife and environment, andhaving regard to the precautionary principles. If the States/Union Territories now fail to respond, they would do so attheir own risk and peril”.

5. Two writ petitions have been instituted titled as Goa Foundationv. Union of India [W.P. (Civil) No.460 of 2004] and Goa Foundationv. Union of India and Others [W.P. (Civil) No.435 of 2012], in relationenforcement of various circulars issued for enforcement of environmentallaws and to prevent illegal mining in different States including the Stateof Goa. There are certain overlapping issues involved in the present writpetition and the cases of Goa Foundation (supra). The directions whichwe propose to issue in this judgment/order shall take into account theorders passed in the cases of Goa Foundation (supra) and such directionsshall be supplemental to the orders passed in any of the aforesaid twowrit petitions if our directions passed in this order relate to areas orsubjects covered by any mandate passed in the said two writ petitions.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

A6. A set of Guidelines for Declaration of Eco-Sensitive Zones(ESZ) around National Park and Wildlife Sanctuaries had been formulatedby the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC)of the Government of India on 9[th] February 2011 [F. No.1-9/2007 WL –I (pt)]. These Guidelines deal with the process and procedures to beadopted for declaring ESZ. In Clauses 3 and 4 of these Guidelines, it hasBbeen stipulated: - “3. Purpose for declaring Eco-Sensitive Zones:

The purpose of declaring Eco-sensitive Zones around NationalParks and Sanctuaries is to create some kind of “ShockAbsorber” for the Protected Areas. They would also act as atransition zone from areas of high protection to areas involvinglesser protection. As has been decided by the National Boardfor Wildlife, the activities in the Eco-sensitive zones would beof a regulatory nature rather than prohibitive nature, unlessand otherwise so required.

C

D

4. Extent of Eco-Sensitive Zones:

4.1 Many of the existing Protected Areas have alreadyundergone tremendous development in close vicinity to theirboundaries. Some of the Protected Areas actually lying in theurban setup (Eg. Guindy National Park, Tamil Nadu, SanjayEGandhi National Park, Maharashtra, etc). Therefore, definingthe extent of eco-sensitive zones around Protected Areas willhave to be kept flexible and Protected Area specific. The widthof the Eco-sensitive Zone and type of regulations will differfrom Protected Area to Protected Area. However, as a generalprinciple the width of the Eco-sensitive Zone could go up toF10 Kms around a Protected Area as provided in the WildlifeConservation Strategy-2002.

E

4.2 In case where sensitive corridors, connectivity andecologically important patches, crucial for landscape linkage,are even beyond 10 kms width, these should be included inthe Eco-sensitive Zone.

G

4.3 Further, even in context of a particular Protected Area,the distribution of an area of Eco-sensitive Zone and the extentof regulation may not be uniform all around and it could beof variable width and extent.”

H

IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OFINDIA AND ORS. [ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.]

7. In Clauses 6 and 7 of the said Guidelines, it has been specified:- “6. The procedure to be adopted:

6.1 As has been indicated in the forgoing paras, the basicaim is to regulate certain activities around National Park andWildlife Sanctuary so as to minimize the negative impacts ofsuch activities on the fragile ecosystem encompassing theProtected Area. As a first step towards achieving this goal, itis a pre-requisite that an inventory of the different land usepatterns and the different types of activities, types and numberof industries operating around each of the Protected Area(National Parks, Sanctuaries) as well as important Corridorsbe made. The inventory could be done by the concerned RangeOfficers, who can take a stock of activities within 10 km ofhis range.

6.2 For the above purpose, a small committee comprising theconcerned Wildlife Warden, an Ecologist, an official from theLocal Self Government and an official of the RevenueDepartment of the concerned area, could be formed. The saidcommittee could suggest the:

(i) Extent of eco-sensitive zones for the Protected Area beingconsidered.

(ii) The requirement of such a zone to act as a shock absorber.

(iii) To suggest the best methods for management of the eco-sensitive zones, so suggested.

(iv) To suggest broad based thematic activities to be includedin the Master Plan for the region.

6.3 Based on the above, the Chief Wildlife Warden could group the activities under the following categories (an indicativelist of such activities is attached as ANNEXURE-1):-

(i) Prohibited

(ii) Restricted with safeguards.

(iii) Permissible

6.4 Once the proposal for Eco-sensitive zones has beenfinalized, the same may be forwarded to the Ministry of A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

AEnvironment and Forests for further processing andnotification. Here, it may be noted that, the State/ UnionTerritory Forest Department could forward the proposals tothe respective authority in the State Government with copy tothe Ministry of Environment and Forests, as and when theproposals (even if it is for single Protected Area) are complete.BAn indicative list of details that need to be submitted alongwith the proposals is at ANNEXURE-2.

A

6.5 It is to mention here that in cases where the boundary ofa Protected Area abuts the boundary of another State/UnionTerritory where it does not form part of any Protected Area, itshall be the endeavour of both the State/ Union TerritoryGovernments to have a mutual consultation and decide uponthe width of the ecosensitive zone around the Protected Areain question.

C

6.6 The State Government should endeavour to convey a veryDstrong message to the public that ESZ are not meant to hampertheir day to day activities, but instead, is meant to protect theprecious forests/Protected Areas in their locality from anynegative impact, and also to refine the environment aroundthe Protected Areas. A copy of the notification of the SultanpurEEco-sensitive Zone issued by the Ministry is attached herewithat ANNEXURE-3 for reference and guidance.

D

7. These guidelines are indicative in nature and the State /Union Territory Governments may use these as basicframework to develop specific guidelines applicable in theFcontext of their National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuaries,important corridors, etc. with a view to minimizing andpreferably eliminating any negative impact on protectedareas.”

G

G8. As per the said Guidelines, commercial mining, setting up ofsaw mills and industries causing pollution, commercial use of firewood,establishment of major hydro-electric projects, use of production of anyhazardous substances, undertaking activities related to tourism like over-flying the national park area by any aircraft, hot-air balloons, dischargeof effluents and solid waste in natural water bodies or terrestrial areasH

have been proposed to be made prohibited activities. Certain otheractivities having lesser environment damaging potential have beenproposed to be regulated.

9. By an order passed on 4[th] August 2006, this Court had, inter-alia, restrained grant of temporary working permits for mining withinsafety zones around any national park/wildlife sanctuary declared underSections 18, 26-A or 35 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. As aninterim measure, direction was issued to maintain one kilometre safetyzone, which was subject to the orders that may be made in the presentIA (I.A. No.1000 of 2003).

10. The second report of the CEC dated 20[th] September 2012makes the following recommendations as regards identification anddeclaration of ESZ. This report entitled “Note regarding safety zones(Eco-sensitive zones) around National Parks and WildlifeSanctuaries” makes the following recommendations:- “10. After considering that during the last ten years nosignificant progress has been made regarding identificationand declaration of Safety Zones around protected areas andconsidering the matter in its totality, an implementable schemehas been prepared by the CEC and which has been dealt within subsequent paragraphs.

11. For the purpose of identification and declaration of theSafety Zones around National Parks/Wildlife Sanctuaries(hereinafter referred to as protected areas), the protectedareas based on their areas, are classified into four categories:

i) CATEGORY-A - the protected areas having an area of 500sq. km. or more. The total number of such protected areas is73 and their total area is about 1,01,389 sq. km (63.44 % oftotal area of protected areas);

ii) CATEGORY-B - the protected areas having an areabetween 200 sq. km. to 500 sq. km. The total number of suchprotected areas is 115 and their total area is about 38942 sq.km. (24.37 % of total area of protected areas);

iii) CATEGORY-C - the protected areas having an areabetween 100 sq. km. to 200 sq. km. The total number of suchprotected areas is 85 and their total area is about 12,066 sq.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

km (about 7.55 % of total area of protected areas); and

iv) CATEGORY-D - the protected areas having an area up to100 sq. km. The total number of such protected areas is 344and their total area is about 7,422 sq. km (about 4.65 % oftotal area of all protected areas).

12. Wherever two or more protected areas are contiguous toeach other, such protected areas will be placed in theappropriate 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 aregiven below:

i) Corbett National Park (520 sq. km.) and SonanadiSanctuary (301 sq. km) - total area is 821 sq. km andtherefore both will fall in Category-A;

ii) Gir National Park (258 sq. km.) and Gir Sanctuary(1,153 sq. km.) - total area is 1,411 sq. km. and thereforeboth will fall in Category-A;

iii) Periyar National Park (350 sq. km.) and PeriyarSanctuary (427 sq. km.) - total area is 777 sq. km. andtherefore both will fall in Category-A;

iv) Satpura National Park (585 sq. km.), Bori Sanctuary(485 sq. km.) and Pachmarhi Sanctuary (417 sq. km.) -total area is 1488 sq. km. and therefore all three will fall inCategory-A;

iv) Valmiki National Park (335 sq. km.) and ValmikiSanctuary (545 sq. km.) - total area is 880 sq . km. andtherefore both will fall in Category-A;

vi) Tadoba National Park (116 sq. km.) and Andhari WildlifeSanctuary (509 sq. km.) - total area is 625 sq. km. andtherefore both will fall in Category-A; and

vii) Sariska National Park (273 sq. km.) and SariskaSanctuary (219 sq. km.) - total area is 492 sq. km. andtherefore both will fall in Category-B;

13. The Safety Zone, in respect of protected areas falling in‘Category-A and Category-B, may comprise of all the areas including non-forest areas falling within a distance of twokilometers and one kilometer respectively from the boundariesof the protected area. Such distances, in respect of protectedareas falling within Category-C and Category-D, may be keptat 500 meter and 100 meter respectively.

14. The grant/renewal of mining leases (excluding forcollection of boulders, gravel and sand from river beds),setting up of hazardous industries, brick kilns, wood basedindustries (except MDF/Particle Boards Plants) will be treatedas prohibited activities within the Safety Zone (eco-sensitivezones). The activities such as setting up of industries (otherthan those included in the list of prohibited activities), hotelsand restaurants including resorts, commercial helicopterservices, hydel projects, irrigations projects, canals, layingof transmission lines and distribution lines above 33 KV, roadsof more than five meter width and collection of boulders,gravel and sand from the river beds will be treated as regulatedactivities and which will be permissible only after obtainingenvironment clearance and clearance of the StandingCommittee, National Board for Wildlife. All other activitieswhich are not prescribed as prohibited activities or regulatedactivities will be treated as permissible activities.

15. The concerned State/UT will be at liberty to shift aprotected area from a lower category to higher category (sayfrom Category-C to Category-B) after considering theimportance of the protected area on account of:

i) presence of flagship species/endangered species such asTiger, Lion, Elephant, Rhino, Snow Leopard, Red Panda,Hangul, Musk deer, Great Indian Bustard, Lion TailedMacaque, floricans;

ii) fragile eco-system such as Western Ghats, North EasternStates, areas having high altitude flora and fauna, rain forest,mangroves, marine eco-system;

iii) World Heritage sites; and

iv) Wetland eco-systems

16. The concerned State/UT Governments may after detailedexamination of the status of habitation, existing industries A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

1140SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Aand other activities and other relevant factors, and, if founddesirable and in public interest forward the proposal(s) forshifting a protected area from a higher category to a lowercategory. They may also forward the proposal(s) for exclusionof the areas of cities falling within the Safety Zone. The MoEFthereafter will examine such proposals and place suchBproposals before the Standing Committee of the NationalBoard for Wildlife for its consideration. The proposals clearedby the Standing Committee of the NBWL will be placed beforethis Hon’ble Court for seeking its permission. It is only afterobtaining the permission of this Hon’ble Court that a protectedCarea may be shifted from a higher category to a lower category.

17. The Safety Zones (eco-sensitive zones) around NationalParks and Wildlife Sanctuaries will be in addition to thefollowing eco-sensitive zones notified by the MoEF (and byother notifications, if any):

Di) S.O. 20(E), (6/1/1989) - Prohibiting industries on Murud-Janijira, District Raigadh, Maharashtra;

ii) S.O. 102(E), (1/2/1989) - Restricting location of industries,mining & other activities in Doon Valley (UP); Eiii) S.0. 416(E), (20/6/1991) - Dahanu Taluka, District Thane(Maharashtra) to declare as Ecologically Fragile Area,amended 1999;

iv) S.0.319(E), (7/5/1992) - Restricting certain activitiescausing environmental degradation at Aravalli Range; Fv) S.0. 481 (E), (5/7/1996) - No Development Zone atNumaligarh, East of Kaziranga;

vi) S.0. 884(E), (19/12/1996) - Dahanu Taluka EnvironmentProtection Authority, 1996, amended 2001 ;

vii) S.0. 350(E), (13/5/1998) - Order constituting the TajGTrapezium Zone Pollution (Prevent and Control) Authority;viii) S.0. 825(E), (17.9.1998) - Pachmarhi Region as an Eco-Sensitive Zone;

ix) S.0. 52(E), (17/1/2001) Mahabaleswar Panchgani Regionas an Eco-Sensitive Zone; H

x) S.0. 133 (E), (4/2/2003) - Matheran and surroundingregion as an Eco-Sensitive Zone

1. S.0. 83 (E), (16/01/2004) - Amendments to S.O. 133(E)dated 4/2/2003;

xi) S.0. 1545(E), (25/06/2009), Mount Abu as Eco-SensitiveZone.

xii) S.0. 1260(E), (31/05/2012) - Girnar Reserve Forest asEco-Sensitive Zone.

18. It is respectfully submitted that the above proposals aresubmitted in the back-drop of inordinate delay that has takenplace in the identification and declaration of Safety Zonesaround National Parks/ Wildlife Sanctuaries and so as toensure that the process of such declarations do not remainpending indefinitely.”

11. To the said report, another supplementary note dated 18[th]January 2013 has been submitted. This report is also in connection withnotifying the ESZ around protected forests. The following passage fromthis report is relevant: - “4. After considering the inordinate delay which has alreadytaken place in notifying the safety zone around NationalParks/ Wildlife Sanctuaries and considering the groundsituation as it exists, the CEC is of the considered view that itmay be appropriate that an early decision is taken regardingthe safety zones around National Park/ Sanctuaries. Theproposal submitted by the CEC while ensuring that effectiverestrictions and regulations are put in place immediately andimplemented in an objective manner also, after detailedexamination, provides for adequate flexibility to modify theareas of the safety zones.”

12. In connection with the I.A. No.1000 of 2003, several otherapplications have been filed, mainly by miners concerning the JamuaRamgarh wildlife sanctuary. The order passed on 4[th] August 2006 bythis Court [reported in (2010) 13 SCC 740] in relation to grant of A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

Atemporary working permits was made subjecting them to compliance ofcertain pre conditions. These preconditions, inter-alia, were: - “19. (i) TWPs can only be granted for the renewal of miningleases, and not where the lease is being granted for the firsttime to the applicant user agency; B

(ii) The mine is not located inside any national park/sanctuarynotified under Sections 18, 26-A or 35 of the Wild Life(Protection) Act, 1972;

(iii) The grant of TWP would not result in any mining activitywithin the safety zone around such areas referred to inPrecondition (ii) above (as an interim measure, one kilometresafety zone shall be maintained subject to the orders that maybe made in IA No. 1000 regarding Jamua RamgarhSanctuary); C

(iv) The user agency who has broken up the area of the mineD(in respect of which TWP is being sought) has or had therequisite environmental clearances and at no time prior tothe grant of the TWP was any mining being carried on by theuser agency in relation to the mine in question, in violation ofthe provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act (for short “theEFC Act”). In cases involving violation of the FC Act, a formaldecision on merit should be taken under the FC Act afterconsidering the gravity of the violation. However, the grantof a TWP may be considered where past violations have beenregularised by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (forshort “MoEF”) by the grant of an approval under the FC ActFwith retrospective effect; D

D

(v) The conditions attached to the approval under the FC Actfor the grant of the mining lease (or the renewal of the mininglease) have been fulfilled, particularly those in respect of (butnot limited to) compensatory afforestation, reclamation planand overburden dumping on the specified site; G

(vi) The user agency has, within the stipulated time, alreadyfiled a proposal in conformity with the Forest (Conservation)Rules, 1980 for seeking an approval under the FC Act alongwith the complete details as are required to be furnished. Anapplication for the grant of TWP in favour of the user H

agencies, who have either not filed a proper proposal and/orhave not provided complete information, particularly inrespect of (but not limited to) compensatory afforestation,phased reclamation plan, felling of trees, details of mineralsextracted in the past, etc. should not be entertained;

(vii) A TWP shall be granted only limited to working in thearea broken up legally and during the validity of the lease.No TWP can be granted in respect of, or extending to eitherunbroken area or the areas which have been broken afterthe expiry of the mining lease or have been broken in violationof the FC Act or any other law for the time being in force;

(viii) In no circumstances can the duration of a TWP extendbeyond the period of one year. Where an application for thegrant of permission under the FC Act is not disposed of duringthe currency of TWP, the applicant, on the strength of thesame TWP, may continue to operate for a period not exceedingthree months unless specific orders are obtained from thisCourt; and

(ix) A valid lease under the MMRD Act exists [including byway of a deemed extension in terms of Rule 24-A(6) of theMineral Concession Rules] in respect of the area of the TWP.”

13. We shall now briefly refer to the individual I.A.s filed inconnection with I.A No. 1000 of 2003:-

(i) Applicants in I.A. Nos. 982-984 of 2003, 1026-1028 of 2004,1123-1124 of 2004, 1197-1199 of 2004, 1210-1211 of 2004, 1250-1251 of 2004 and 1512 of 2006 are firms who claim to be mininglease holders or their representative bodies seeking impleadmentin I.A. No. 1000 of 2003 as also other reliefs. All these applicants(barring the applicant in I.A. No.1512, i.e. M/s. Andhi Marbles)seek impleadment in the present proceeding. All of them also seekcertain direction that might allow them to carry on mining activities.Among them, M/s. Jaipur Mineral Development Syndical PrivateLimited (I.A. Nos.1123-1124 of 2004) has taken a plea that Section66(4) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 was not applicableto it and in that regard a pending Writ Petition instituted by them inthe High Court of Rajasthan (Writ Petition No. 570 of 2002) hasbeen cited. In the said application permission has been sought for A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

restarting the mining activities in non-forest area. Directions havealso been asked to prevent initiation of penal proceedings againstthe applicant under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

(ii) The applicant in I.A. Nos.982-984 of 2003 is one Smt. MaganDevi Meena. Her case is that she was allotted mining area whichis outside the reserve forest/sanctuary in Thali village and fallsoutside Pillar no. 407 (the demarcation point of forest/sanctuaryarea). She essentially questions legality of the letter dated 30[th]May 2003 issued by the Mining Engineer Jaipur, office of MiningEngineer & Geology Department, Jaipur, Rajasthan stopping miningoperation in the disputed area of Jamua Ramgarh WildlifeSanctuary and pending completion of demarcation.

(iii) In I.A. Nos. 1210-1211 of 2004, the applicant is MadhuAgarwal. Her prayer is for fresh demarcation of the Pillar no.1 toPillar no.428 around the said sanctuary and she has also soughtdirections on the State Government to release the excess landfrom the reserve forest area after fresh demarcation. The applicantin this case has been involved in mining of dolomite in JamuaRamgarh Tehsil in the area known as Rayanwala of Digota ForestBlock 61.

(iv) I.A. Nos. 1250-1251 of 2004 has been taken out by BhushanSharma, successor in interest of one Sharda Devi, who was theoriginal allottee of mining around the Jamua Ramgarh WildlifeSanctuary. It is the case of the applicant that his operations havebeen stopped by letter dated 30[th] May 2003 issued by the MiningEngineer Jaipur, office of Mining Engineer & Geology Department,Jaipur, Rajasthan in the disputed area of Jamua RamgarhSanctuary. Survey had revealed that mining activities were beingcarried on inside the wildlife sanctuary. The report of CEC dated27[th] May 2003 found number of mines operating around or in twovillages, Sankotda and Thali, which were within the sanctuaryand the CEC also found that the earlier finding of a Committeecould not be taken as conclusive proof that the area involved wasa non-forest land and fell outside the sanctuary. The State ofRajasthan, however, has taken a stand in their affidavit affirmedon 15[th] April 2004 that delineation and demarcation of theboundaries have already been done.

(v) In I.A. No. 1512 of 2006, M/s. Andhi Marbles Pvt. Ltd arethe applicants. They have prayed for permission to resume miningoperations excluding the land to the extent of 100 metres from theforest/sanctuary.

(vi) In I.A. No. 3880 of 2015, the applicant is the State ofRajasthan. Prayer has been made in this application for appropriatedirection for issuing the ESZ of wildlife sanctuaries and nationalparks and to keep in abeyance a letter issued by CEC on 21[st]October 2014 by which one kilometre distance has been requiredto be maintained in respect of mining activities from the boundariesof the National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries. Certain otherclarifications have also been sought as regards the order of thisCourt passed on 4[th] August 2006 and we shall deal with the saidissues later in this judgment. The State of Rajasthan has filedseveral other affidavits and the common theme of these affidavitsis for lifting the restrictions and permit mining activities in andaround the protected forests to energise the economy of the State.The State seeks permission for subsisting mining activities tooperate outside the protected forests and ESZ. It is also theirstand that most of the mining areas in Jamua Ramgarh Sanctuarywere sanctioned prior to coming into operation of Forest(Conservation) Act, 1980 and declaration of the said sanctuaryon 31[st] May 1982.

14. Apart from mining activities in the Jamua Ramgarh Sanctuary,applications have also been taken out in relation to the CEC reports asthe said reports deal with protected forests all across the country andcontemplate uniform ESZ norms for their protection. On 14[th] July 2003,the recommendations of CEC dated 27[th] December 2002 were acceptedby this Court in I.A. No.887 of 2003. The said application related towood based industries in the State of Maharashtra, and, inter-alia,concerned 64 saw mills. That application was disposed of with a directionfor consideration of their cases within a period of two months and if theywere found eligible, their applications were directed to be sent to theCEC. The latter was to submit a report and the State of Maharashtrawas directed to abide by the aforesaid recommendations.

(i) In I.A. No.1412 of 2005, the applicants are Maharashtra TimberLaghu Udyog Mahasangha alongwith the Poona Timber Merchant(owners of saw mills in the State of Maharashtra). They want A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A

Aclarification of the order of this Court passed in I.A. No.887 of2003 for consideration of the cases of 64 saw mill owners forgrant for grant of license as per notification dated 16[th] July 1981issued by the State of Maharashtra amending the Bombay ForestRules, 1942. This Court had directed in the aforesaid order (of14[th] July 2003) that the cases of the applicants may be examinedBby the State Government within a period of two months and ifthey are found eligible, their applications could be sent to the CECwho might submit a report to this Court. In the present applicationthe applicants want grant of license considering condition no.3 ofthe Government’s Notification dated 16[th] July 1981.

C

(ii) Applicants in I.A. No. 117831 of 2019 are Maharashtra TimberLaghu Udyog Mahasangha alongwith the Poona Timber Merchant(64 saw mills owners) in connection with grant of licenses foroperating saw mills. In the present order, we are confining ourexamination of proceedings arising out of I.A. No.1000 of 2003.DAs such, the aforesaid applications ought to be listed independentlybefore the appropriate Bench.

15. The applicant in I.A. No. 96949 of 2019 is the State ofMaharashtra. On 11[th] December 2018, this Court had passed an orderin respect of 21 National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries, which includedEThane Creek Flamingo Sanctuary. This order, inter-alia, records anddirects: - “It is submitted by the learned Amicus that this issue has beenpending since sometime in December, 2006. 12 years havegone-by but no effective steps have been taken by the StateFGovernments in respect of the National Parks and WildlifeSanctuaries mentioned above.

Under the circumstances, we direct that an area of 10 Kmsaround these 21 National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries bedeclared as Eco Sensitive Zone by the MoEF. The declarationbe made by the MoEF at the earliest.

G

Liberty is granted to the State Governments to move anapplication for modification of this order along with proposalonly two weeks after submission of the proposals to the MoEF.List the matters at the end of February, 2019.

H

In the meanwhile, interim order to continue.”

(quoted verbatim from paperbook)

The prayer of the State of Maharashtra in this application is to thefollowing effect: - “A) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to modify its order dated11.12.2018 directing that an area of 10 kilometers aroundThane Creek Flamingo Sanctuary situated in the State ofMaharashtra be declared as Eco Sensitive Zone by theMinistry of Environment and Forest; and

B) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct that the areaof 0-3.5 kilometers as proposed in the proposal submitted bythe State Government on 22.05.2019 to the Ministry ofEnvironment and Forest be declared as Eco Sensitive Zone inrespect of the Thane Creek Flamingo Sanctuary; and

C) Pass any other order and or directions as this Hon’bleCourt may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstancesof the present case.”

16. The other applications in respect of the same sanctuary is byan association of real estate developers, CREDAI-MCHI registered asI.A. No.65571 of 2021. The main prayer in I.A. No.65571 of 2021 is:- “(a) Modify the order dated 11.12.2018 passed by this Hon’bleCourt in I.A. No. 1000 in W.P. (C) No. 202 of 1995 inasmuchas it relates to the Thane Creek Flamingo Sanctuary and directthat the Eco Sensitive Zone around the said Sanctuary shallbe in terms of the proposal dated 10.03.2021 submitted bythe State Government and the Draft Notification dated08.04.2021 published by the Ministry of Environment &Forests, Government of India; and / or

(b) Pass such other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deemfit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

17. The order on 11[th] December 2018 was passed by this Courtas the proposals in respect of 21 National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuarieshad not yet been received by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AClimate Change. Recommendations of CEC as regards maintaining ESZwere made in relation to wildlife sanctuaries and national parks on 20[th]September 2012. As per the order passed on 11[th] December 2018, theproposal of the State Government was to be made before the MoEF&CCand it appears that a draft notification dated 8[th] April 2021 concerningThane Creek Flamingo Sanctuary has already been published by theBMoEF&CC. Let the MoEF&CC take final decision in relation to suchdraft notification as per the provisions of law. Such decision, if alreadytaken, may be placed before this Court one week after reopening of theCourt on conclusion of the summer vacation. If such decision is nottaken, then the decision may be taken as per law within a period of sixCweeks and be placed before us within the same timeframe. This Courtshall consider passing appropriate direction thereafter, upon going throughsuch decision.

18. In I.A. No.1992 of 2007, the M.P. State Mining CorporationLimited has applied for the following reliefs:-D“i. grant permission to file present Application forClarification;

ii. clarify that the directions as contained in interim Orderdated 4.8.2006 of this Hon’ble Court in I.A. Nos.1413, 1414,1454 in I.A. Nos. 1413, 1426, 1428, 1440, 1439, 1441 , 1444-E1445, 1459 and 1460 in Writ Petition (C) No.202 of 1995(T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. UOI & Ors. Pertains onlyto mining activity in Temporary Working Permission (TWP)cases requiring approval under Forest Conservation Act, 1980and that the said directions do not apply to the regular quarryFlease on a revenue land particularly when such quarry leaseis granted to the State owned Mining Corporation by the StateGovernment itself.”

19. So far as this application is concerned, we repeat that in thisGorder, we are dealing with the issues arising out of IA No.1000 of 2003.The scope of this application relates to mining and other activities withinthe national parks and wildlife sanctuaries and maintaining ESZ aroundindividual protected forests. The reliefs asked for by the MP State MiningCorporation Limited in IA No. 1992 of 2007 do not come within theambit of the subject we are addressing in this judgment/order. ThisH

application of the Mining Corporation company is in connection withtemporary working permits in non-forest areas. This application will alsohave to be addressed separately.

20. There are two affidavits of M/s. Andhi Marbles Pvt. Ltdaffirmed on 19[th] February 2004 and 29[th] July 2004 pertaining to JamuaRamgarh Sanctuary. Complaint against said M/s. Andhi Marbles is inrelation to mining leases granted and operated by them. In the CECreport which has been transformed into I.A. No.1000 of 2003, it hasbeen recorded that they were granted mining leases in violation of theForest (Conservation) Act, 1980 as well as the Wild Life (Protection)Act, 1972. They had continued working on the temporary permits afterthe order of this Court dated 12[th] December 1996. In the Order of thisCourt reported in [(1997) 2 SCC 267] it has been inter-alia observed:-

“4. The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was enacted with aview to check further deforestation which ultimately resultsin ecological imbalance; and therefore, the provisions madetherein for the conservation of forests and for mattersconnected therewith, must apply to all forests irrespective ofthe nature of ownership or classification thereof. The word“forest” must be understood according to its dictionarymeaning. This description covers all statutorily recognisedforests, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwisefor the purpose of Section 2(i) of the Forest ConservationAct. The term “forest land”, occurring in Section 2, will notonly include “forest” as understood in the dictionary sense,but also any area recorded as forest in the Government recordirrespective of the ownership. This is how it has to beunderstood for the purpose of Section 2 of the Act. Theprovisions enacted in the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 forthe conservation of forests and the matters connected therewithmust apply clearly to all forests so understood irrespective ofthe ownership or classification thereof. This aspect has beenmade abundantly clear in the decisions of this Court in AmbicaQuarry Works v. State of Gujarat [(1987) 1 SCC 213], RuralLitigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. [1989 Supp(1) SCC 504] and recently in the order dated 29-11-1996(Supreme Court Monitoring Committee v. MussoorieDehradun Development Authority [ WP (C) No 749 of 1995

AB

C

D

EFG

H

Adecided on 29-11-1996] ). The earlier decision of this Courtin State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi [(1985) 3 SCC 643] has,therefore, to be understood in the light of these subsequentdecisions. We consider it necessary to reiterate this settledposition emerging from the decisions of this Court to dispelthe doubt, if any, in the perception of any State GovernmentBor authority. This has become necessary also because of thestand taken on behalf of the State of Rajasthan, even at thislate stage, relating to permissions granted for mining in sucharea which is clearly contrary to the decisions of this Court.It is reasonable to assume that any State Government whichChas failed to appreciate the correct position in law so far, willforthwith correct its stance and take the necessary remedialmeasures without any further delay.”

21. The CEC’s observation in I.A. No.1000 of 2003 is that nomining activity was permissible inside the sanctuary as per this Court’sDOrder dated 14[th] February 2000 and the temporary working permitswere granted in violation of the applicable statutory provisions andguidelines as the area involved fell inside the sanctuary. M/s. AndhiMarbles Pvt. Ltd. have taken a defence that their mining activities werein terms of the temporary working permit issued and in compliance withthe specified conditions laid down by the MoEF&CC. A point has alsoEbeen taken that the limits of the sanctuary was not notified and nonotification under Section 26A of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972was issued to declare the said area as sanctuary. They have also takena point that the mining lease covering forest has been deleted from thelease document and they seek to operate two quarries, on non-forestFland beyond the safety zone of 25 metres, which has been specified aspart of the Mineral Policy, 1994 of the State of Rajasthan. They also, ineffect, seek resumption of mining activities in the area beyond 25 metresfrom the forest boundary.

22. As regards the Guidelines of 9[th] February 2011, which hasGbeen referred to in the affidavit of MoEF&CC affirmed/verified by Dr.Subrata Bose, Scientist ‘F’ Ministry of Environment, Forest and ClimateChange, Government of India, stand of M/s. Andhi Marbles Pvt. Ltd. isthat no consensus has been reached as regards notifying the areas within10 kilometres of the boundaries of National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuariesas ESZ.H

23. In the affidavit filed on behalf of MoEF&CC, which we havereferred to in the preceding paragraph, it has been stated that theGuidelines for Declaration of ESZ have been notified by the Ministry ofEnvironment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India. For thepurpose of formulation of ESZ in relation of individual protected forestarea, Para 6 of the said Guidelines has been brought to our notice. Adetailed hierarchy has been prescribed for declaration of ESZ. Referringto the case of the Goa Foundation (W.P. (C) No.435/2012), it hasbeen stated in this affidavit that mining activity is prohibited within adistance of 1 kilometre or the specified ESZ, whichever is higher.

24. On the pleas of M/s. Andhi Marbles Pvt. Ltd. and anotherleaseholder, Munni Devi, in subsequent affidavit verified on 29[th] April2004 the MoEF&CC had justified granting of working permit to the saidfirms.

25. The next affidavit of MoEF&CC was verified on 14[th]September 2005 and this affidavit deals with fixing of buffer zones foractivities outside sanctuaries/forests. In this affidavit, it has been admittedthat with respect to the details given in the earlier affidavit dated 29[th]April 2004 the decision taken by the Ministry at that point of time whilegranting temporary working permission on already broken up area inJamua Ramgarh could not incorporate all factual details and thus mightnot have been strictly compatible with the principles of the environmentalconservation. It has further been stated in this affidavit that the Ministrydirected the State Government to ensure phased closure of mines.

26. Altogether seven affidavits dated 15[th] April 2004, 17[th]September 2004, 9[th] December 2004, 13[th] October 2006, 10[th] May 2007,12[th] August 2008 and 1[st] November 2012 filed by the State of Rajasthanare on record before us. The stand of the State of Rajasthan as reflectedin these affidavits are primarily in relation to the creation of ESZ. It istheir case that the decision of 25 metres safety zone in relation to JamuaRamgarh sanctuary has been conceived by the State and the StateGovernment has also taken a decision that in the vicinity of sanctuaries,national parks and reserve forests, mining activities should not beundertaken within 25 metres. As regards other forest areas, their positionis that mining ought to be undertaken in the immediate vicinity of theforest areas. They have expressed difficulties over taking over oracquisition of land around any sanctuary or other protected forest andtheir ESZ without proper proceeding. As regards mining operations within AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Asanctuary area of Jamua Ramgarh, it has been stated that all miningactivities within the sanctuary have been stopped. In their affidavit dated12[th] August 2008, it has been disclosed by the State that mining activitiesin non-forest areas within 100 metres of the Jamua Ramgarh sanctuaryhas been closed. Their plea is for allowing mining activity in non-forestareas within protected forests and beyond the ESZ of 100 metres forBeconomic activities, in the interest of local population as also the State’seconomy.

27. It has also been highlighted by the State that 25 sanctuaries, 2national parks have been declared by the State comprising of a totalarea of 9,07,070 hectares and an area of 23,29,659 hectares of area asCforest area or deemed forest is already existing as eco-sensitive/ecofragile/buffer/safety zones in that State within which no non-forestactivities is allowed without proper permission under the Forest(Conservation) Act, 1980. The State of Rajasthan has opposed theproposal for declaring 10 kilometres beyond the boundary of sanctuariesDand national parks being declared as ESZ.

28. The role of the State cannot be confined to that of a facilitatoror generator of economic activities for immediate upliftment of thefortunes of the State. The State also has to act as a trustee for thebenefit of the general public in relation to the natural resources so thatEsustainable development can be achieved in the long term. Such role ofthe State is more relevant today, than, possibly, at any point of time inhistory with the threat of climate catastrophe resulting from globalwarming looming large. This Court has highlighted the Public TrustDoctrine 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 ofFthe law of land. In Paragraph 25 of thesaid judgment, as reported,thisdoctrine has been explained with reference to writings of Joseph L.Sax, Professor of Law, University of Michigan, the proponent of ModernPublic Trust Doctrine:- “25. The Public Trust Doctrine primarily rests on the principleGthat certain resources like air, sea, waters and the forests havesuch a great importance to the people as a whole that it wouldbe wholly unjustified to make them a subject of privateownership. The said resources being a gift of nature, theyshould be made freely available to everyone irrespective ofHthe status in life. The doctrine enjoins upon the Government to protect the resources for the enjoyment of the general publicrather than to permit their use for private ownership orcommercial purposes. According to Professor Sax the PublicTrust Doctrine imposes the following restrictions ongovernmental authority:

“Three types of restrictions on governmental authority areoften thought to be imposed by the public trust: first, theproperty subject to the trust must not only be used for a publicpurpose, but it must be held available for use by the generalpublic; second, the property may not be sold, even for a faircash equivalent; and third the property must be maintainedfor particular types of uses.”

29. Reliance has been placed on the said doctrine in earlier ordersof this Court in this very writ petition, passed on 30[th] October 2002, 26[th]September 2005 and 13[th] February 2012.So far as the views of the Stateof Rajasthan is concerned, as reflected in their affidavits and writtennotes, their consideration for justifying mining in Jamua Ramgarh and itsperiphery primarily stems from the prospect of immediate economic gainsand their role as a trustee of natural resources of the land has beenlargely overlooked.

30. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change(MoEF&CC) is against having a uniform ESZ for all national parks andreserved forests. Their view is that the ESZ area ought to be site-specific.Our attention has been drawn to the Comprehensive Guidelinesformulated, to which we have referred earlier in this Order. In the caseof Goa Foundation v. Union of India and Others [(2014) 6 SCC590], the order passed in this proceeding [IA 1000 of 2003] on 4[th] August2006 has also been referred to and relied upon. Affidavits have beenfiled by the State of Goa affirmed on 19[th] September 2012 and 31[st]October 2012. Main concern of the State of Goa is over creation of ESZof 10 kilometres from the boundaries of protected forests as buffer zoneand it is also contended on their behalf that such buffer zones should besite-specific. It is highlighted that in the State of Goa vegetative aerialcover of Goa is more than 59.99% (as per the Indian State Forest Reportof 2011) and protected forest areas constitute over 20% of the totalgeographic area. On this basis, they seek appropriate directions. It hasalso been brought to our notice that notifications have been issued inrespect of several sanctuaries stipulating the ESZ boundaries. Written A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

Asubmissions have also been filed by Goa Foundation [the petitioners inW.P. (C) 460/2004] and W.P. (C) 435/2012 in which it has been urgedthat minimum extent of ESZ ought to be as per the CEC recommendationsincorporating therein the modifications/suggestions by the learned AmicusCuriae. 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 presentBI.A., we would not address issues specific to the said case. But thedirectives we shall make, as we have already indicated, which are notcovered 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/Cnational parks, the National Board of Wildlife in its 21[st] meeting held on21[st] January 2002 adopted National Wildlife Conservation Strategy.Paragraph 9 of the Strategy document concerns the buffer areas aroundthe national parks and sanctuaries. It has been recorded therein:- “Lands falling within 10 kms of the boundaries of NationalDParks and Sanctuaries should be notified as Eco-fragile Zonesunder Section 3(v) of the Environment (Protection) Act andRule 5, Sub-rule 5(viii) and (x) of the Environment (Protection)Rules.”

EBut it does not appear from the said affidavit that said proposal ofnotifying 10 kilometres as boundaries of the national parks and sanctuariesas Eco-fragile zone was finalised.

32. The MoEF&CC essentially has argued in favour of havingESZ to be site-specific and for that purpose they have invited proposalsfrom individual State Government in the aforesaid Guidelines. In casesFwhere such proposals have not come, they want 10 kilometres peripheryof protected forests to be preserved as ESZ. As regards activitiespermissible within the buffer zone, certain works have been proposed tobe regulated and certain activities to be permitted within the ESZ. Thishas been stipulated in Annexure-I to the Guidelines. We have alreadyGreferred to the prohibited activities. Among the regulated activities, asper these Guidelines are:-

(i) Felling of trees with permission from appropriate authority.(ii)Establishment of hotels and resort as per approved masterplan, which takes care of habitats allowing no restriction onHmovement of wild animals.

A

(iii) Drastic change in agricultural systems.

(iv) Commercial use of natural water resources including groundwater harvesting as per approved master plan, which takescare of habitats allowing no restriction on movement of wildanimals.

B

(v) Erection of electrical cables with stress on promotingunderground cabling.

(vi) Fencing of premises of hotels and lodges.

(vii) Use of polythene bags by shopkeepers.(viii) Widening of roads with proper environmental impactCassessment.

(ix) Movement of vehicular traffic at night for commercialpurposes.

(x) Introduction of exotic species.

D

(xi) Protection of hill slopes and river banks.

(xii) Regulation of any form of air and vehicular pollution.

(xiii) Putting up of sign boards and hoardings.

Within permissible activities fall:-

E

(i) Ongoing agricultural and horticulture practices by localcommunities.

(ii) Rain water harvesting

(iii) Organic farming

F

(iv) Use of renewable energy sources

(v) Adoption of green technology for all activities.

33. In the affidavit of the Standing Committee of National Boardof Wildlife, the views of the non-official members of the StandingCommittee have been placed on record, which essentially contemplatescontinuation of the 10 kilometres buffer zone. Order passed by this Courton 4[th] December 2006 in the case of Goa Foundation (W.P. (C) 460/2004) proposes following such a course if there is delay in site-specificpreparation of ESZ for individual States/Union Territories. On the aspectof having site-specific ESZ under the Environment (Protection) Act, GH

A1986, the view of the National Board of Wildlife, appears to be unanimous.It is their opinion that some protected areas, because of their smallersize, may require larger safety zone around it.

34. We shall deal first with the question of impleadment of firmsand individuals who had some kind of permission for carrying on miningBactivities in Jamua Ramgarh sanctuary. The Interlocutory Applicationswhich we are dealing with arise out of a public interest litigation andthere is no doubt that orders passed in litigation of this nature couldaffect a large body of persons who may not be included in the array ofparties at the time of institution of the proceeding. To an extent, litigationsof this nature assume an In-rem character. Ideally, for such a publicCinterest litigation, the procedure contemplated in Rule VIII of Order 1 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 could be followed to the extent ofissue of public notice or general intimation to public in such mode as theCourt may consider fit and proper, having regard to the nature and scopeof the proceeding. But in cases where such a course has not been taken,Dpersons affected or likely to be affected by any order passed in thelitigation would be entitled to join or participate in the proceeding. Thus,the impleadment prayers in I.A. No. 984 of 2003, I.A. No. 1026 of 2004,I.A. No. 1123 of 2004, I.A. No. 1197 of 2004 and I.A. No. 1251 of 2004are allowed.

E35. The approach of the Court in dealing with complaints ofenvironmental degradation has been laid down by this very Bench in thisWrit Petition itself in an order passed on 9[th] May 2022 in connectionwith another set of applications. In this Order, it has been observed andheld:- F“15. Adherence to the principle of sustainable developmentis a constitutional requirement. While applying the principleof sustainable development one must bear in mind thatdevelopment which meets the needs of the present withoutcompromising the ability of the future generations to meettheir own needs. Therefore, Courts are required to balanceGdevelopment needs with the protection of the environment andecology. It is the duty of the State under our Constitution todevise and implement a coherent and coordinated programmeto meet its obligation of sustainable development based oninter-generational equity. While economic development shouldHnot be allowed to take place at the cost of ecology or by

causing widespread environment destruction and violation;at the same time, the necessity to preserve ecology andenvironment should not hamper economic and otherdevelopments. Both development and environment must gohand in hand, in other words, there should not be developmentat the cost of environment and vice versa, but there should bedevelopment while taking due care and ensuring the protectionof environment.

16. In Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India, thisCourt held that the ‘Precautionary Principle’ is an essentialfeature of the principle of ‘Sustainable Development’. It wenton to explain the precautionary principle in the followingterms: -

(i) Environmental measures — by the State Government andthe statutory authorities — must anticipate, prevent and attackthe 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 forpostponing 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 ofenvironmental harm and taking measures to avoid it or tochoose the least environmentally harmful activity. It is basedon scientific uncertainty. Environmental protection should notonly aim at protecting health, property and economic interestbut also protect the environment for its own sake.Precautionary duties must not only be triggered by thesuspicion of concrete danger but also by justified concern orrisk potential.

18. A situation may arise where there may be irreparabledamage to the environment after an activity is allowed to goahead and if it is stopped, there may be irreparable damageto economic interest. This Court held that in case of a doubt,protection of environment would have precedence over theeconomic interest. It was further held that precautionaryprinciple requires anticipatory action to be taken to prevent A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

harm and that harm can be prevented even on a reasonablesuspicion. Further, this Court emphasises in the said judgmentthat it is not always necessary that there should be directevidence of harm to the environment.”

A

While dealing with the applications in the present set ofBproceedings, we shall follow the same principles.

36. We shall now examine the prayers of the applicants forcontinuing their mining activities within sanctuary. This relief has beenasked for by Smt. Magan Devi Meena (IA Nos. 982-984 of 2003), M/s.Agarwal Marbles Centre Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (IA Nos. 1026-1028 of 2004),CM/s. Jaipur Mineral Development Syndicate Private Limited (IA Nos.1123-1124 of 2004), Federation of Mining Associations of Rajasthan (IANos. 1197-1199 of 2004), Bhushan Sharma (IA Nos. 1250-1251 of 2004)and M/s. Andhi Marbles Pvt Ltd. (IA No. 1512 of 2006). We must pointout here that in the affidavit of the State of Rajasthan, it has been statedthat they had formulated a policy of maintaining a distance of 25 metreDfrom the vicinity of important forest areas like game sanctuary, reservedforest, mining activities to be prohibited. In other forest areas, miningcould be undertaken in the immediate vicinity of the forest area as perthe policy. This has been stated in the affidavit of the State of Rajasthanfiled on 9[th] December 2004 and such a stand appears to have had beenEtaken from the Mineral Policy of 1994. It, however, appears that a newMineral Policy had been adopted by the State of Rajasthan in 2015.

37. There are also pleas for permitting some of the miners tocontinue mining activities within 25 metre zone conceived by the Stateof Rajasthan as Buffer Zone. In three applications, I.A. Nos.1123-1124Fof 2004, I.A.Nos.1197-1199 of 2004 and I.A.Nos.1210-1211 of 2004,M/s. Jaipur Mineral Development Syndicate Pvt. Ltd., Federation ofMining Association of Rajasthan and Smt. Madhu Agarwalhave taken apoint that there was improper declaration of Jamua Ramgarh as asanctuary. The notification made under Section 18 of the Wild Life(Protection) Act, 1972 bearing No. F.11(19) Raj.-8/81 Jaipur dated 31[st]GMay 1982 has been annexed to the I.A. Nos. 982-984 of 2003 theapplicant therein, being Magan Devi Meena. Initially, there was declarationof the said sanctuary as reserved forest under the Rajasthan Forest Act,1953. Thereafter, the notification of 31[st] May 1982 came into operationunder the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

H

38. In I.A. No.1000 of 2003, it has been disclosed that thesettlement of rights were completed by the District Collector Jaipur underSections 19 to 26 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. So far asSection 26A is concerned, which deals with declaration of area assanctuary the said provision was incorporated in the statute with effectfrom 2[nd] October 1991. That amendment came by way of Act 44 of1991. After amendment, Section 18 of the Act stipulates:- “18. Declaration of sanctuary:—

(1) The State Government may, by notification, declare itsintention to constitute any area other than an area comprisedwithin any reserve forest or the territorial waters as asanctuary if it considers that such area is of adequateecological, faunal, floral, geomorphological, natural orzoological significance, for the purpose of protecting,propagating or developing wild life or its environment.

(2) The notification referred to in sub-section (1) shall specify,as nearly as possible, the situation and limits of such area.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section it shall besufficient to describe the area by roads, rivers, ridges or otherwell-known or readily intelligible boundaries.”

Section 26A of the Act, which, again, was introduced by Act 44of 1991 contemplates further declaration after compliance of certainformalities. No other amendment has been brought to our notice. Section18 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 as it originally stood, reads:- “18. (1) The State Government may, by notification, declareany area to be a sanctuary if it considers that such area is ofadequate ecological, faunal, floral, geomorphological,natural or zoological significance, for the purpose ofprotecting, propagating or developing wild life or itsenvironment.

(2) The notification referred to in sub-section (1) shall specify,as nearly as possible, the situation and limits of such area.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, it shall besufficient to describe the area by roads, rivers, ridges or otherwell-known or readily intelligible boundaries.”

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

A39. The declaration was made by the State of Rajasthan in 1982and we do not find any flaw in such declaration. The amended provisions,thus, could not apply to the Jamua Ramgarh Wildlife Sanctuary. Theplea taken that it did not have the status of a sanctuary because nodeclaration was there under Section 26A of the Wild Life (Protection)Act, 1972 is without any basis. We shall proceed in this order on theBbasis that Jamua Ramgarh is a subsisting sanctuary.

40. We have already indicated that CEC in I.A. No.1000 of 2003has given a dreadful account of the condition of the sanctuary, ravagedby mining activities. CEC in the same document has also outlined theimportance of the said sanctuary. These would appear from paragraphsC4 and 5 of the said I.A which read:-

“4. In stark contrast to the above during the site visits to theJamua Ramgarh Sanctuary the CEC came across a horribleand unbelievable picture of devastated eco - system due toindiscriminate mining activity in blatant violation of the Forest(Conservation) Act, Wild Life (Protection) Act and even thisHon’ble Court’s orders. The sanctuary is littered withhundreds of deep mining pits, randomly scattered “overburdens”, scores of cranes and mined boulders and stonesscattered all over the place. It is rare to see such a destructioneven in a non forest area, least of all inside a sanctuary. It isa horror story that has to be seen to be believed. This is a sitewhere all the laws and conventions that govern the naturalworld have been violated for commercial gains. Instead ofbeing managed as a wild life sanctuary, it appears to havebeen managed as a mining sanctuary. In the present form itmay be more appropriate to rename the area as “JamuaRamgarh Wild Life Graveyard”. A photographic report isappended hereto at D

E

F

ANNEXURE-A graphically showing the ground situation.

5. The forest of Jamua Ramgarh forms the critical catchmentarea of the lake which is the main source of water supply tothe city of Jaipur. Notwithstanding this 69 mining leases weresanctioned from time to time in Jamua Ramgarh afterenactment of the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 i.e.25.10.1980. Each and every mine was sanctioned in violationof the provisions of the F.C. Act as well as G

H

the Wild Life (Protection) Act. No perceptible attempt was madeto regulate the mines as per the provisions of the F.C. Act andthe W.P. Act. No valid and satisfactory explanation was givenby the State Government for allowing the mining leases tooperate for years together except that it was a commonpractice to allow mining leases in the forest area / sanctuarywithout obtaining specific approvals under the F.C.Act or theW.P.Act. The details of these mines are given in ANNEXURE-B.”

41. In their affidavits, the State of Rajasthan had referred to theMining Policy of 1994 which stipulated 25 metres to be safety zonearound the periphery of Jamua Ramgarh Wildlife Sanctuary butsubsequent thereto the Mining Policy of 2015 for the State of Rajasthanhas come and they do not seem to have any specified safety zone.Moreover, in view of the order of this Court passed on 4[th] August 2006,1 kilometre safety zone has been directed to be maintained as regardsJamua Ramgarh Wildlife Sanctuary. Beyond Jamua Ramgarh WildlifeSanctuary, CEC itself has given its view on eco sensitive zone in theirreport dated 20[th] September 2012. The recommendations have beenquoted in the earlier part of this order. In the affidavit of StandingCommittee of National Board of Wildlife filed on 26[th] November 2012,the views of said Committee was expressed and the Committee was ofunanimous opinion that each State ought to delineate the outer limits ofESZ on a site-specific, case by case basis, keeping in view the ecologicalimperatives and the grounds realities of the protected area. It was alsothe view of the said Committee that expert opinion and scientific inputsought to be obtained from individuals and institutions in that regard. Insubstance the view of the Committee is that there should not be uniformESZ. We have also referred to the Guidelines dated 9[th] February 2011which gives a detailed procedure for evolving ESZ and identification ofactivities that could be carried on in such zones. The order of this Courtin the case of Goa Foundation [W.P. (C) No.460 of 2004]passed on4[th] December 2006 also contemplated issue of direction for maintaininga 10 kilometre wide safety zone from the boundaries in respect ofsanctuaries and national parks as there was lack of response from theStates and Union territories in relation to queries on various aspects inrespect of wildlife conservation. The proposal for having an ESZ of 10kms from the boundaries of the national parks and wildlife sanctuaries A

B

CD

EF

GH

Awas originally mooted on 21[st] January 2002 in the meeting of the IndianBoard for Wildlife, as it appears from the order passed by this Court inthe case of Goa Foundation [W.P. (C) No.460 of 2004] on 30[th] January2006. We have to collate the views of these experts’ bodies includingthe CEC, who have been assisting this Court through the different stagesof this litigation.B

42. In our opinion, the Guidelines framed on 9[th] February 2011appears to be reasonable and we accept the view of the StandingCommittee that uniform Guidelines may not be possible in respect ofeach sanctuary or national parks for maintaining ESZ. We are of theopinion, however, that a minimum width of 1 kilometre ESZ ought to beCmaintained in respect of the protected forests, which forms part of therecommendations of the CEC in relation to Category B protected forests.This would be the standard formula, subject to changes in specialcircumstances. We have considered CEC’s recommendation that theESZ should be relatable to the area covered by a protected forest butDthe Standing Committee’s view that the area of a protected forest maynot always be a reasonable criteria also merits consideration. It was-argued before us that the 1 km wide “nodevelopment-zone” may not befeasible in all cases and specific instances were given for Sanjay GandhiNational Park and Guindy National Park in Mumbai and Chennaimetropolis respectively which have urban activities in very close proximity.EThese sanctuaries shall form special cases.

43. Turning specifically to Jamua Ramgarh Sanctuary, the firstreport of the CEC proposed 100 metres as ESZ. In the second report,however, one kilometre width has been recommended for all protectedforests falling under category ‘B’. Having regard to its area, the saidFsanctuary comes in that category. In the order of this Court passed on4[th] August 2006, the same margin, i.e. one kilometre as buffer zone hasbeen prescribed. In the given facts concerning the Jamua RamgarhSanctuary, in our opinion the margin of 25 metres as contemplated in the1994 Mineral Policy of the State of Rajasthan is grossly inadequate. We,Ghowever, treat Jamua Ramgarh sanctuary as a special case for fixingthe ESZ as in the past, the buffer zone varied from 25 metres to 100metres. In our opinion, ESZ of 500 metres would be a reasonable bufferzone, within which subsisting activities which does not come within theprohibited list as per the Guidelines of 9[th] February 2011 could be carriedon. But for commencing of any new activity which would be otherwiseH

A

permissible, the ESZ norm of one kilometre shall be maintained for JamuaRamgarh sanctuary.

44. We accordingly direct:-

(a) Each protected forest, that is national park or wildlifesanctuary must have an ESZ of minimum one kilometreBmeasured from the demarcated boundary of such protectedforest in which the activities proscribed and prescribed inthe Guidelines of 9[th] February 2011 shall be strictly adheredto. For Jamua Ramgarh wildlife sanctuary, it shall be 500metres so far as subsisting activities are concerned.

C

(b) In the event, however, the ESZ is already prescribed as perlaw that goes beyond one kilometre buffer zone, the widermargin as ESZ shall prevail. If such wider buffer zonebeyond one kilometre is proposed under any statutoryinstrument for a particular national park or wildlife sanctuaryawaiting final decision in that regard, then till such finaldecision is taken, the ESZ covering the area beyond onekilometre as proposed shall be maintained.

D

(c) The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests as also the HomeSecretary of each State and Union Territory shall remainresponsible for proper compliance of the said Guidelines asregards nature of use within the ESZ of all national parksand sanctuaries within a particular State or Union Territory.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests for each Stateand Union Territory shall also arrange to make a list ofsubsisting structures and other relevant details within therespective ESZs forthwith and a report shall be furnishedbefore this Court by the Principal Chief Conservator ofForests of each State and Union Territory within a periodof three months. For this purpose, such authority shall beentitled to take assistance of any governmental agency forsatellite imaging or photography using drones.

E

F

G

(d) Mining within the national parks and wildlife sanctuariesshall not be permitted.

(e) In the event any activity is already being undertaken withinthe one kilometre or extended buffer zone (ESZ), as thecase may be, of any wildlife sanctuary or national park which H

1164SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A

Adoes not come within the ambit of prohibited activities asper the 9[th] February 2011 Guidelines, such activities maycontinue with permission of the Principal Chief Conservatorof Forests of each State or Union Territory and the personresponsible for such activities in such a situation shall obtainnecessary permission within a period of six months. SuchBpermission shall be given once the Principal ChiefConservator of Forests is satisfied that the activitiesconcerned do not come within the prohibited list and werecontinuing prior to passing of this order in a legitimatemanner. No new permanent structure shall be permitted toCcome up for whatsoever purpose within the ESZ.

(f) The minimum width of the ESZ may be diluted inoverwhelming public interest but for that purpose the Stateor Union Territory concerned shall approach the CEC andMoEF&CC and both these bodies shall give their respectiveDopinions/recommendations before this Court. On that basis,this Court shall pass appropriate order.

(g) In the event the CEC, MoEF&CC, the Standing Committeeof National Board of Wildlife or any other body of personsor individual having special interest in environmental issuesEconsider it necessary for maintaining a wider or larger ESZin respect of any national park or wildlife sanctuary, suchbody or individual shall approach the CEC. In such asituation the CEC shall be at liberty to examine the need ofa wider ESZ in respect of any national park or wildlifesanctuary in consultation with all the stakeholders includingFthe State or Union Territory concerned, MoEF&CC as alsothe Standing Committee of National Board of Wildlife andthen approach this Court with its recommendations.

E

(h) In respect of sanctuaries or national parks for which theproposal of a State or Union Territory has not been given,the 10 kilometres buffer zone as ESZ, as indicated in theorder passed by this Court on 4[th] December 2006 in thecase of Goa Foundation (supra)and also contained in theGuidelines of 9[th] February 2011 shall be implemented. Withinthat area, the entire set of restrictions concerning an ESZshall operate till a final decision in that regard is arrived at.

G

H

(i) I.A. No. 1412 of 2005 and I.A.No.117831 of 2019 do notArelate to the issues involved in I.A. No.1000 of 2003. Theseapplications may be placed before the appropriate Benchto be heard independently.

(j) For the same reason, I.A. No.1992 of 2007 shall also bedealt with independently by the appropriate Bench and noBorder is being passed concerning this application at thisstage.

(k) The application of the State of Rajasthan registered as I.A.No.3880 of 2015 relates to clarification of an order passedin the case of Goa Foundation (W.P.(C) No.460 of 2004).Let this application be placed before the Bench taking upthe case of Goa Foundation.

C

(l) I.A.No.96949 of 2019 and I.A.No.65571 of 2021 aredisposed of with directions that the MoEF&CC as also CECshall proceed to take a decision in regard to the draft proposalfor ESZ made by the State of Maharashtra to the extent of0-3.89 kilometres and the MoEF&CC shall take finaldecision on that basis within a period of three months, ifsaid decision has not already been taken.

D

(m) Prayers for impleadment of the applicants in I.A. Nos. 984of 2003, 1026 of 2004, 1123 of 2004, 1197 of 2004 and 1251of 2004 are allowed. Necessary amendments may becarried out in these regards.

E

(n) For the reasons already given, however, prayers of theapplicants in I.A. Nos.982 of 2003, 1027 of 2004, 1124 of2004, 1198 of 2004, 1210 of 2004, 1250 of 2004 and 1512 of2006 are rejected.

F

(o) The CEC shall quantify the compensation to be recoveredfrom each miner indulging in mining activities within theJamua Ramgarh sanctuary in violation of any statutoryGprovision or order of this Court. Specific recommendationsfor compensatory afforestation, reclamation, clearingoverburden dumping as also compensation in monetary unitsfor degradation of forest resources shall also be made. Afurther set of recommendations concerning confiscation ofearth moving equipments and other machineries lying withinH

H

[2022] 17 S.C.R.

Aor in the periphery of the said sanctuary shall be made bythe CEC. Recommendations shall be made within a periodof four months before this Court in the form of anapplication. This Court shall consider passing appropriateorder upon going through such application. The exerciseconcerning such reparation, including quantifyingBcompensation shall be undertaken upon giving the miningoperator, State and MoEF&CC opportunity of hearing.

(p) In the event there is any subsisting order of any High Courtor any Court subordinate to such High Court covering anyof the issues dealt with by this Court in this order, this orderCshall prevail over any such order which may be contrary tothese directions.

(q) We have already observed that there are certain overlappingissues involved in this writ petition and the cases of GoaFoundation (Writ Petition (C) No.460 of 2004) and (WritDPetition (C) No.435 of 2012). We request the Hon’ble theChief Justice of India to consider having the present writpetition i.e. In Re:T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v.Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) No.460 of 2004 (GoaFoundation v. Union of India) as also W.P. (C) No.435Eof 2012 (Goa Foundation v. Union of India & Ors.) beheard together before the same Bench. The registry mayplace this order before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice ofIndia.

45. This order disposes of I.A. No.1000 of 2003 in the aboveFterms.

46. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

G

Ankit GyanI.A. disposed of(Assisted by : Adnan Khan, LCRA)

H