RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAIPUR
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.
Arvind Tiwari - Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7028/2021
Decided On : 04-08-2021
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW - ECO SENSITIVE ZONE - The court addressed the petitioner's request for the notification of an Eco Sensitive Zone around the Kaila Devi Wildlife Sanctuary while simultaneously seeking an extension of mining lease. The court emphasized the prohibition of mining activities in forest areas as established by the Supreme Court, highlighting the need for strict enforcement against illegal mining, particularly near protected zones. The court's decision to dismiss the petition reinforced the legal framework aimed at environmental protection and the preservation of wildlife sanctuaries.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to notify an Eco Sensitive Zone around the Kaila Devi Wildlife Sanctuary and requested the Mining Department to extend their mining lease due to a previous court order that halted operations. The petitioner later withdrew parts of the request related to lease extension and refund of dead rent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's mining operations were in proximity to the wildlife sanctuary and that the request for lease extension contradicted the environmental protections established by the Supreme Court. The court noted the ongoing issues of illegal mining in the region and the need for vigilance by state authorities.
Issues: Whether the petitioner could seek an extension of the mining lease while simultaneously requesting the establishment of an Eco Sensitive Zone, and the legality of mining operations near the wildlife sanctuary.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India, which prohibits mining in forest areas, establishing that mining activities cannot be permitted in or around the Eco Sensitive Zone, regardless of its formal designation.
Result: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court directed state authorities to take appropriate measures against illegal mining activities near the wildlife sanctuary.
JUDGMENT
Learned counsel for the petitioner at the initial stage submits that he withdraws the prayer No.(iii) and (iv) of the writ petition.
I have considered the submissions, the petitioner in the writ petition has prayed as under:-
"i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 and 2 to notify Eco Sensitive Zone surrounding the outer boundary of Kaila Devi Wildlife Sanctuary;
ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.3 to give full assistance and support of the State Authorities to the respondent No.1 and 2 to facilitate notification of Eco Sensitive Zone surrounding the outer boundary of Kaila Devi Wildlife Sanctuary expeditiously;
iii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.4- Mining Department to extend the lease period of petitioner equal to the period when the mining operation remain closed due to Court order. Further more, to extend the lease period by virtue of provisions of Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 upto 50 years;
iv) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.4- Mining Department to refund the dead rent excessively charged from the petitioner;
v) Any other appropriate order or direction which is deemed just and proper by this Hon'ble Court may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and in the interest of justice;
vi) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner."
From the perusal of the aforesaid prayers, it is apparent that the petitioner on one hand has been praying for creating an Eco Sensitive Zone in and around Kaila Devi Wildlife Sanctuary and at the same time he has prayed for directing the Mining Department to extend the lease period of petitioner equal to the period when the mining operation remained closed due to the Court's order. Thus, a conclusion can be drawn that the mining operations being conducted by the petitioner, are in and around the wildlife sanctuary, and this petition is essentially questioning the method and manner of keeping the matter pending before this Court relating to creating of Eco Sensitive Zone and till Eco Sensitive Zone shall be created. The petitioner, who is now praying for withdrawal of prayers No.3 and 4 cannot pray for extending the lease period.
The State of Rajasthan is already suffering immensely due to illegal mining activities being conducted several times. The Supreme Court as well as this Court has been directing the State authorities to take steps for stopping illegal mining activities especially near the forest areas as well as in the Eco Sensitive Zones. The petitioner appears to have been granted mining lease way back on 08.08.1991 which deems to be treated as cancelled in terms of Supreme Court orders in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India & Ors. reported in (1997) 2SCC 267, where the Supreme Court has specifically laid down not to continue mining activities in forest areas. Such mining activities, therefore, cannot be allowed in and around forest areas even if there has not been any demarcation of the Eco Sensitive Zone to outer boundary of Kaila Devi Wildlife Sanctuary. The Mining Department and the State authorities including the forest authorities are required to keep strong vigil that no illegal mining activities are conducted in the garb of area being outside the earmarked territories of forest, which falls in the Eco Sensitive Zone area.
In the circumstances, while dismissing the writ petition, it is directed to the State authorities to take notice of the aforesaid order and take appropriate steps in this regard.
The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.
AI
Prohibition of mining activities in forest areas and the need for strong vigilance by state authorities to prevent illegal mining.
''Zero Meter'' Eco-sensitive Zone- Law does not require a procedure akin to one, which is being followed at the time of making an environment impact assessment before giving clearance.
Protection of forest land – Mining within national parks and wildlife sanctuaries shall not be permitted – No new permanent structure shall be permitted to come up for whatsoever purpose within ESZ.
The judgment emphasizes the principle of prospective application of laws and the requirement for proper verification of facts and consideration of existing legal rights before issuing directives.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to protect wildlife and natural habitats, as well as to enforce mandatory guidelines for determining Eco-sensitive Zones laid....
The court reinforced the prohibition of mining within one kilometer of wildlife sanctuaries, emphasizing adherence to environmental protection laws.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.