Prohibition of mining within one kilometer from the boundary of National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries applies pan-India, emphasizing strict adherence to environmental protection guidelines and ESZ notifications.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. Gavai, J.

1. When we pronounced our judgment in I.A. No. 131377 of 2022 along with connected applications in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995 on 26th April 2023, we did not anticipate that within a few days, we would be called upon to clarify the position as to whether mining activities would be permissible beyond the distance of one kilometer from the boundary of the Protected Area, irrespective of the fact that such an area falls under the Eco-Sensitive Zone (in short “ESZ”) notified by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (“MoEF” for short).

2. We are grateful to the applicant in the present application for giving us this opportunity to clarify this position so that further environmental damage is avoided.

3. The case of the applicant, in brief, is that the applicant was granted permission to execute a mining lease as early as in 2005, subject to clearance from MoEF as well as the National Board for Wild Life.

4. Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant, submits that the area where the applicant proposes to carry out the activity is beyond 2.26 kilometer from the nearest boundary of the Radhanagari Wildlife Sanctuary. It is, therefore, submitted that it falls beyond a distance of one kilometer from the boundary of the Protected Area.

5. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel, therefore, relying on our judgment dated 26th April 2023 passed in I.A. No. 131377 of 2022 along with connected applications in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995, the ink of which is yet to dry, submits that, since mining is proposed to be carried out beyond a distance of one kilometer from the boundary of Protected Area, it would very much be permitted.

6. Learned senior counsel submits that this Court has clearly held that mining within a distance of one kilometer from the boundary of the Protected Area is banned. He submits that, however, the judgment does not prohibit mining activities even in ESZ, which is a buffer area, if it extends beyond a distance of one kilometer from the boundary of the Protected Area.

7. He, however, submits that this would be subject to permission from the Standing Committee of National Board for Wild Life (in short “SCNBWL”), which admittedly, has granted permission.

8. Mr. Balbir Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India as well as Mr. A.D.N. Rao, learned Amicus Curiae have vehemently opposed this prayer and they submit that the contention of the applicant is based on a misreading of the directions issued by this Court.

9. We find that the directions issued in paragraph 65 of the judgment of this Court delivered on 26th April 2023 are very much clear. It reads thus :

“65. We also modify the direction contained in paragraph 56.4 of the order dated 3rd June, 2022 (Supra) and direct that mining within the National Park and Wildlife Sanctuary and within an area of one kilometre from the boundary of such National Park and Wild Life Sanctuary shall not be permissible.”

10. The perusal of the above para would reveal that the directions, which were issued by this Court earlier for prohibiting mining activities within a distance of one kilometer from the boundary of such National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries only insofar as the State of Goa was concerned, has been made applicable pan-India.

11. The aforesaid question arose since in case of some of the National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries, the ESZ areas are less than one kilometer. In some, it is as less as 500 meters and in some others, it is even less than 500 meters.

12. We, therefore, clarified that even in case where the ESZ boundaries are less than one kilometer from the Protected Area, the ban on mining shall extend upto a distance of one kilometer from the boundary of such areas.

13. It will further be relevant to refer to paragraph 66.1 of our judgment dated 26th April,