being a public interest litigation, there was no requirement for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner.

 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

I.A. No.1000 of 2003

 (Recommendation of CEC dated 20.11.2003)

WITH

I.A. Nos.982­984 of 2003

AND

I.A. Nos.1026­1028 of 2004

AND

I.A. Nos. 1123­1124 of 2004

AND

I.A. Nos.1197­1199 of 2004

AND

I.A. Nos. 1210­1211 of 2004

AND

I.A. Nos.1250­1251 of 2004 

AND

I.A. No. 1412 of 2005

AND

I.A. No.1512 of 2006

AND

I.A. No. 1992 of 2007

AND

1

I.A. No. 3880 of 2015

AND

I.A. No. 96949 of 2019

AND 

I.A. No. 117831 of 2019

AND

I.A. NO. 65571 of 2021

In the Matter of: 

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 202 of 1995

In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad       ……..Petitioner(s)

Versus

Union of India and Ors.                ……Respondent(s)

     J U D G M E N T 

ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.

These proceedings originate from the Writ Petition under

Article 32 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   in   the   nature   of  a  public   interest

litigation. It was instituted for protection of forest lands in the

Nilgiris district of the State of Tamil Nadu. Subsequently, the

scope of that writ petition was enlarged so as to protect such

2

natural resources throughout the country.   The original writ

petitioner has since passed away (on 1st  June 2016) but in an

order passed on 3rd February 2017, this Court opined that being

a public interest litigation, there was no requirement for bringing

on record the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner.

The writ petition, in substance, continued with the cause title “in

Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors”.

Various Orders have been passed from time to time in this writ

petition to ensure preservation of forest resources of this country

in balance with economic activities. By an Order of this Court

dated 9th  May 2002, a Central Empowered Committee (“CEC”)

was   directed   to   be   formed   primarily   for   monitoring

implementation of this Court’s orders and to place the incidents

of  non­compliance  before   us.   Subsequently,   by   a   notification

issued on 17th September 2002 by the Ministry of Environment

and   Forest   in   exercise   of   power   under   Section   3(3)   of   the

Environment   (Protection)   Act,   1986,   this   committee   was

constituted under statutory provisions. CEC has been bringing

to   the   notice   of   this   Court   the   steps   taken   for   removal   of

encroachment, implementation of working plans, compensatory

3

afforestation, plantation and other conservation issues. 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

sanctuary   in   the   State   of   Rajasthan­   known   as   “Jamua

Ramgarh” (also spelt as Jamwa Ramgarh). The second set of

issues is wider in scope, and involves prescribing eco­sensitive

zones (ESZ) surrounding the wildlife sanctuaries and national

parks. The subject of mining and other commercial activities

within   the   wildlife   sanctuaries   and   national   parks   (protected

forests) shall also be dealt by us in this order.  The applications

before  us   require   examination   in   the   perspective  of   a   set   of

recommendations made by the CEC and we have been urged by

a set of applicants to make certain modifications of this Court’s

earlier directions concerning steps to be taken for protection of

forest resources.   The applicants seeking modifications of our

earlier orders include a set of miners, and, in some cases, the

State Governments asking for opening up of the protected forest

areas and their buffer zones, on which restrictions have been

placed   in   by   our   earlier   orders,   for   commercial   exploitation.

There is dispute as to what would constitute the buffer zones on

4

ESZ in respect of national parks and wildlife sanctuaries, as

there are divergence of views among the various stakeholders. 

2. The present set of applications arise out of a report of the

CEC dated 20th November 2003. This report specifically pertains

to Jamua Ramgarh wildlife sanctuary. This sanctuary covers an

area of about 300 square kilometres. The said report gives a

horrific picture of ravaging of a protected forest mainly by private

miners mostly with temporary working permits obtained from

the Governmental agencies.   Following recommendations were

made in this report:­

“17……… (i) all mining leases which wholly or partly fall

within   the   forest   area   inside   the   Jamua   Ramgarh

Sanctuary   and   also   within   the   safety   zone,   should   be

immediately cancelled. The mining activity can be allowed

to be resumed only after the new/amended mining leases,

after excluding the forest area and the safety zone are

sanctioned by the competent authority and the conditions

mentioned herein under are fully complied with; 

(ii) presently a safety zone of twenty five meter has been

fixed   for   Jamua   Ramgarh   Sanctuary   and   other

sanctuaries   in   Rajasthan   as   against   500   meter   for

Ranthambhore   National   Park   in   Rajasthan   itself.   In

Madhya Pradesh safety zone of 250 meter for all the 20

forest area has been fixed. The CEC is of the view that

minimum 500 meter safety zone around National Parks

and   Sanctuaries   is   necessary   where   no   mining,

construction and other projects should be allowed. Without

a reasonable safety zone the habitat and wild life in the

National Parks and Sanctuaries are adversely affected.

Although stringent conditions are imposed at the time of

the  sanction  of   the  mining   leases,  none   are   practically

5

complied with due to weak enforcement of the laws. The

mining   causes   heavy   disturbance   in   the   area   due   to

blasting, removal of over burden, chiseling, transportation,

flying debris and movement of a large number of labourers

and other persons. The safety zone of twenty five meter

presently prescribed by the Rajasthan Forest Department

is   totally   in   adequate   as   the   rocks   torn   apart   during

blasting can travel much beyond the present safety zone.

However, increasing the safety zone to the desired level of

500 meter will result in closure of large number of mines.

Taking a holistic overall view of the situation, the CEC

recommends   that   for   the   Jamua   Ramgarh   wild   life

sanctuary, for the "existing" mines the safety zone may be

fixed   as   100   meter   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 inside

the   sanctuary   should   be   carried   out   in   a   time   bound

manner at the cost of the user agency for which a detailed

reclamation   and   rehabilitation   plan   along   with   various

items of work, cost involved and time frame should be

prepared   and   implemented   on   priority   basis.   The   plan

presently prepared by the State Government is totally in

adequate.   It   does   not   provide   for   reclamation   and

rehabilitation of the mining pits at all. No provision for

removal of stones and rocks scattered in the sanctuary

has been made. Intensive plantations and protection has

not been provided. The revised plan should incorporate the

above   and   other   necessary   measures   to   provide   a

congenial habitat for wild life. In the event adequate funds

for this purpose cannot be recovered from the erstwhile

mine lease owners, the same should be made available by

the State Government; 

(iv)  mining  around  the  sanctuary  should  be  allowed  to

restart only after a fool proof mechanism is put in place to

ensure recovery of funds for implementation of reclamation

and rehabilitation plan by the State Government; 

(v)   exemplary   compensation   equivalent   to   the   present

market   value   of   the   entire   mineral   removed   by   the

respective mine owners by mining inside the sanctuary in

violation of the F.C. Act and/or the W. P. Act should be

recovered   from   them   on   the   basis   of   the   recorded

production or the estimated figures mentioned in the F.C.

Act applications. The money so recovered should be used

6

for protection and development of the sanctuary to its full

potential; 

(vi) the left over minerals scattered inside the sanctuary

should be directed to be removed immediately. 

(vii) the left over mining equipments such as cranes etc.

should be confiscated and removed outside the sanctuary

at the cost of the erstwhile mine lease holders; 

(viii)   no   mining   should   be   permitted   adjoining   the

sanctuary   till   the   boundary   of   the   sanctuary   is

demarcated on the ground and the boundary pillars are

verified with the fixed reference points; 

(ix) disciplinary action should be taken in a time bound

manner against the erring officials in the Mines and the

Forest   Departments   of   the   State   of   Rajasthan   and   the

MoEF for allowing mining in violation of the F.C. Act, the

W. P. Act and/or this Hon'ble Court's order;”

(quoted verbatim from paperbook)

3. This   Court   had   converted   this   report   with   its   set   of

recommendations   into   an   Interlocutory   Application   and   was

allocated registration number I.A. 1000 of 2003. 

4. On 20th September 2012, a second report was submitted

by the CEC. The recommendations made in the second report

went   beyond   the   Jamua   Ramgarh   Sanctuary   and   dealt   with

creation of identification and declaration of safety zones around

protected forests all across the country. The question of having

ESZ around the protected forests was examined by this Court

earlier in another Writ Petition [W.P. (Civil) No. 460 of 2004] in

7

Goa Foundation v. Union of India. In the said writ petition, the

following order was passed on 4th  December 2006 [reported in

(2011) 15 SCC 791]: ­

“4. The Ministry is directed to give a final opportunity to

all States/Union Territories to respond to its letter dated

27­5­2005.   The   State   of   Goa   also   is   permitted   to   give

appropriate proposal in addition to what is said to have

already   been   sent   to   the   Central   Government.   The

communication sent to the States/Union Territories shall

make it clear that if the proposals are not sent even now

within   a   period   of   four   weeks   of   receipt   of   the

communication from the Ministry, this Court may have to

consider passing orders for implementation of the decision

that was taken on 21­1­ 2002, namely, notification of the

areas within 10 km. of the boundaries of the sanctuaries

and national parks as eco­sensitive areas with a view to

conserve the forest, wildlife and environment, and having

regard to the precautionary principles. If the States/Union

Territories now fail to respond, they would do so at their

own risk and peril”.

5. Two   writ   petitions   have   been   instituted   titled   as  Goa

Foundation v. Union of India [W.P. (Civil) No.460 of 2004] and

Goa   Foundation   v.   Union   of   India   and   Others  [W.P. (Civil)

No.435 of 2012], in relation enforcement of various circulars

issued for enforcement of environmental laws and to prevent

illegal   mining   in   different   States  including  the   State   of  Goa.

There are certain overlapping issues involved in the present writ

petition and the cases of Goa Foundation (supra). The directions

8

which we propose to issue in this judgment/order shall take into

account   the   orders   passed   in   the   cases   of  Goa   Foundation

(supra) and such directions shall be supplemental to the orders

passed in any of the aforesaid two writ petitions if our directions

passed in this order relate to areas or subjects covered by any

mandate passed in the said two writ petitions. 

6. A set of Guidelines for Declaration of Eco­Sensitive Zones

(ESZ) around National Park and Wildlife Sanctuaries had been

formulated by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate

Change (MoEF&CC) of the Government of India on 9th February

2011 [F. No.1­9/2007 WL – I (pt)]. These Guidelines deal with

the process and procedures to be adopted for declaring ESZ. In

Clauses 3 and 4 of these Guidelines, it has been stipulated: ­

“3. Purpose for declaring Eco­Sensitive Zones:

The   purpose   of   declaring   Eco­sensitive   Zones   around

National Parks and Sanctuaries is to create some kind of

"Shock Absorber" for the Protected Areas. They would also

act as a transition zone from areas of high protection to

areas involving lesser protection. As has been decided by

the National Board for Wildlife, the activities in the Ecosensitive zones would be of a regulatory nature rather

than prohibitive nature, unless and otherwise so required. 

4. Extent of Eco­Sensitive Zones:

  4.1  Many of the existing Protected Areas have already

undergone   tremendous   development   in   close   vicinity   to

9

their   boundaries.   Some   of   the   Protected   Areas   actually

lying in the urban setup (Eg. Guindy National Park, Tamil

Nadu, Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Maharashtra, etc).

Therefore,   defining   the   extent   of   eco­sensitive   zones

around Protected Areas will have to be kept flexible and

Protected   Area   specific.   The   width   of   the   Eco­sensitive

Zone   and   type   of   regulations   will   differ   from   Protected

Area to Protected Area. However, as a general principle

the width of the Eco­sensitive Zone could go up to 10 Kms

around   a   Protected   Area   as   provided   in   the   Wildlife

Conservation Strategy­2002. 

4.2  In case where  sensitive  corridors, connectivity and

ecologically   important   patches,   crucial   for   landscape

linkage, are even beyond 10 kms width, these should be

included in the Eco­sensitive Zone.

4.3 Further, even in context of a particular Protected Area,

the distribution of an area of Eco­sensitive Zone and the

extent of regulation may not be uniform all around and it

could be of variable width and extent.”

(quoted verbatim from paperbook)

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 basic

aim is to regulate certain activities around National Park

and   Wildlife   Sanctuary   so   as   to  minimize  the  negative

impacts   of   such   activities   on   the   fragile   ecosystem

encompassing the Protected Area. As a first step towards

achieving this goal, it is a pre­requisite that an inventory of

the different land use patterns and the different types of

activities,   types   and   number   of   industries   operating

around   each   of   the   Protected   Area   (National   Parks,

Sanctuaries) as well as important Corridors be made. The

inventory could be done by the concerned Range Officers,

who can take a stock of activities within 10 km of his

range. 

10

6.2 For the above purpose, a small committee comprising

the concerned Wildlife Warden, an Ecologist, an official

from   the   Local   Self   Government   and   an   official   of   the

Revenue   Department   of   the   concerned   area,   could   be

formed. The said committee could suggest the: 

(i)   Extent   of   eco­sensitive   zones   for   the   Protected   Area

being considered.

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

absorber. 

(iii) To suggest the best methods for management of the

eco­sensitive zones, so suggested.

(iv)   To   suggest   broad   based   thematic   activities   to   be

included in 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

indicative list of such activities is attached as ANNEXURE1):­

(i) Prohibited 

(ii) Restricted with safeguards. 

(iii) Permissible 

6.4  Once the proposal for Eco­sensitive zones has been

finalized, the same may be forwarded to the Ministry of

Environment   and   Forests   for   further   processing   and

notification. Here, it may be noted that, the State/ Union

Territory Forest Department could forward the proposals to

the respective authority in the State Government with copy

to the Ministry of Environment and Forests, as and when

the proposals (even if it is for single Protected Area) are

complete.   An   indicative   list   of   details   that   need   to   be

submitted along with the proposals is at ANNEXURE­2.

6.5  It   is   to   mention   here   that   in   cases   where   the

boundary   of   a   Protected   Area   abuts   the   boundary   of

another State/Union Territory where it does not form part

of any Protected Area, it shall be the endeavour of both the

State/   Union   Territory   Governments   to   have   a   mutual

consultation and decide upon the width of the ecosensitive

zone around the Protected Area in question. 

6.6 The State Government should endeavour to convey a

very strong message to the public that ESZ are not meant

11

to hamper their day to day activities, but instead, is meant

to   protect   the   precious   forests/Protected   Areas   in   their

locality from any negative impact, and also to refine the

environment around the Protected Areas. A copy of the

notification of the Sultanpur Eco­sensitive Zone issued by

the   Ministry   is   attached   herewith   at  ANNEXURE­3  for

reference and guidance.

7.  These   guidelines   are   indicative   in   nature   and   the

State / Union Territory Governments may use these as

basic framework to develop specific guidelines applicable

in the context of their National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuaries,

important corridors, etc. with a view to minimizing and

preferably eliminating any negative impact on protected

areas.”

(quoted verbatim from paperbook)

8. As per the said Guidelines, commercial mining, setting

up of saw mills and industries causing pollution, commercial use

of firewood, establishment of major hydro­electric projects, use of

production of any hazardous substances, undertaking activities

related to tourism like over­flying the national park area by any

aircraft, hot­air balloons, discharge of effluents and solid waste

in natural water bodies or terrestrial areas have been proposed

to be made prohibited activities. Certain other activities having

lesser environment damaging potential have been proposed to be

regulated. 

9. By an order passed on 4th August 2006, this Court had,

inter­alia,   restrained   grant   of   temporary   working   permits   for

12

mining within safety zones around any national park/wildlife

sanctuary declared under Sections 18, 26­A or 35 of the Wild

Life (Protection) Act, 1972.  As an interim measure, direction was

issued to maintain one kilometre safety zone, which was subject

to the orders that may be made in the present IA (I.A. No.1000 of

2003).

10. The second report of the CEC dated 20th September 2012

makes the following recommendations as regards identification

and declaration of ESZ. This report entitled  “Note   regarding

safety zones (Eco­sensitive zones) around National Parks and

Wildlife Sanctuaries” makes the following recommendations:­

“10. After considering that during the last ten years no

significant   progress   has   been   made   regarding

identification   and   declaration   of   Safety   Zones   around

protected areas and considering the matter in its totality,

an implementable scheme has been prepared by the CEC

and which has been dealt with in subsequent paragraphs.

11. For the purpose of identification and declaration of the

Safety Zones around National Parks/Wildlife Sanctuaries

(hereinafter referred to as protected areas), the protected

areas   based   on   their   areas,   are   classified   into   four

categories: 

 i) CATEGORY­A ­ the protected areas having an area of

500 sq. km. or more. The total number of such protected

areas is 73 and their total area is about 1,01,389 sq. km

(63.44 % of total area of protected areas); 

  ii)  CATEGORY­B  ­ the protected areas having an area

between 200 sq. km. to 500 sq. km. The total number of

such protected areas is 115 and their total area is about

38942 sq. km. (24.37 % of total area of protected areas); 

13

iii)  CATEGORY­C  ­ the  protected areas  having an area

between 100 sq. km. to 200 sq. km. The total number of

such protected areas is 85 and their total area is about

12,066 sq. km (about 7.55 % of total area of protected

areas); and 

iv) CATEGORY­D ­ the protected areas having an area up

to 100 sq. km. The total number of such protected areas is

344 and their total area is about 7,422 sq. km (about 4.65

% of total area of all protected areas).

12. Wherever two or more protected areas are contiguous

to each other, such protected areas will be placed in the

appropriate category based on the sum total of their areas

(and not on the basis of area of individual protected area).

The details of some of the contiguous protected areas are

given below: 

i)   Corbett   National   Park   (520   sq.   km.)   and

Sonanadi Sanctuary (301 sq. km) ­ total area is

821   sq.   km   and   therefore   both   will   fall   in

Category­A; 

ii)   Gir   National   Park   (258   sq.   km.)   and   Gir

Sanctuary (1,153 sq. km.) ­ total area is 1,411

sq. km. and therefore both will fall in CategoryA; 

iii)   Periyar   National   Park   (350   sq.   km.)   and

Periyar Sanctuary (427 sq. km.) ­ total area is

777   sq.   km.   and   therefore   both   will   fall   in

Category­A;

  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 in CategoryA; 

iv)   Valmiki   National   Park   (335   sq.   km.)   and

Valmiki Sanctuary (545 sq. km.) ­ total area is

880   sq   .   km.   and   therefore   both   will   fall   in

Category­A;

vi)   Tadoba   National   Park   (116   sq.   km.)   and

Andhari Wildlife Sanctuary (509 sq. km.) ­ total

14

area is 625 sq. km. and therefore both will fall in

Category­A; and

  vii) Sariska National Park (273 sq. km.) and

Sariska Sanctuary (219 sq. km.) ­ total area is

492   sq.   km.   and   therefore   both   will   fall   in

Category­B;

13. The Safety Zone, in respect of protected areas falling in

'Category­A and Category­B, may comprise of all the areas

including non­forest areas falling within a distance of two

kilometers   and   one   kilometer   respectively   from   the

boundaries   of   the   protected   area.   Such   distances,   in

respect of protected areas falling within Category­C and

Category­D, may be kept at 500 meter and  100 meter

respectively. 

14.   The   grant/renewal   of   mining   leases   (excluding   for

collection of boulders, gravel and sand from river beds),

setting   up   of   hazardous   industries,   brick   kilns,   wood

based industries (except MDF/Particle Boards Plants) will

be treated as prohibited activities within the Safety Zone

(eco­sensitive zones). The activities such as setting up of

industries   (other   than   those   included   in   the   list   of

prohibited   activities),   hotels   and   restaurants   including

resorts,   commercial   helicopter   services,   hydel   projects,

irrigations  projects, canals, laying of  transmission lines

and distribution lines above 33 KV, roads of more than

five meter width and collection of boulders, gravel and

sand   from   the   river   beds   will   be   treated   as   regulated

activities   and   which   will   be   permissible   only   after

obtaining   environment   clearance   and   clearance   of   the

Standing Committee, National Board for Wildlife. All other

activities which are not prescribed as prohibited activities

or   regulated   activities   will   be   treated   as   permissible

activities. 

15. The concerned State/UT will be at liberty to shift a

protected area from a lower category to higher category

(say from Category­C to Category­B) after considering the

importance of the protected area on account of: 

i) presence of flagship species/endangered species such

as   Tiger,   Lion,   Elephant,   Rhino,   Snow   Leopard,   Red

Panda, Hangul, Musk deer, Great Indian Bustard, Lion

Tailed Macaque, floricans; 

15

ii)   fragile   eco­system   such   as   Western   Ghats,   North

Eastern   States,   areas   having   high   altitude   flora   and

fauna, rain forest, mangroves, marine eco­system; 

iii) World Heritage sites; and 

iv) Wetland eco­systems 

16.   The   concerned   State/UT   Governments   may   after

detailed examination of the status of habitation, existing

industries and other activities and other relevant factors,

and, if found desirable and in public interest forward the

proposal(s)   for   shifting   a   protected   area   from   a   higher

category to a lower category. They may also forward the

proposal(s) for exclusion of the areas of cities falling within

the Safety Zone. The MoEF thereafter will examine such

proposals and place such proposals before the Standing

Committee   of   the   National   Board   for   Wildlife   for   its

consideration.   The   proposals   cleared   by   the   Standing

Committee of the NBWL will be placed before this Hon'ble

Court for seeking its permission. It is only after obtaining

the permission of this Hon'ble Court that a protected area

may be shifted from a higher category to a lower category. 

17. The Safety Zones (eco­sensitive zones) around National

Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries will be in addition to the

following eco­sensitive zones notified by the MoEF (and by

other notifications, if any):

i) S.O. 20(E), (6/1/1989) ­ Prohibiting industries on MurudJanijira, District Raigadh, Maharashtra;

ii)   S.O.   102(E),   (1/2/1989)   ­   Restricting   location   of

industries, mining & other activities in Doon Valley (UP); 

iii)   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 activities

causing environmental degradation at Aravalli Range; 

v)   S.0.   481   (E),   (5/7/1996)   ­   No   Development   Zone   at

Numaligarh, East of Kaziranga; 

16

vi)   S.0.   884(E),   (19/12/1996)   ­   Dahanu   Taluka

Environment Protection Authority, 1996, amended 2001 ; 

vii) S.0. 350(E), (13/5/1998) ­ Order constituting the Taj

Trapezium Zone Pollution (Prevent and Control) Authority; 

viii) S.0. 825(E), (17.9.1998) ­ Pachmarhi Region as an EcoSensitive Zone; 

ix)   S.0.   52(E),   (17/1/2001)   Mahabaleswar   Panchgani

Region as an Eco­Sensitive Zone; 

x) S.0. 133 (E), (4/2/2003) ­ Matheran and surrounding

region as an Eco­Sensitive 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   EcoSensitive Zone.

xii) S.0. 1260(E), (31/05/2012) ­ Girnar Reserve Forest as

Eco­Sensitive Zone. 

18. It is respectfully submitted that the above proposals

are submitted in the back­drop of inordinate delay that

has taken place in the identification and declaration of

Safety Zones around National Parks/ Wildlife Sanctuaries

and so as to ensure that the process of such declarations

do not remain pending indefinitely.”

(quoted verbatim from paperbook)

11. To the said report, another supplementary note dated

18th  January 2013 has been submitted. This report is also in

connection with notifying the ESZ around protected forests. The

following passage from this report is relevant: ­

“4.   After   considering   the   inordinate   delay   which   has

already taken place in notifying the safety zone around

National Parks/ Wildlife Sanctuaries and considering the

ground situation as it exists, the CEC is of the considered

17

view that it may be appropriate that an early decision is

taken regarding the safety zones around National Park/

Sanctuaries. The  proposal  submitted by the  CEC while

ensuring that effective restrictions and regulations are put

in   place   immediately   and   implemented   in   an   objective

manner   also,   after   detailed   examination,   provides   for

adequate   flexibility   to   modify   the   areas   of   the   safety

zones.”

(quoted verbatim from paperbook)

12. In connection with the I.A. No.1000 of 2003, several

other   applications   have   been   filed,   mainly   by   miners

concerning   the   Jamua   Ramgarh   wildlife   sanctuary.     The

order passed on 4th August 2006 by this Court [reported in

(2010) 13 SCC 740] in relation to grant of temporary working

permits was made subjecting them to compliance of certain

pre conditions.  These preconditions, inter­alia, were: ­

“19. (i)   TWPs   can   only   be   granted   for   the   renewal   of

mining leases, and not where the lease is being granted

for the first time to the applicant user agency;

(ii)   The   mine   is   not   located   inside   any   national

park/sanctuary notified under Sections 18, 26­A or 35 of

the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972;

(iii)   The   grant   of   TWP   would   not   result   in   any   mining

activity within the safety zone around such areas referred

to in Precondition (ii) above (as an interim measure, one

kilometre safety zone shall be maintained subject to the

orders that may be made in IA No. 1000 regarding Jamua

Ramgarh Sanctuary);

(iv) The user agency who has broken up the area of the

mine (in respect of which TWP is being sought) has or had

the requisite environmental clearances and at no time prior

to the grant of the TWP was any mining being carried on

by the user agency in relation to the mine in question, in

violation of the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act

18

(for short “the FC Act”). In cases involving violation of the

FC Act, a formal decision on merit should be taken under

the FC Act after considering the gravity of the violation.

However, the grant of a TWP may be considered where

past violations have been regularised by the Ministry of

Environment and Forests (for short “MoEF”) by the grant of

an approval under the FC Act with retrospective effect;

(v) The conditions attached to the approval under the FC

Act for the grant of the mining lease (or the renewal of the

mining   lease)   have   been   fulfilled,   particularly   those   in

respect of (but not limited to) compensatory afforestation,

reclamation plan and overburden dumping on the specified

site;

(vi)   The   user   agency   has,   within   the   stipulated   time,

already   filed   a   proposal   in   conformity   with   the   Forest

(Conservation) Rules, 1980 for seeking an approval under

the FC Act along with the complete details as are required

to be furnished. An application for the grant of TWP in

favour of the user agencies, who have either not filed a

proper   proposal   and/or   have   not   provided   complete

information, particularly in respect of (but not limited to)

compensatory   afforestation,   phased   reclamation   plan,

felling of trees, details of minerals extracted in the past,

etc. should not be entertained;

(vii) A TWP shall be granted only limited to working in the

area broken up legally and during the validity of the lease.

No TWP can be granted in respect of, or extending to either

unbroken area or the areas which have been broken after

the expiry of the mining lease or have been broken in

violation of the FC Act or any other law for the time being

in force;

(viii) In no circumstances can the duration of a TWP extend

beyond the period of one year. Where an application for

the grant of permission under the FC Act is not disposed of

during the currency of TWP, the applicant, on the strength

of the same TWP, may continue to operate for a period not

exceeding   three   months   unless   specific   orders   are

obtained from this Court; and

(ix) A valid lease under the MMRD Act exists [including by

way of a deemed extension in terms of Rule 24­A(6) of the

Mineral Concession Rules] in respect of the area of the

TWP.”

19

13. We shall now briefly refer to the individual I.A.s filed in

connection with I.A No. 1000 of 2003:­ 

(i) Applicants in I.A. Nos. 982­984 of 2003, 1026­1028 of

2004,   1123­1124   of   2004,   1197­1199   of   2004,   1210­

1211 of 2004, 1250­1251 of 2004 and 1512 of 2006 are

firms   who   claim   to   be   mining   lease   holders   or   their

representative   bodies   seeking   impleadment   in   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 seek certain direction that might allow

them to carry on mining activities. Among them, M/s.

Jaipur   Mineral   Development   Syndical   Private   Limited

(I.A.   Nos.1123­1124   of   2004)   has   taken   a   plea   that

Section 66(4) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 was

not applicable to it and in that regard a pending Writ

Petition   instituted   by   them   in   the   High   Court   of

Rajasthan (Writ Petition No. 570 of 2002) has been cited.

In the said application permission has been sought for

restarting   the   mining   activities   in   non­forest   area.

20

Directions have also been asked to prevent initiation of

penal proceedings against the applicant under the Wild

Life (Protection) Act, 1972.  

(ii) The   applicant   in   I.A.   Nos.982­984   of   2003   is   one

Smt.   Magan   Devi   Meena.     Her   case   is   that   she   was

allotted   mining   area   which   is   outside   the   reserve

forest/sanctuary in Thali village and falls outside Pillar

no. 407 (the demarcation point of forest/sanctuary area).

She essentially questions legality of the letter dated 30th

May 2003 issued by the Mining Engineer Jaipur, office of

Mining   Engineer   &   Geology   Department,   Jaipur,

Rajasthan stopping mining operation in the disputed area

of   Jamua   Ramgarh   Wildlife   Sanctuary   and   pending

completion of demarcation.

(iii)In   I.A.   Nos.   1210­1211   of   2004,   the   applicant   is

Madhu Agarwal. Her prayer is for fresh demarcation of

the Pillar no.1 to Pillar no.428 around the said sanctuary

and   she   has   also   sought   directions   on   the   State

Government to release the excess land from the reserve

forest area after fresh demarcation. The applicant in this

21

case has been involved in mining of dolomite in Jamua

Ramgarh   Tehsil   in   the   area   known   as  Rayanwala   of

Digota Forest Block 61.

(iv) I.A. Nos. 1250­1251 of 2004 has been taken out by

Bhushan Sharma, successor in interest of one Sharda

Devi, who was the original allottee of mining around the

Jamua Ramgarh Wildlife Sanctuary.  It is the case of the

applicant that his operations have been stopped by letter

dated   30th  May   2003   issued   by   the   Mining   Engineer

Jaipur, office of Mining Engineer & Geology Department,

Jaipur,   Rajasthan   in   the   disputed   area   of   Jamua

Ramgarh  Sanctuary.  Survey  had   revealed  that   mining

activities   were   being   carried   on   inside   the   wildlife

sanctuary.  The report of CEC dated 27th May 2003 found

number of mines operating around or in two villages,

Sankotda and Thali, which were within the sanctuary

and  the CEC  also found that  the earlier  finding of  a

Committee could not be taken as conclusive proof that

the area involved was a non­forest land and fell outside

the sanctuary.   The State of Rajasthan, however, has

22

taken a stand in their affidavit affirmed on 15th  April

2004 that delineation and demarcation of the boundaries

have already been done.

(v) In I.A. No. 1512 of 2006, M/s. Andhi Marbles Pvt. Ltd

are the applicants. They have prayed for permission to

resume  mining   operations   excluding   the   land   to   the

extent of 100 metres from the forest/sanctuary. 

(vi)  In I.A. No. 3880 of 2015, the applicant is the State of

Rajasthan. Prayer has been made in this application for

appropriate   direction   for   issuing   the   ESZ   of   wildlife

sanctuaries and national parks and to keep in abeyance

a letter issued by CEC on 21st October 2014 by which one

kilometre distance has been required to be maintained in

respect of mining activities from the boundaries of the

National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries.   Certain other

clarifications have also been sought as regards the order

of this Court passed on 4th  August 2006 and we shall

deal with the said issues later in this judgment. The State

of Rajasthan has filed several other affidavits and the

common   theme   of   these   affidavits   is   for   lifting   the

23

restrictions and permit mining activities in and around

the   protected   forests   to   energise   the   economy   of   the

State.  The State seeks permission for subsisting mining

activities   to   operate   outside   the   protected   forests   and

ESZ.  It is also their stand that most of the mining areas

in Jamua Ramgarh Sanctuary were sanctioned prior to

coming into operation of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980

and declaration of the said sanctuary on 31st May 1982. 

14. Apart   from   mining   activities   in   the   Jamua   Ramgarh

Sanctuary, applications have also been taken out in relation to

the CEC reports as the said reports deal with protected forests

all across the country and contemplate uniform ESZ norms for

their protection.  On 14th  July 2003, the recommendations of

CEC dated 27th December 2002 were accepted by this Court in

I.A. No.887 of 2003.  The said application related to wood based

industries   in   the   State   of   Maharashtra,   and,   inter­alia,

concerned 64 saw mills.  That application was disposed of with a

direction for consideration of their cases within a period of two

months and if they were found eligible, their applications were

directed to be sent to the CEC.  The latter was to submit a report

24

and   the   State   of   Maharashtra   was   directed   to   abide   by   the

aforesaid recommendations.  

(i) In I.A. No.1412 of 2005, the applicants are Maharashtra

Timber   Laghu   Udyog   Mahasangha   alongwith   the   Poona

Timber   Merchant   (owners   of   saw   mills   in   the   State   of

Maharashtra). They want clarification of the order of this

Court passed in I.A. No.887 of 2003 for consideration of the

cases of 64 saw mill owners for grant for grant of license as

per notification dated 16th July 1981 issued by the State of

Maharashtra   amending   the   Bombay   Forest   Rules,   1942.

This Court had directed in the aforesaid order (of 14th July

2003) that the cases of the applicants may be examined by

the State Government within a period of two months and if

they are found eligible, their applications could be sent to

the CEC who might submit a report to this Court.   In the

present   application   the   applicants   want   grant   of   license

considering condition no.3 of the Government’s Notification

dated 16th July 1981.

(ii) Applicants in I.A. No. 117831 of 2019 are Maharashtra

Timber   Laghu   Udyog   Mahasangha   alongwith   the   Poona

25

Timber Merchant (64 saw mills owners) in connection with

grant   of   licenses   for   operating  saw   mills.  In  the  present

order,   we   are   confining   our   examination   of   proceedings

arising out of I.A. No.1000 of 2003. As such, the aforesaid

applications   ought   to   be   listed   independently   before   the

appropriate Bench.  

15. The applicant in I.A. No. 96949 of 2019 is the State of

Maharashtra.  On 11th December 2018, this Court had passed

an   order   in   respect   of   21   National   Parks   and   Wildlife

Sanctuaries, which included Thane Creek Flamingo Sanctuary.

This order, inter­alia, records and directs: ­

“It is submitted by the learned Amicus that this issue has

been pending since sometime in December, 2006. 12 years

have gone­by but no effective steps have been taken by

the State Governments in respect of the National Parks

and Wildlife Sanctuaries mentioned above. 

Under the circumstances, we direct that an area of 10 Kms

around these 21 National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries

be   declared   as   Eco   Sensitive   Zone   by   the   MoEF.   The

declaration be made by the MoEF at the earliest. 

Liberty is granted to the State Governments to move an

application   for   modification   of   this   order   along   with

proposal only two weeks after submission of the proposals

to the MoEF. 

List the matters at the end of February, 2019. 

In the meanwhile, interim order to continue.”

(quoted verbatim from paperbook)

26

The prayer of the State of Maharashtra in this application is to

the following effect: ­

“A)   This   Hon’ble   Court   be   pleased   to   modify   its   order

dated 11.12.2018 directing that an area of 10 kilometers

around Thane Creek Flamingo Sanctuary situated in the

State of Maharashtra be declared as Eco Sensitive Zone

by the Ministry of Environment and Forest; and

B) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct that the

area   of   0­3.5   kilometers   as   proposed   in   the   proposal

submitted by the State Government on 22.05.2019 to the

Ministry of Environment and Forest be declared as Eco

Sensitive Zone in respect of the Thane Creek Flamingo

Sanctuary; and

C) Pass any other order and or directions as this Hon’ble

Court   may   deem   fit   and   proper   in   the   facts   and

circumstances of the present case.”

(quoted verbatim from paperbook)

16. The other applications in respect of the same sanctuary

is by an association of real estate developers, CREDAI­MCHI

registered as I.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’ble Court in I.A. No. 1000 in W.P. (C) No. 202 of 1995

inasmuch   as   it   relates   to   the   Thane   Creek   Flamingo

Sanctuary and direct that the Eco Sensitive Zone around

the said Sanctuary shall be in terms of the proposal dated

10.03.2021 submitted by the State Government and the

Draft   Notification   dated   08.04.2021   published   by   the

Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India;

and / or 

(b) Pass such other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may

deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

(quoted verbatim from paperbook)

27

17. The order on 11th  December 2018 was passed by this

Court as the proposals in respect of 21 National Parks and

Wildlife Sanctuaries had not yet been received by the Ministry of

Environment, Forest and Climate Change. Recommendations of

CEC   as   regards   maintaining   ESZ   were   made   in   relation   to

wildlife sanctuaries and national parks on 20th September 2012.

As per the order passed on 11th December 2018, the proposal of

the State Government was to be made before the MoEF&CC and

it   appears   that   a   draft   notification   dated   8th  April   2021

concerning Thane Creek Flamingo Sanctuary has already been

published   by   the   MoEF&CC.   Let   the   MoEF&CC   take   final

decision   in   relation   to   such   draft   notification   as   per   the

provisions of law. Such decision, if already taken, may be placed

before   this   Court   one   week   after   reopening   of   the   Court   on

conclusion   of   the   summer   vacation.   If   such   decision   is   not

taken, then the decision may be taken as per law within a period

of six weeks and be placed before us within the same timeframe.

This   Court   shall   consider   passing   appropriate   direction

thereafter, upon going through such decision. 

28

18. In   I.A.   No.1992   of   2007,   the   M.P.   State   Mining

Corporation Limited has applied for the following reliefs:­

“i. grant   permission   to   file   present   Application   for

Clarification;

ii. clarify   that   the   directions   as   contained   in   interim

Order   dated   4.8.2006   of   this   Hon'ble   Court   in   I.A.

Nos.1413,   1414,  1454   in   I.A.  Nos.   1413,   1426,  1428,

1440,  1439,  1441  ,  1444­1445,  1459 and 1460  in Writ

Petition   (C)   No.202   of   1995   (T.N.  Godavarman

Thirumulpad   Vs.   UOI   &   Ors.   Pertains   only   to   mining

activity   in   Temporary   Working   Permission   (TWP)   cases

requiring approval under Forest Conservation Act,  1980

and that the said directions do not apply to the regular

quarry lease on a revenue land particularly when such

quarry   lease   is   granted   to   the   State   owned   Mining

Corporation by the State Government itself.”

(quoted verbatim from paperbook)

19. So far as this application is concerned, we repeat that in

this   order,  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   within   the   national   parks   and   wildlife

sanctuaries and maintaining ESZ around individual protected

forests. The reliefs asked for by the MP State Mining Corporation

Limited in IA No. 1992 of 2007 do not come within the ambit of

the   subject   we   are   addressing   in   this   judgment/order.   This

application of the Mining Corporation company is in connection

29

with   temporary   working   permits   in   non­forest   areas.   This

application will also have to be addressed separately.

20. There are two affidavits of M/s. Andhi Marbles Pvt. Ltd

affirmed on 19th February 2004 and 29th July 2004 pertaining to

Jamua Ramgarh Sanctuary. Complaint against said M/s. Andhi

Marbles is in relation to mining leases granted and operated by

them.  In the CEC report which has been transformed into I.A.

No.1000 of 2003, it has been recorded that they were granted

mining leases in violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980

as   well   as   the   Wild   Life   (Protection)   Act,   1972.     They   had

continued working on the temporary permits after the order of

this Court dated 12th December 1996.  In the Order of this Court

reported in [(1997) 2 SCC 267] it has been inter­alia observed:­

“4. The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was enacted with a

view   to   check   further   deforestation   which   ultimately

results   in   ecological   imbalance;   and   therefore,   the

provisions made therein for the conservation of forests and

for matters connected therewith, must apply to all forests

irrespective  of the nature  of  ownership or classification

thereof. The word “forest” must be understood according

to   its   dictionary   meaning.   This   description   covers   all

statutorily   recognised   forests,   whether   designated   as

reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose of Section

2(i) of the Forest Conservation Act. The term “forest land”,

occurring in Section 2, will not only include “forest” as

understood   in   the   dictionary   sense,   but   also   any   area

recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of

the ownership. This is how it has to be understood for the

30

purpose of Section 2 of the Act. The provisions enacted in

the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 for the conservation of

forests and the matters connected therewith must apply

clearly   to   all   forests   so   understood   irrespective   of   the

ownership or classification thereof. This aspect has been

made   abundantly   clear   in   the   decisions   of   this   Court

in Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat [(1987) 1 SCC

213], Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of

U.P. [1989 Supp (1) SCC 504] and recently in the order

dated   29­11­1996   (Supreme   Court   Monitoring

Committee v. Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority [

WP (C) No 749 of 1995 decided on 29­11­1996] ). The

earlier decision of this Court in State of Bihar v. Banshi

Ram   Modi [(1985)   3   SCC   643]   has,   therefore,   to   be

understood in the light of these subsequent decisions. We

consider   it   necessary   to   reiterate   this   settled   position

emerging from the decisions of this Court to dispel the

doubt, if any, in the perception of any State Government or

authority. This has become necessary also because of the

stand taken on behalf of the State of Rajasthan, even at

this late stage, relating to permissions granted for mining

in such area which is clearly contrary to the decisions of

this   Court.   It   is   reasonable   to   assume   that   any   State

Government   which   has   failed   to   appreciate   the   correct

position in law so far, will forthwith correct its stance and

take the necessary remedial measures without any further

delay.”

21. The CEC’s observation in I.A. No.1000 of 2003 is that no

mining activity was permissible inside the sanctuary as per this

Court’s   Order   dated   14th  February   2000   and   the   temporary

working   permits   were   granted   in   violation   of   the   applicable

statutory   provisions   and   guidelines   as   the   area   involved   fell

inside the sanctuary. M/s. Andhi Marbles Pvt. Ltd. have taken a

defence   that   their   mining   activities   were   in   terms   of   the

temporary working permit issued and in compliance with the

31

specified conditions laid down by the MoEF&CC.   A point has

also been taken that the limits of the sanctuary was not notified

and   no   notification   under   Section   26A   of   the   Wild   Life

(Protection) Act, 1972 was issued to declare the said area as

sanctuary. They have also taken a point that the mining lease

covering forest has been deleted from the lease document and

they seek to operate two quarries, on non­forest land beyond the

safety zone of 25 metres, which has been specified as part of the

Mineral Policy, 1994 of the State of Rajasthan.   They also, in

effect, seek resumption of mining activities in the area beyond

25 metres from the forest boundary.

22. As regards the Guidelines of 9th  February 2011, which

has   been   referred   to   in   the   affidavit   of   MoEF&CC

affirmed/verified by Dr. Subrata Bose, Scientist ‘F’ Ministry of

Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India,

stand of M/s. Andhi Marbles Pvt. Ltd. is that no consensus has

been reached as regards notifying the areas within 10 kilometres

of the boundaries of National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries as

ESZ.

32

23. In the affidavit filed on behalf of MoEF&CC, which we

have referred to in the preceding paragraph, it has been stated

that the Guidelines for Declaration of ESZ have been notified by

the   Ministry   of   Environment,   Forest   and   Climate   Change,

Government of India. For the purpose of formulation of ESZ in

relation of individual protected forest area, Para 6 of the said

Guidelines has been brought to our notice. A detailed hierarchy

has been prescribed for declaration of ESZ. Referring to the case

of the  Goa   Foundation  (W.P. (C) No.435/2012), it has been

stated in this affidavit that mining activity is prohibited within a

distance of 1 kilometre or the specified ESZ, whichever is higher.

24. On   the   pleas   of   M/s.   Andhi   Marbles   Pvt.   Ltd.   and

another leaseholder, Munni Devi, in subsequent affidavit verified

on   29th  April   2004   the   MoEF&CC   had   justified   granting   of

working permit to the said firms. 

25. The   next   affidavit   of   MoEF&CC   was   verified   on   14th

September 2005 and this affidavit deals with fixing of buffer

zones for activities outside sanctuaries/forests. In this affidavit,

it has been admitted that with respect to the details given in the

earlier affidavit dated 29th April 2004 the decision taken by the

33

Ministry at that point of time while granting temporary working

permission on already broken up area in Jamua Ramgarh could

not incorporate all factual details and thus might not have been

strictly   compatible   with   the   principles   of   the   environmental

conservation. It has further been stated in this affidavit that the

Ministry   directed   the   State   Government   to   ensure   phased

closure of mines. 

26. Altogether  seven  affidavits dated  15th  April  2004,  17th

September 2004, 9th  December 2004, 13th  October 2006, 10th

May 2007, 12th August  2008 and 1st November 2012 filed by the

State of Rajasthan are on record before us. The stand of the

State of Rajasthan as reflected in these affidavits are primarily in

relation to the creation of ESZ. It is their case that the decision

of   25   metres   safety   zone   in   relation   to   Jamua   Ramgarh

sanctuary   has   been   conceived   by   the   State   and   the   State

Government has also taken a decision that in the vicinity of

sanctuaries, national parks and reserve forests, mining activities

should not be undertaken within 25 metres. As regards other

forest   areas,   their   position   is   that   mining   ought   to   be

undertaken in the immediate vicinity of the forest areas. They

34

have expressed difficulties over taking over or acquisition of land

around any sanctuary or other protected forest and their ESZ

without proper proceeding. As regards mining operations within

sanctuary area of Jamua Ramgarh, it has been stated that all

mining activities within the sanctuary have been stopped. In

their affidavit dated 12th August 2008, it has been disclosed by

the State that mining activities in non­forest areas within 100

metres of the Jamua Ramgarh sanctuary has been closed. Their

plea is for allowing mining activity in non­forest areas within

protected   forests   and   beyond   the   ESZ   of   100   metres   for

economic activities, in the interest of local population as also the

State’s economy. 

27. It   has   also   been   highlighted   by   the   State   that   25

sanctuaries, 2 national parks have been declared by the State

comprising of a total area of 9,07,070 hectares and an area of

23,29,659 hectares of area as forest area or deemed forest is

already existing as eco­sensitive/eco fragile/buffer/safety zones

in that State within which no non­forest activities is allowed

without proper permission under the Forest (Conservation) Act,

1980.   The   State   of   Rajasthan   has   opposed   the   proposal   for

35

declaring 10 kilometres beyond the boundary of sanctuaries and

national parks being declared as ESZ. 

28.  The role of the State cannot be confined to that of a

facilitator  or   generator  of   economic   activities  for   immediate

upliftment of the fortunes of the State. The State also has to act

as a trustee for the benefit of the general public in relation to

the natural resources so that sustainable development can be

achieved   in   the   long   term.  Such   role   of   the   State   is   more

relevant today, than, possibly, at any point of time in history

with the threat of climate catastrophe resulting from global

warming looming large. This Court has highlighted the Public

Trust Doctrine in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and

Others  [(1997) 1 SCC 388] and opined that the Public Trust

Doctrine is part of the law of land. In Paragraph 25 of the said

judgment, as reported, this doctrine has been explained with

reference   to   writings   of   Joseph   L.   Sax,   Professor   of   Law,

University of Michigan,  the proponent of Modern Public Trust

Doctrine:­ 

“25. The   Public   Trust   Doctrine   primarily   rests   on   the

principle that certain resources like air, sea, waters and

the forests have such a great importance to the people as

a whole that it would be wholly unjustified to make them

36

a subject of private ownership. The said resources being

a gift of nature, they should be made freely available to

everyone irrespective of the status in life. The doctrine

enjoins upon the Government to protect the resources for

the enjoyment of the general public rather than to permit

their use for private ownership or commercial purposes.

According   to   Professor   Sax   the   Public   Trust   Doctrine

imposes   the   following   restrictions   on   governmental

authority:

“Three types of restrictions on governmental authority are

often thought to be imposed by the public trust: first, the

property subject to the trust must not only be used for a

public purpose, but it must be held available for use by

the general public; second, the property may not be sold,

even for a fair cash equivalent; and third the property

must be maintained for particular types of uses.”

29. Reliance has been placed on the said doctrine in earlier

orders of this Court in this very writ petition,  passed on 30th

October 2002, 26th September 2005 and 13th February 2012. So

far   as   the   views   of  the   State   of   Rajasthan   is   concerned,   as

reflected in their affidavits and written notes, their consideration

for   justifying   mining   in   Jamua   Ramgarh   and   its   periphery

primarily stems from the prospect of immediate economic gains

and their role as a trustee of natural resources of the land has

been largely overlooked.

30. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change

(MoEF&CC) is against having a uniform ESZ for all national

parks and reserved forests. Their view is that the ESZ area ought

to   be   site­specific.   Our   attention   has   been   drawn   to   the

37

Comprehensive   Guidelines   formulated,   to   which   we   have

referred earlier in this Order.  In the case of Goa Foundation v.

Union   of   India   and   Others  [(2014)   6   SCC   590],   the   order

passed in this proceeding [IA 1000 of 2003] on 4th August 2006

has also been referred to and relied upon.  Affidavits have been

filed by the State of Goa affirmed on 19th September 2012 and

31st  October 2012. Main concern of the State of Goa is over

creation   of   ESZ   of   10   kilometres   from   the   boundaries   of

protected forests as buffer zone and it is also contended on their

behalf   that   such   buffer   zones   should   be   site­specific.   It   is

highlighted that in the State of Goa vegetative aerial cover of Goa

is more than 59.99% (as per the Indian State Forest Report of

2011) and protected forest areas constitute over 20% of the total

geographic area. On this basis, they seek appropriate directions.

It has also been brought to our notice that notifications have

been issued in respect of several sanctuaries stipulating the ESZ

boundaries. Written submissions have also been filed by Goa

Foundation [the petitioners in W.P. (C) 460/2004] and W.P. (C)

435/2012 in which it has been  urged   that minimum extent of

ESZ ought to be as per  the CEC recommendations incorporating

38

therein   the   modifications/suggestions   by   the   learned   Amicus

Curiae. So far as State of Goa is concerned, the scope of mining

activities is being dealt with in the case of  Goa   Foundation

(supra). In the present I.A., we would not address issues specific

to the said case. But the directives we shall make, as we have

already indicated, which are not covered by the issues involved

in   the   case   of  Goa   Foundation  (supra)   shall   apply   to   the

protected forest and adjacent areas. 

31. On   the   point   of   buffer   zone   for   activities   outside   the

sanctuaries/national parks, the National Board of Wildlife in its

21st meeting held on 21st January 2002 adopted National Wildlife

Conservation Strategy. Paragraph 9 of the Strategy document

concerns   the   buffer   areas   around   the   national   parks   and

sanctuaries.  It has been recorded therein:­ 

“Lands falling within 10 kms of the boundaries of National

Parks and Sanctuaries should be notified as Eco­fragile

Zones under Section 3(v) of the Environment (Protection)

Act and Rule 5, Sub­rule 5(viii) and (x) of the Environment

(Protection) Rules.”

(quoted verbatim from paperbook)

But it does not appear from the said affidavit that said proposal

of notifying 10 kilometres as boundaries of the national parks

and sanctuaries as Eco­fragile zone was finalised. 

39

32. The MoEF&CC essentially has argued in favour of having

ESZ to be site­specific and for that purpose they have invited

proposals   from  individual   State   Government  in   the   aforesaid

Guidelines. In cases where such proposals have not come, they

want 10 kilometres periphery of protected forests to be preserved

as ESZ. As regards activities permissible within the buffer zone,

certain works have been proposed to be regulated and certain

activities   to   be   permitted   within   the   ESZ.   This   has   been

stipulated   in  Annexure­I  to   the   Guidelines.  We  have  already

referred   to   the   prohibited   activities.   Among   the   regulated

activities, as per these Guidelines are:­ 

(i) Felling of trees with permission from appropriate

authority. 

(ii) Establishment of hotels and resort as per approved

master   plan,   which   takes   care   of   habitats   allowing   no

restriction on movement of wild animals.

(iii) Drastic change in agricultural systems.

(iv) Commercial   use   of   natural   water   resources

including ground water harvesting as per approved master

plan, which takes care of habitats allowing no restriction

on movement of wild animals.

(v) Erection   of   electrical   cables   with   stress   on

promoting underground cabling.

(vi) Fencing of premises of hotels and lodges.

(vii) Use of polythene bags by shopkeepers.

40

(viii) Widening   of   roads   with   proper   environmental

impact assessment.

(ix) Movement   of   vehicular   traffic   at   night   for

commercial purposes.

(x) Introduction of exotic species.

(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:­

(i) Ongoing agricultural and horticulture practices by

local communities.

(ii) Rain water harvesting

(iii) Organic farming

(iv) Use of renewable energy sources 

(v) Adoption of green technology for all activities.

33. In the affidavit of the Standing Committee of National

Board of Wildlife, the views of the non­official members of the

Standing   Committee   have   been   placed   on   record,   which

essentially contemplates continuation of the 10 kilometres buffer

zone.  Order passed by this Court on 4th December 2006 in the

case of Goa Foundation (W.P. (C) 460/2004) proposes following

such a course if there is delay in site­specific preparation of ESZ

for individual States/Union Territories. On the aspect of having

site­specific ESZ under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986,

the   view   of   the   National   Board   of   Wildlife,   appears   to   be

41

unanimous.     It   is   their   opinion   that   some   protected   areas,

because of their smaller size, may require larger safety zone

around it. 

34. We shall deal first with the question of impleadment of

firms   and   individuals   who   had   some   kind   of   permission   for

carrying on mining activities in Jamua Ramgarh sanctuary. The

Interlocutory Applications which we are dealing with arise out of

a public interest litigation and there is no doubt that orders

passed in litigation of this nature could affect a large body of

persons who may not be included in the array of parties at the

time of institution of the proceeding. To an extent, litigations of

this   nature   assume   an  In­rem  character.  Ideally,   for   such   a

public interest litigation, the procedure contemplated in Rule

VIII of Order 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 could be

followed   to   the   extent   of   issue   of   public   notice   or   general

intimation to public in such mode as the Court may consider fit

and   proper,   having   regard   to   the   nature   and   scope   of   the

proceeding. But in cases where such a course has not been

taken, persons affected or likely to be affected by any order

passed in the litigation would be entitled to join or participate in

42

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 2004 are allowed.

35. The approach of the Court in dealing with complaints of

environmental   degradation   has   been   laid   down   by   this   very

Bench in this Writ Petition itself in an order passed on 9th May

2022 in  connection  with  another set of  applications.  In this

Order, it has been observed and held:­

“15.  Adherence   to   the   principle   of   sustainable

development   is   a   constitutional   requirement.   While

applying   the   principle   of   sustainable   development   one

must   bear   in   mind   that   development   which   meets   the

needs of the present without compromising the ability of

the future generations to meet their own needs. Therefore,

Courts are required to balance development needs with

the protection of the environment and ecology. It is the

duty of the State under our Constitution to devise and

implement a coherent and coordinated programme to meet

its obligation of sustainable development based on intergenerational equity. While economic development should

not 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 and environment should not hamper economic and

other developments. Both development and environment

must go hand in hand, in other words, there should not be

development at the cost of environment and vice versa, but

there should be development while taking due care and

ensuring the protection of environment. 

43

16.  In  Vellore   Citizens’  Welfare   Forum   v.   Union   of

India, this Court held that the ‘Precautionary Principle’ is

an   essential   feature   of   the   principle   of   ‘Sustainable

Development’.   It   went   on   to   explain   the   precautionary

principle in the following terms: ­ 

(i) Environmental measures — by the State Government

and the statutory authorities — must anticipate, prevent

and attack the causes of environmental degradation. 

(ii)   Where   there   are   threats   of   serious   and   irreversible

damage, lack of scientific certainty should not be used as

a   reason   for   postponing   measures   to   prevent

environmental degradation. 

(iii)   The   “onus   of   proof”   is   on   the   actor   or   the

developer/industrialist   to   show   that   his   action   is

environmentally benign.

17. The principle of precaution involves the anticipation of

environmental harm and taking measures to avoid it or to

choose   the   least   environmentally   harmful   activity.   It   is

based on scientific uncertainty. Environmental protection

should  not  only aim  at  protecting health,  property and

economic interest but also protect the environment for its

own sake. Precautionary duties must not only be triggered

by the suspicion of concrete danger but also by justified

concern or risk potential.

18. A situation may arise where there may be irreparable

damage to the environment after an activity is allowed to

go ahead and if it is stopped, there may be irreparable

damage to economic interest. This Court held that in case

of   a   doubt,   protection   of   environment   would   have

precedence over the economic interest. It was further held

that precautionary principle requires anticipatory action to

be taken to prevent harm and that harm can be prevented

even   on   a   reasonable   suspicion.   Further,   this   Court

emphasises in the said judgment that it is not always

necessary that there should be direct evidence of harm to

the environment.”

44

While   dealing   with   the   applications   in   the   present   set   of

proceedings, we shall follow the same principles. 

36. We shall now examine the prayers of the applicants for

continuing their mining activities within sanctuary. This relief

has been asked for by Smt. Magan Devi Meena (IA Nos. 982­984

of 2003), M/s. Agarwal Marbles Centre Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (IA Nos.

1026­1028   of   2004),   M/s.   Jaipur   Mineral   Development

Syndicate   Private   Limited   (IA   Nos.   1123­1124   of   2004),

Federation of Mining Associations of Rajasthan (IA Nos. 1197­

1199 of 2004), Bhushan Sharma (IA Nos. 1250­1251 of 2004)

and M/s. Andhi Marbles Pvt Ltd. (IA No. 1512 of 2006). We must

point out here that in the affidavit of the State of Rajasthan, it

has been stated that they had formulated a policy of maintaining

a distance of 25 metre from the vicinity of important forest areas

like   game   sanctuary,   reserved   forest,   mining   activities   to   be

prohibited. In other forest areas, mining could be undertaken in

the immediate vicinity of the forest area as per the policy. This

has been stated in the affidavit of the State of Rajasthan filed on

9

th December 2004 and such a stand appears to have had been

taken from the Mineral Policy of 1994. It, however, appears that

45

a new Mineral Policy had been adopted by the State of Rajasthan

in 2015. 

37. There are also pleas for permitting some of the miners to

continue mining activities within 25 metre zone conceived by the

State of Rajasthan as Buffer Zone.   In three applications, I.A.

Nos.1123­1124   of   2004,   I.A.Nos.1197­1199   of   2004   and

I.A.Nos.1210­1211 of 2004, M/s. Jaipur Mineral Development

Syndicate   Pvt.   Ltd.,   Federation   of   Mining   Association   of

Rajasthan and Smt. Madhu Agarwal have taken a point that

there   was   improper   declaration   of   Jamua   Ramgarh   as   a

sanctuary. The notification made under Section 18 of the Wild

Life (Protection) Act, 1972 bearing No. F.11(19) Raj.­8/81 Jaipur

dated 31st May 1982 has been annexed to the I.A. Nos. 982­984

of 2003 the applicant therein, being Magan Devi Meena. Initially,

there was declaration of the said sanctuary as reserved forest

under   the   Rajasthan   Forest   Act,   1953.   Thereafter,   the

notification of 31st May 1982 came into operation under the Wild

Life (Protection) Act, 1972.  

38. In I.A. No.1000 of 2003, it has been disclosed that the

settlement of  rights  were  completed by the  District  Collector

46

Jaipur under Sections 19 to 26 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act,

1972.   So far as Section 26A is concerned, which deals with

declaration   of   area   as   sanctuary   the   said   provision   was

incorporated in the statute with effect from 2nd  October 1991.

That   amendment   came   by   way   of   Act   44   of   1991.   After

amendment, Section 18 of the Act stipulates:­

“18. Declaration of sanctuary:—

(1) The State Government may, by notification, declare its

intention   to   constitute   any   area   other   than   an   area

comprised   within   any   reserve   forest   or   the   territorial

waters as a sanctuary if it considers that such area is of

adequate   ecological,   faunal,   floral,   geomorphological,

natural   or   zoological   significance,   for   the   purpose   of

protecting,   propagating   or   developing   wild   life   or   its

environment.

(2) The   notification   referred   to   in   sub­section   (1)   shall

specify, as nearly as possible, the situation and limits of

such area. 

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section it shall be

sufficient to describe the area by roads, rivers, ridges or

other well­known or readily intelligible boundaries.”

Section 26A of the Act, which, again, was introduced by Act 44

of  1991  contemplates further declaration  after  compliance  of

certain formalities. No other amendment has been brought to

our notice.  Section 18 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 as

it originally stood, reads:­ 

“18.   (1)   The   State   Government   may,   by   notification,

declare any area to be a sanctuary if it considers that

47

such   area   is   of   adequate   ecological,   faunal,   floral,

geomorphological, natural or zoological significance, for the

purpose of protecting, propagating or developing wild life

or its environment. 

(2)     The  notification   referred  to   in  sub­section  (1)   shall

specify, as nearly as possible, the situation and limits of

such area.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, it shall be

sufficient to describe the area by roads, rivers, ridges or

other well­known or readily intelligible boundaries.”

39. The declaration was made by the State of Rajasthan in

1982 and we do not find any flaw in such declaration.   The

amended   provisions,   thus,   could   not   apply   to   the   Jamua

Ramgarh Wildlife Sanctuary. The plea taken that it did not have

the   status   of   a   sanctuary   because   no   declaration   was   there

under Section 26A of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 is

without any basis. We shall proceed in this order on the basis

that Jamua Ramgarh is a subsisting sanctuary. 

40. We have already indicated that CEC in I.A. No.1000 of

2003   has   given   a   dreadful   account   of   the   condition   of   the

sanctuary,   ravaged   by   mining   activities.   CEC   in   the   same

document   has   also   outlined   the   importance   of   the   said

sanctuary.  These would appear from paragraphs 4 and 5 of the

said I.A which read:­

48

“4. In stark contrast to the above during the site visits to

the Jamua Ramgarh Sanctuary the CEC came across a

horrible   and   unbelievable   picture   of   devastated   eco   ­

system   due   to   indiscriminate   mining   activity  in   blatant

violation   of   the   Forest   (Conservation)   Act,   Wild   Life

(Protection) Act and even this Hon'ble Court's orders. The

sanctuary is littered with hundreds of deep mining pits,

randomly scattered "over burdens", scores of cranes and

mined boulders and stones scattered all over the place. It

is rare to see such a destruction even in a non forest area,

least of all inside a sanctuary. It is a horror story that has

to be seen to be believed. This is a site where all the laws

and conventions that govern the natural world have been

violated for commercial gains. Instead of being managed

as a wild life sanctuary, it appears to have been managed

as a mining sanctuary. In the present form it may be more

appropriate to rename the area as "Jamua Ramgarh Wild

Life Graveyard". A photographic report is appended hereto

at

ANNEXURE­A graphically showing the ground situation.

5.   The   forest   of   Jamua   Ramgarh   forms   the   critical

catchment area of the lake which is the main source of

water supply to the city of Jaipur. Notwithstanding this 69

mining leases were sanctioned from time to time in Jamua

Ramgarh after enactment of the Forest (Conservation) Act

1980   i.e.   25.10.1980.   Each   and   every   mine   was

sanctioned in violation of the provisions of the F.C. Act as

well   as

the Wild Life (Protection) Act. No perceptible attempt was

made to regulate the mines as per the provisions of the

F.C.   Act   and   the   W.P.   Act.   No   valid   and   satisfactory

explanation   was   given   by   the   State   Government   for

allowing the mining leases to operate for years together

except   that   it   was   a   common   practice   to   allow   mining

leases in the forest area / sanctuary without obtaining

specific  approvals under the F.C.Act or the W.P.Act. The

details of these mines are given in ANNEXURE­B.”

(quoted verbatim from paperbook)

41. In their affidavits, the State of Rajasthan had referred to

the Mining Policy of 1994 which stipulated 25 metres to be

49

safety zone around the periphery of Jamua Ramgarh Wildlife

Sanctuary but subsequent thereto the Mining Policy of 2015 for

the State of Rajasthan has come and they do not seem to have

any specified safety zone.  Moreover, in view of the order of this

Court passed on 4th  August 2006, 1 kilometre safety zone has

been   directed   to   be   maintained   as   regards   Jamua   Ramgarh

Wildlife Sanctuary.  Beyond Jamua Ramgarh Wildlife Sanctuary,

CEC itself has given its view on eco sensitive zone in their report

dated 20th  September 2012.   The recommendations have been

quoted   in   the   earlier   part   of   this   order.     In   the   affidavit   of

Standing Committee of National Board of Wildlife filed on 26th

November 2012, the views of said Committee was expressed and

the Committee was of unanimous opinion that each State ought

to delineate the outer limits of ESZ on a site­specific, case by

case basis, keeping in view the ecological imperatives and the

grounds realities of the protected area.  It was also the view of

the said Committee that expert opinion and scientific inputs

ought to be obtained from individuals and institutions in that

regard.   In substance the view of the Committee is that there

should   not   be   uniform   ESZ.     We   have   also   referred   to   the

50

Guidelines   dated   9th  February   2011   which   gives   a   detailed

procedure for evolving ESZ and identification of activities that

could be carried on in such zones.  The order of this Court in the

case of Goa Foundation [W.P. (C) No.460 of 2004] passed on 4th

December   2006   also   contemplated   issue   of   direction   for

maintaining a 10 kilometre wide safety zone from the boundaries

in respect of sanctuaries and national parks as there was lack of

response from the States and Union territories in relation to

queries on various aspects in respect of wildlife conservation.

The proposal for having an ESZ of 10 kms from the boundaries

of   the   national   parks   and   wildlife   sanctuaries   was   originally

mooted on 21st January 2002 in the meeting of the Indian Board

for Wildlife, as it appears from the order passed by this Court in

the case of Goa Foundation [W.P. (C) No.460 of 2004] on 30th

January 2006. We have to collate the views of these experts’

bodies including the CEC, who have been assisting this Court

through the different stages of this litigation.  

42. In our opinion, the Guidelines framed on 9th  February

2011 appears to be reasonable and we accept the view of the

Standing   Committee   that   uniform   Guidelines   may   not   be

51

possible   in   respect   of   each   sanctuary   or   national   parks   for

maintaining   ESZ.     We   are   of   the   opinion,   however,   that   a

minimum width of    1 kilometre ESZ ought to be maintained in

respect   of   the   protected   forests,   which   forms   part   of   the

recommendations of the CEC in relation to Category B protected

forests. This would be the standard formula, subject to changes

in   special   circumstances.   We   have   considered   CEC’s

recommendation that the ESZ should be relatable to the area

covered by a protected forest but the Standing Committee’s view

that   the   area   of   a   protected   forest   may   not   always   be   a

reasonable   criteria   also   merits   consideration.   It   was   argued

before us that the 1 km wide “no­development­zone” may not be

feasible in all cases and specific instances were given for Sanjay

Gandhi National Park and Guindy National Park in Mumbai and

Chennai metropolis respectively which have urban activities in

very close proximity. These sanctuaries shall form special cases.

43. Turning specifically to Jamua Ramgarh Sanctuary, the

first report of the CEC proposed 100 metres as ESZ.   In the

second   report,   however,   one   kilometre   width   has   been

recommended for all protected forests falling under category ‘B’.

52

Having regard to its area, the said sanctuary comes in that

category.  In the order of this Court passed on 4th August 2006,

the same margin, i.e. one kilometre as buffer zone has been

prescribed. In the given facts concerning the Jamua Ramgarh

Sanctuary,   in   our   opinion   the   margin   of   25   metres   as

contemplated   in   the   1994   Mineral   Policy   of   the   State   of

Rajasthan   is   grossly   inadequate.   We,   however,   treat   Jamua

Ramgarh sanctuary as a special case for fixing the ESZ as in the

past, the buffer zone varied from 25 metres to 100 metres. In our

opinion, ESZ of 500 metres would be a reasonable buffer zone,

within which subsisting activities which does not come within

the prohibited list as per the Guidelines of 9th  February 2011

could be carried on. But for commencing of any new activity

which would be otherwise permissible, the ESZ norm of one

kilometre shall be maintained for Jamua Ramgarh sanctuary.  

44. We accordingly direct:­

(a) Each protected forest, that is national park or wildlife

sanctuary must have an ESZ of minimum one kilometre

measured   from   the   demarcated   boundary   of   such

protected forest in which the activities proscribed and

53

prescribed in the Guidelines of 9th February 2011 shall be

strictly   adhered   to.   For   Jamua   Ramgarh   wildlife

sanctuary, it shall be 500 metres so far as subsisting

activities are concerned. 

(b) In the event, however, the ESZ is already prescribed as

per law that goes beyond one kilometre buffer zone, the

wider margin as ESZ shall prevail. If such wider buffer

zone   beyond   one   kilometre   is   proposed   under   any

statutory instrument for a particular national park or

wildlife sanctuary awaiting final decision in that regard,

then till such final decision is taken, the ESZ covering

the   area   beyond   one   kilometre   as   proposed   shall   be

maintained.

(c) The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests as also the

Home Secretary of each State and Union Territory shall

remain   responsible   for   proper   compliance   of   the   said

Guidelines as regards nature of use within the ESZ of all

national parks and sanctuaries within a particular State

or Union Territory. The Principal Chief Conservator of

Forests   for   each   State   and   Union   Territory   shall   also

54

arrange to make a list of subsisting structures and other

relevant details within the respective ESZs forthwith and

a   report   shall   be   furnished   before   this   Court   by   the

Principal Chief Conservator of Forests of each State and

Union Territory within a period of three months. For this

purpose,   such   authority   shall   be   entitled   to   take

assistance   of   any   governmental   agency   for   satellite

imaging or photography using drones.

(d) Mining within the national parks and wildlife sanctuaries

shall not be permitted.

(e) In  the   event   any   activity  is  already   being   undertaken

within the one kilometre or extended buffer zone (ESZ),

as the case may be, of any wildlife sanctuary or national

park which does not come within the ambit of prohibited

activities as per the 9th February 2011 Guidelines, such

activities may continue with permission of the Principal

Chief   Conservator   of   Forests   of   each   State   or   Union

Territory and the person responsible for such activities in

such a situation shall obtain necessary permission within

a period of six months.  Such permission shall be given

55

once   the   Principal   Chief   Conservator   of   Forests   is

satisfied that the activities concerned do not come within

the prohibited list and were continuing prior to passing of

this order in a legitimate manner.   No new permanent

structure shall be permitted to come up for whatsoever

purpose within the ESZ.

(f) The   minimum   width   of   the   ESZ   may   be   diluted   in

overwhelming public interest but for that purpose the

State or Union Territory concerned shall approach the

CEC and  MoEF&CC and  both  these bodies shall  give

their   respective   opinions/recommendations   before   this

Court. On that basis, this Court shall pass appropriate

order. 

(g) In   the   event   the   CEC,   MoEF&CC,   the   Standing

Committee of National Board of Wildlife or any other body

of   persons   or   individual   having   special   interest   in

environmental   issues   consider   it   necessary   for

maintaining   a   wider   or   larger   ESZ   in   respect   of   any

national   park   or   wildlife   sanctuary,   such   body   or

individual shall approach the CEC.  In such a situation

56

the CEC shall be at liberty to examine the need of a wider

ESZ in respect of any national park or wildlife sanctuary

in consultation with all the stakeholders including the

State or Union Territory concerned, MoEF&CC as also

the Standing Committee of National Board of Wildlife and

then approach this Court with its recommendations. 

(h) In respect of sanctuaries or national parks for which the

proposal of a State or Union Territory has not been given,

the 10 kilometres buffer zone as ESZ, as indicated in the

order passed by this Court on 4th December 2006 in the

case of  Goa  Foundation  (supra) and also contained in

the   Guidelines   of   9th  February   2011   shall   be

implemented.   Within   that   area,   the   entire   set   of

restrictions concerning an ESZ shall operate till a final

decision in that regard is arrived at.

(i) I.A. No. 1412 of 2005 and I.A.No.117831 of 2019 do not

relate to the issues involved in I.A. No.1000 of 2003.

These applications may be placed before the appropriate

Bench to be heard independently.

57

(j) For the same reason, I.A. No.1992 of 2007 shall also be

dealt with independently by the appropriate Bench and

no order is being passed concerning this application at

this stage.

(k) The application of the State of Rajasthan registered as

I.A. No.3880 of 2015 relates to clarification of an order

passed in the case of Goa Foundation (W.P.(C) No.460 of

2004). Let this application be placed before the Bench

taking up the case of Goa Foundation.

(l) I.A.No.96949   of   2019   and   I.A.No.65571   of   2021   are

disposed of with directions that the MoEF&CC as also

CEC shall proceed to take a decision in regard to the

draft proposal for ESZ made by the State of Maharashtra

to the extent of   0­3.89 kilometres and the MoEF&CC

shall take final decision on that basis within a period of

three   months,   if   said   decision   has   not   already   been

taken. 

(m) Prayers for impleadment of the applicants in I.A. Nos.

984 of 2003, 1026 of 2004, 1123 of 2004, 1197 of 2004

58

and 1251 of 2004 are allowed. Necessary amendments

may be carried out in these regards. 

(n) For the reasons already given, however, prayers of the

applicants in I.A. Nos.982 of 2003, 1027 of 2004, 1124 of

2004, 1198 of 2004, 1210 of 2004, 1250 of 2004 and

1512 of 2006 are rejected.

(o) The CEC shall quantify the compensation to be recovered

from each miner indulging in mining activities within the

Jamua Ramgarh sanctuary in violation of any statutory

provision   or   order   of   this   Court.   Specific

recommendations   for   compensatory   afforestation,

reclamation,   clearing   overburden   dumping   as   also

compensation in monetary units for degradation of forest

resources   shall   also   be   made.   A   further   set   of

recommendations   concerning   confiscation   of   earth

moving equipments and other machineries lying within or

in the periphery of the said sanctuary shall be made by

the   CEC.   Recommendations   shall   be   made   within   a

period of four months before this Court in the form of an

application.   This   Court   shall   consider   passing

59

appropriate order upon going through such application.

The   exercise   concerning   such   reparation,   including

quantifying   compensation   shall   be   undertaken   upon

giving   the   mining   operator,   State   and   MoEF&CC

opportunity of hearing.  

(p) In the event there is any subsisting order of any High

Court   or   any   Court   subordinate   to   such   High   Court

covering any of the issues dealt with by this Court in this

order, this order shall prevail over any such order which

may be contrary to these directions.

(q) We   have   already   observed   that   there   are   certain

overlapping issues involved in this writ petition and the

cases of  Goa   Foundation  (Writ Petition (C) No.460 of

2004) and (Writ Petition (C) No.435 of 2012).  We request

the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India to consider having

the present writ petition i.e.  In  Re: T.N.  Godavarman

Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) No.460

of 2004 (Goa Foundation v. Union of India) as also W.P.

(C) No.435 of 2012 (Goa Foundation v. Union of India &

60

Ors.)   be   heard   together   before   the   same   Bench.   The

registry may place this order before the Hon’ble the Chief

Justice of India.

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

terms.

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

………………………………., J.

(L. NAGESWARA RAO)

………………………………., J.

(B.R. GAVAI)

………………………………., J.

(ANIRUDDHA BOSE)

NEW DELHI;

3

rd JUNE, 2022

61