ORDER

1. Grievance in this application is against illegal functioning of Hotels, Resorts, Pubs, Clubs and Ashrams and other illegal commercial activities in Chilla Range of Rajaji National Park.

2. Vide order dated 08.07.2022, the Tribunal sought a factual and action taken report from a joint Committee of District Magistrate, Haridwar, State PCB, Director, Rajaji Tiger Reserve and nominee of District Legal Services Authority, Haridwar.

3. The matter was last considered on 10.10.2022 in the light of joint Committee report acknowledging illegal operation of 19 resorts. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed that remedial action against violations be taken within three months including recovery of compensation on (cid:145)Polluter Pays(cid:146) principle and restoration of the environment. The Tribunal observed that no commercial activity be allowed in Tiger reserve even with NOC in view of judgment of Hon(cid:146)ble Supreme Court in T.N Godavarman v.

Union of India & Ors.,1 An action taken report was required to be filed.

4. Accordingly, report dated 14.02.2023 has been filed by Director, Rajaji Tiger Reserve and report dated 20.02.2023 has been filed by UK PCB. 5. We have heard learned appearing counsel and perused the record. According to the report of Director, Rajaji Tiger Reserve, action has been taken against illegally operating resorts. Six resorts were outside the boundary of Tiger Reserve namely - Van Tarang, Mahadev Pani Resort, Ashram Mahadev Pani Resort, Forest Resort/Vindhyavasi Cottage, Maai ka Ashram, the Nature Resort Bukandi (Heerakhal) and Suleen Jungle Lodge, Bukandi (Heerakhal).

6. We are of the view that the report does not cover the issue fully and ignores the mandate of law. Constructions are prohibited/regulated not only within the forest but also outside within 1 KM of boundary of Tiger Reserve, which is also covered by eco-sensitive zone. It is thus wrongly assumed that the resorts outside the boundary of the Tiger Reserve are legal even if they are within one km of boundary of the tiger reserve. In this regard, judgement of Hon(cid:146)ble Supreme Court dated 3.6.2022 in T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors2 is reproduced for ready reference as under:-

(cid:147)44. We accordingly direct:›

(a) Each protected forest, that is national park or wildlife sanctuary must have an ESZ of minimum one

11997 (2) SCC 267

2 Order dated 03.06.2022 in W.P (C) No. 202/1995

kilometre measured from the demarcated boundary of such protected forest in which the activities proscribed and prescribed in the Guidelines of 9th February 2011 shall be strictly adhered to. For Jamua Ramgarh wildlife sanctuary, it shall be 500 metres so far as subsisting activities are concerned.

(b) In the event, however, the ESZ is already prescribed as per law that goes beyond one kilometre buffer zone, the wider margin as ESZ shall prevail. If such wider buffer zone beyond one kilometre is proposed under any statutory instrument for a particular national park or wildlife sanctuary awaiting final decision in that regard, then till such final decision is taken, the ESZ covering the area beyond one kilometre as proposed shall be maintained.

(c) The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests as also the Home Secretary of each State and Union Territory shall remain responsible for proper compliance of the said Guidelines as regards nature of use within the ESZ of all national parks and sanctuaries within a particular State or Union Territory. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests for each State and Union Territory shall also arrange to make a list of subsisting structures and other relevant details within the respective ESZs forthwith and a report shall be furnished before this Court by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests of each State and Union Territory within a period of three months. For this purpose, such authority shall be entitled to take assistance of any governmental agency for satellite imaging or photography using drones.

(d) Mining