The main legal point established in the judgment is that the obligation to obtain consent under the Wildlife (Protection) Act continues despite notifications under the Environment Protection Act.

K.M. Joseph, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on the applications for condonation of delay in filing the review petitions. In the circumstances, the delay will stand condoned and the applications will stand allowed.

2. MCC No. 856 of 2015 has been filed by a person, who was a party, namely, respondent no. 4. MCC No. 858 of 2015 has been filed by a person, who was not a party. MCC No. 5823 of 2016 has been filed by the State of Uttarakhand and another.

3. These three review petitions have been filed in the Writ Petition (PIL) No. 66 of 2014, whereas, MCC No. 660 of 2016 has been filed in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 41 of 2015.

4. The first petition, which was disposed of, was Writ Petition (PIL) No. 41 of 2015. Writ Petition (PIL) No. 66 of 2014 was disposed of following the judgment in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 41 of 2015.

5. The issue relates to the requirement of obtaining consent under the Wildlife (Protection) Act for doing mining activities in the vicinity of National Park, Sanctuary and Protected areas.

6. See the prayers in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 66 of 2014, which are on the same lines:-

“1. To direct the respondents to forthwith stop any mining activity being carried out within 10 Kms from the National Park, Sanctuary or Protected Area within the entire State of Uttarakhand without the clearance of the National Board of Wildlife and/or Ministry of Environment and Forests.

2. To direct the respondents to forthwith stop any mining activity throughout the State which is being conducted without the procurement of the Environment Impact Assessment or without Environment Clearance.

3. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Office memorandum no. 785/VIII-1/27-Kha/2014 dated 25-4-14 (Annexure no. 20 to the petition) whereby and whereunder the respondents have held the illegal mining being done by private respondents as legal and valid mining.”

7. We have heard Mr. D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the petitioner in writ petition no. 66 of 2014, Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for respondent no. 10 in writ petition no. 66 of 2014, Mr. Kishore Kumar, learned counsel for the review applicants in Review Application No. 858 of 2015, Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel for respondent no. 4 in writ petition no. 66 of 2014, Ms. Menka Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner in writ petition no. 41 of 2015, Mr. A.S. Rawat, learned Special Counsel with Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. J.P Joshi, learned senior counsel for the intervener in Writ Petition No. 41 of 2015.

8. This Court proceeded to take the view that despite the notification, which was issued on 09.09.2013, in view of the order dated 02.12.2009, the requirement to obtain consent under the Wildlife (Protection) Act will continue. As far as MCC Nos. 856 and 858 of 2015 are concerned, they are filed by persons who obtained mining lease near the Assan Wetland Conservation Reserve, which is located in the Doon Valley. This Court has in paragraph no. 3 held that it is a protected area. Primarily, what is argued by Mr. M.C. Pant and Mr. Kishore Kumar, who wish to have mining operations in and around the Assan Wetland Conservation Reserve, is that the property, which is the subject matter of mining is less than 5 hectares. Secondly, they would contend that the judgment may not apply to Assan Wetland Conservation Reserve as the embargo will not apply to the Assan Wetland Conservation Reserve.

9. In fact, Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel appears in Review Petition No. 5823 of 2016 and which review petitioners had challenged the original judgment of this Court before the Hon’ble Apex Court, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court passed the following order:-

“Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel seeks leave to withdraw this special leave petition reserving liberty for the petitioner to urge before the High Court in the review petition the salient point that the Notification in question