A.P. Lavande, J. Heard Mr. D. Khambatta, Mr. D. Mehta, Mr. N. Sardessai, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. C. A. Ferreira, learned Asst. Solicitor General and Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General for the respondents.

2. All the four writ petitions are being disposed of by common judgment since the issues involved in all these petitions are almost identical.

3. For the sake of convenience, we shall deal with the facts in Writ Petition No.685/2012 since the arguments which have been advanced in this petition by learned Senior Advocate Mr. D. Khambatta, have been adopted by learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in other writ petitions.

4. The petitioners, in Writ Petition No. 685/2012, are engaged in mining activities. It is the case of the petitioners that the mine is situated at a distance of about 1.22 kms. from Bhagwan Mahaveer Wildlife Sanctuary. On 15th December, 1995, respondent No.1 granted permission for diversion of forest land for mining lease under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, which was extended from time to time. On 3rd September, 2007, respondent No.1 granted environmental clearance for the mining, subject to certain conditions. On 17th October, 2007, the petitioner applied for clearance under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 with respondent No.1, which according to the petitioner, was the competent authority under the Wildlife Act. The petitioner submitted the compliance report on 19th January, 2008 with respondent No.1 stating that clearance under the Wildlife Act has been sought from respondent No.3 on 17th October, 2007. In February, 2008, the petitioner obtained consent under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, which have been renewed from time to time.

5. On 19th February, 2008, respondent No.1 inspected the petitioner's mine for monitoring under the environment clearance. Thereafter on 15th July, 2008, respondent No.3 granted permission under the Wildlife Act and on 21st August, 2009, the petitioner filed compliance report with respondent No.1 stating, inter alia, that clearance under the Wildlife Act has been obtained from respondent No.3, on 5th July, 2008. In so far as drawal of ground water is concerned, prior permission would be obtained from the competent authority, if required, to draw the ground water. Similar compliance reports were also filed with respondent No.1 on 18.11.2010, and 15.6.2011.

6. On 26th September, 2011, respondent No.1 again inspected the petitioner's mine and on 15th December, 2011, inspection report dated 26.9.2011 was sent to the petitioner, inter alia, stating that in view of the Supreme Court Order dated 4th December, 2006, the environment clearance be kept in abeyance since final approval of the Wildlife Board and prior permission for drawal of ground water had not been obtained. The petitioner sent its response to respondent No.1, disputing the contentions raised in the report.

7. Thereafter, on 23rd April, 2012, respondent No.1 issued show cause notice to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner as to why the environmental clearance should not be revoked, primarily on the following two grounds : (I) approval from the Standing Committee of Wildlife Board, was not obtained; and (II) permission for drawal of the ground water was not obtained.

8. On 15th May, 2012, the petitioner gave reply to the show cause notice, inter alia, stating that no Eco-sensitive Zone has been delineated till date. Thereafter, by impugned order dated 13 th September, 2012, respondent No.1 directed closure of the mine and suspension of the environmental clearance under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 for violation of the conditions. In the operative part of the order, it has been stated that (1) the petitioner has not obtained the requisite clearance from the Standing Committee for National Board for Wildlife (NBWL), as was required to be obt