Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
SAMEER JAIN, J.
Kanha Hotels And Spa Pvt. Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Environment, Forest And Climate Change (Wildlife Division) - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5863 of 2024
Decided On : 27-04-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history of land acquisition and institutional approvals. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. petitioner asserts vested rights as an existing unit exempt from esz restrictions. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. respondents argue expert body finality and necessity of mandatory clearance. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 4. scope of judicial review when administrative decisions lack reasoned application of mind. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 5. analysis of statutory definitions of 'existing units' in eco-sensitive zone notifications. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 6. administrative orders must be reasoned and respect non-retroactivity of regulatory notifications. (Para 42 , 44) |
| 7. quashing of arbitrary administrative decisions for violation of natural justice principles. (Para 45 , 46 , 47) |
JUDGMENT :
SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been instituted by Kanha Hotels and Spa Private Limited, through its Director, being aggrieved by the impugned findings recorded in the minutes of meeting 22.02.2024, communicated under cover letter dated 28.02.2024 by the Wildlife Division, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India. The said findings are assailed as being ex-facie perverse, illegal, arbitrary, and having been rendered with a prejudiced and pre-determined mindset; and that the impugned findings are non est in the eyes of law, having been passed in contravention of the mandatory statutory requirements, and are thus sans jurisdiction. The present petition is, accordingly, filed seeking the following reliefs:
“(a) By appropriate writ, orders, or directions, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for the records of the case of the Petitioner for its kind perusal and may hold and declare that impugned findings/”decision taken” including its basis, detailed in Para 78.3.23 [under the heading “Agenda Item No.03” and sub- heading 78.3 “(Fresh Proposal falling inside/outside the Protected Area)”] of the minutes of the 78th meeting dated 22.02.2024 communicated under the cover of the letter dated 28.02.2024has been passed in complete disregard to mandatory requirements of principles of natural justice, and in complete disregard to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 03.06.2022, passed in IA No.1000 of 2003 in WP (Civil) No.202 of 1995, and therefore, quash and set-aside impugned findings dated 28.02.2024 for being arbitrary, illegal, and violative of principles of natural justice; and/or
(b) By appropriate writ, orders, or directions, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to hold and declare that impugned findings/”decision taken” including its basis, detailed in Para 78.3.23 [under the heading “Agenda Item No.03” and sub-heading 78.3 “(Fresh Proposal falling inside/outside the Protected Area)”] of the minutes of the 78th meeting dated 22.02.2024 communicated under the cover of the letter dated 28.02.2024, passed by Respondent No.3, has been passed in disregard to mandatory statutory requirements flowing from the ESZ Notification dated 08.03.2019 as well as the order dated 03.06.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in IA No. 1000 of 2003 in WP (Civil) No.202 of 1995, and therefore, quash and set-aside impugned findings dated 28.02.2024 for being arbitrary, illegal, and violative of principles of natural justice; and/or
(c) By appropriate writ, orders, or directions, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for records of the case of the Petitioner for its kind perusal and after analysing the same, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue necessary Writ or Order or directions directing the Respondent No.3 to grant Wildlife Clearance to the Petitioner in terms of Notification dated 08.03.2019, and Notification dated 14.09.2006, and the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 03.06.2022; and/or
(d) By appropriate writ, orders, or directions, the Hon’ble Court may b
Regulated tourism projects beyond one kilometer of protected areas are permissible if they comply with applicable environmental regulations.
The insistence in Ext.P8 office memorandum for prior clearance from the Standing Committee for projects within 10 kilometres from National Parks was unsustainable in law as it did not follow the proc....
Conservation fee cannot be levied without statutory authority.
Protection of Ecology – Necessity to have ESZs is to provide a buffer zone around Protected Areas – Rights of villagers residing in Protected Areas are required to be settled in accordance with provi....
''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.
Point of Law; General rule, the Courts consider it expedient in the interest of justice to start prosecution as contemplated by Section-476 of the old Code i.e., Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, whi....
The court established that compliance with apex court orders and eco-sensitive regulations is paramount in land use decisions, particularly concerning tourism development.
Environmental authorities must ensure compliance with rigorous procedural requirements when granting clearances for projects in ecologically sensitive areas, balancing development needs with environm....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
