Environmental clearances requiring wildlife clearance within a specified distance must comply with established guidelines, and petitioners are not liable for additional wildlife clearance as mandated by SEIAA.

COMMON JUDGMENT :

In this batch of 21 cases, all the writ petitioners essentially seek the same relief, which pertains to a condition incorporated in the Environmental Clearance issued by the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority ('SEIAA' for short). One such condition, incorporated in the case of petitioner in W.P.(C) No.28314/2024, is extracted here below:

“Condition No.5: Since, the project is located within 10km of Peechi Vazhani Wild Life Sanctuary and Chimmony Wild Life Sanctuary, the project proponent has to obtain Wild Life Clearance from the SCNBWL as per the OM dated 17/05/20225 of MoEF & CC as per the directions in the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment dated 26/04/2023 in I.A.13177 of 2022 before the commencement of mining”.

In respect of a similar condition imposed in the Environmental Clearance issued by SEIAA, the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed a recent Order dated 29.05.2025 in I.A.Nos.132289/2025, 132290/2025 and 138819/2025 in W.P.(C) No.202/1995. As per the said Order, the operations in the Petitioner’s quarry, which is located 7.5 km away from the Peechi-Vazhani Wildlife Sanctuary, were permitted, repelling the objections of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change ('MoEF & CC', for short) in this regard. The petitioners herein seek similar treatment in accord with the said Order of the Supreme Court.

2. Heard the learned counsels for the petitioners; learned Standing Counsel for SEIAA,; learned Central Government Counsel for MoEF & CC; learned Special Government Pleader (Forest) and the learned Government Pleader. Perused the records.

3. As regards the interpretation of the said Order, considerable arguments were advanced by the respective parties. While the petitioners contend that similar condition, imposed by the SEIAA in the Environmental Clearance is the subject matter of these Writ Petitions, wherefore, the above Order dated 29.05.2025 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would squarely govern the situation, learned Standing Counsel for SEIAA would submit that the above Order cannot substitute the requirements of O.M. dated 17.05.2022 of the MoEF & CC, as also, the directions contained in the earlier Orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same Writ Petition.

4. This Court will straight away refer to the objections raised by the learned Standing Counsel for SEIAA. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that three Orders have been passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in In Re: T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others . The first is one dated 3^rd June, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as ‘G.V-I’). Reference to various paragraphs of G.V-I is required and it is clarified that the paragraph numbers being referred hereunder are as contained in the Order (G.V-I) downloaded from the Supreme Court portal. Learned Standing Counsel invited the attention of this Court to paragraph no.44 of G.V-I Order, which contains several directions. As per paragraph no.44(a), a minimum distance of 1 km is prescribed as Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) measured from the demarcated boundary of a Protected Forest (National Park or Wildlife Sanctuary) for conducting the activities prescribed in the Guidelines dated 09.02.2011. Paragraph no.44(b) deals with the situations, where ESZ has already been prescribed by law, which goes beyond 1 km buffer zone. In such cases, the wider buffer zone prescribed under the statutory instrument for the particular National Park or Wildlife Sanctuary has to be maintained. Paragraph no.44(d) is a complete prohibition for mining within the National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries. Paragraph no.44(e) deals with activities already undertaken within 1 km or the extended buffer zone of a W