SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 966

Item No. 01 (Court No. 1)

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SPECIAL BENCH (By Video Conferencing)

Original Application No.45/2020(CZ)

(I.A. No.60/2021)

Mukesh Sharma Applicant Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. Respondent(s)

Date of hearing: 15.11.2021 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH SETHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. NAGIN NANDA, EXPERT MEMBER HON’BLE DR. ARUN KUMAR VERMA, EXPERT MEMBER Applicant: Mr. Manav Tanwani, Advocate Respondent(s): Mr. Shoeb Hasan Khan, Advocate for the State of Rajasthan Mr. Arvind Soni, Advocate for RSPCB Mr. Ashwani Chobisa, Advocate for R - 11 to 15

Advocates:
For the Petitioner: MANAV TANWANI
For the Respondent:

ORDER

1. This application seeks remedial action against illegal mining in pasture land, within 10 km periphery of Sariska Tiger Reserve (STR), at village Baldevgarh, District Alwar, Rajasthan and against illegally putting of the overburden on pasture and sivay chak government land, in violation of environmental norms. The application also highlights illegal exploitation of water from natural water sources. We note that overlapping issue of illegal mining close to the STR has earlier been subject matter of consideration in Appeal No. 48/2016 (order dated 20.12.2018) and OA 154/2020. The issue has also been subject matter of consideration by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and there are guidelines of the MoEF&CC having the effect of prohibiting mining. The issue raised being substantially covered by the earlier orders, question herein is of compliance of the said orders.

2. Vide order dated 31.07.2020, the Tribunal sought a factual report from a joint Committee consisting of:

(i) Collector Alwar;

(ii) District Mining Officer, Alwar;

(iii) State Pollution Control Board.

3. On 14.10.2020 while considering the report filed in pursuance of above, the Tribunal observed that distance of mining from the STR was not specifically mentioned which was directed to be mentioned by the Divisional Forest Officer and the Chief Wildlife Warden. Same observation was made vide order dated 10.06.2021 while considering the reply filed by the State PCB and such distance was directed to be provided.

4. The matter was last considered on 07.07.2021. It was noted that the area in question was within Eco-sensitive Zone of the Sariska Tiger Reserve/ Sanctuary and the Eco-sensitive Zone of the Sariska Tiger Reserve/Sanctuary. Though, ESZ had not yet been notified, no mining was permissible in buffer zone of 10 kms in view of order of this Tribunal dated 20.12.2018 in Appeal No. 48/2016, Nityendra Manav Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors. as follows:

“It is the admitted position that the final notification of Eco-sensitive zone for Sariska Tiger Reserve/Sanctuary is yet to be issued by the MoEF. We, therefore, direct that all mining activities of any mineral will be stopped within 1O kms. of the boundary of Sariska Tiger Reserve/Wildlife Sanctuary till mining leases are cleared by the standing committee of the National Board of Wildlife. All the ECs of the mining leases may be referred to the standing Committee of the NBWL. In case MoEF issues final notification on Eco-sensitive Zone, the mining lease, which fall within the Eco-sensitive Zone will have to have clearance of the standing committee of the NBWL. With this direction the present Appeal no. 48 of 2016 stands disposed of, with no order as to cost."

5. The Tribunal noted the report dated 20.07.2020 of the joint Committee to the effect that mining was still continuing though the Forest Department had issued various orders requiring the Mining Department to stop mining within the prohibited distance. The Tribunal noted the stand of the State PCB that draft ESZ has been prepared but not finalized. Stand of the DCF, Sariska Rajasthan was that 10 meters to 150 meters area from tiger reserve had to be taken to be Eco-sensitive area. Out of eight mines, following five mines were still operating at a distance ranging from 10 meters to 150 meters from the boundary of proposed ESZ. No action was being taken against such illegal mining:

Sl. No.Name of LesseeDistance from the Tiger ReserveGPS
1M.L.No.278/1988(R78/2007) Smt.Nirmala Sharma100 metersN.27˚08’29.4” S76˚23’00.5”
2M.L.No.160/1987(R116/2007) Shri.Manoj Kumar Sharma10 metersN.27˚08’32.4” S76˚22’55.8”
3M.L.No.167/1988(R72/2007) SA/S.S.Marble Shri Shishupal Sharma10 metersN27˚08’39.9” S76˚22’54.9”
4M.L.No.341/1987(R107/2007) Shri Ashok Ajmera150 metersN.27˚08’16.6” S76˚22’26.3”
5M.L.No.342/1987(R80/2007) Shri Vinod Kumar Ajmera150 metersN27˚08’13.1” S76˚22’25.7”

6. The Tribunal further noted the stand of the State that action will now be taken in terms of order of the Hon’ble Suprem

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top