Conservation fee cannot be levied without statutory authority.

JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, taken up for final disposal.

2. The moot question involved in the Writ Petition is whether the Petitioner is required to deposit 2% of the project cost in terms of the Minutes of the Meeting dtd. 13/6/2018 of Standing Committee of National Board of Wildlife (for short "NBWL") though the Petitioner's property is not situated within the Eco Sensitive Zone (for short "ESZ").

3. The Petitioner is a Developer and is developing a residential project over its property. The property of the Petitioner sought to be developed, is situated beyond 5 km from the Sanjay Gandhi National Park so also the Tungareshwar Wildlife Sanctuary. The Petitioner's property, undisputedly, is not within the ESZ. The Petitioner has been issued with construction permissions on 30/4/2015, 10/5/2016, 17/3/2016, 19/5/2016 and 20/12/2018 by the Planning Authority viz. Thane Municipal Corporation, Thane.

4. On or about 13/6/2018, the IGF (WL) briefed the Standing Committee of NBWL on the proposal of the Petitioner and stated that the project is for the construction of residential and commercial complexes in the private land located at 5km from the boundary of the proposed ESZ of Tungareshwar Wildlife Sanctuary. The IGF (WL) further added that the State Chief Wildlife Warden has recommended the proposal with the following conditions:

(1) The proponent shall comply the conditions laid by MoEF for environment clearance.

(2) Natural growing trees existing on the project site Ward (Ficus bengalensis), Pimpal, Mango, Karanj and other fruit bearing trees shall be retained.

(3) The project is recommended on the condition that excavated material at the time of construction will not be thrown in sea, bay of sea and natural drainage or creek.

(4) As decided in the 8th meeting of State Board for Wildlife held on 20/2/2014 that the project proponent shall deposit an amount equivalent 2% of the total cost (i.e. Rs.200.0 crores) of the project. This condition may also be considered by the SBWL for this project.

After discussions the Standing Committee decided to recommend the proposal along with the conditions and the wildlife mitigation measures stipulated by the State Chief Wildlife Warden as it is outside the proposed eco-sensitive zone. The annual compliance certificate on the stipulated conditions should be submitted by the User Agency to the State Chief Wildlife Warden."

5. The Petitioner, upon carrying out the development activity, applied for issuance of Plinth Certificate for the work completed by it as per the Application dtd. 28/5/2021 and issue of Occupation Certificate as per its Application dtd. 12/7/2021. The Application of the Petitioner for issuance of Plinth Certificate is not processed on the ground that the guidelines are not received from the State Government and after the guidelines are received from the State Government, fresh proposal be filed. The Petitioner, in the instant Writ Petition, seeks directions against Respondent No.1 to issue Plinth Certificate to the Petitioner for the work completed by it as per Application dtd. 28/5/2021 and also process the Application dtd. 12/7/2021 for issuance of Occupation Certificate without considering the communication from Respondent Nos.4 and 5. The Respondent Nos.4 and 5 communicated to Respondent No.1 for compliance of conditions by the Petitioner as per the Standing Committee's decision. The Standing Committee of NBWL accorded its approval for the construction activity of the Petitioner subject to their decision in the meeting held from time to time. The conditions laid down in the Wildlife Clearance primarily include deposit of 2% of the project cost along with the Wildlife mitigation measures stipulated by the State Chief Wildlife Warden and conservation activities.

6. Mr. Sathey, the learned Senior Advocate strenuously contends that the property of the Petitioner on which the development activity is carried out, is not situated