ORDER

1. Heard.

2. This appeal has been preferred under Section 16 of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 by Sh. Surya Kant Gadia, being aggrieved by the order dated 20.08.2020 whereby State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as „SEIAA Rajasthan‟) has declined to grant Environmental Clearance (hereinafter referred to as „EC‟) to appellant on the ground that Supreme Court inWrit Petition (Civil) No. 202/1995, T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs. Union of India &Ors. passed an order on 16.12.2002 stating as under:

“We have heard the Learned Counsel.On 29/30.10.2002 this court prohibited and banned the mining activities in the entire Aravali Hills. This ban, it was directed, is not limited only to the hills encircling Kote and Alampur villages but extends entire hill range of Aravali from Haryana to Rajasthan. The Chief Secretary, State of Haryana andState of Rajasthan were directed to ensure that no mining activity in the Aravali Hills is carried out, especially in that part which has been recorded as forest area or protected under the Environment (Protection) Act.”

3. SEIAA, Rajasthan has also referred to Supreme Court‟s order dated 08.04.2005 passed in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs. Union of India &Ors. (supra),inter-alia, “Pending further consideration, we restrain any kind of mining in forest area.Further we restrain mining in any area in Aravali hills falling in the State of Rajasthan where permission may have been accorded after 16.12.2002.

4. SEIAA, Rajasthan, thus has said that in view of Supreme Court‟s orders, no permission/environmental clearance for mining activities in the area of Aravali hills can be granted.

5. In the present case, appellant has applied for grant of EC vide application dated 03.10.2019, seeking grant of EC for expansion of “Granite, Masonary Stone and Patti Kattla Mine” (M.L. No. 03/99 area 60.8105 hectares), expansion of mining project having Granite, Masonary Stone, Patti Kattla production capacity of 818220 TPA (ROM) at M.L. No. 03/99 having lease area of 60.8105hectareslocated at Khasra No. 3,372,721,499 and 502 at Village-Gudhagodji, Tehsil- Udaipurwati, District-Jhunjhunu, State of Rajasthan. The above area is in the area of Aravali hills.

6. SEIAA Rajasthan has taken the view that in view of the orders of Supreme Court dated 16.12.2002 and 08.04.2005 passed in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs. Union of India &Ors. (Supra), no permission including permission for expansion of mining can be granted,on and after 16.12.2002, in an area falling in Aravali Hills in State of Rajasthan.

7. Learned Counsel for appellant contended that in some other matters, such permissions have been granted and refers to such cases but we find that once a clear prohibited order has been passed by Supreme Court, the law laid down by Supreme Court is bindingall Courts underArticle 141 of theConstitution and that has to be given effect and to be complied with by all Courts.

8. The cases of other parties whom permission, if any, has been granted, are not before us. So far as, we are concerned, we are satisfied that in the present case, in view of Supreme Court‟s clear orders, no permission/EC can begranted, permittingeven expansion of mine in the area falling in Aravali Hills.

9. We, therefore, find no error apparent in the order impugned i.e., order dated 20.08.2020,annexure A-22 at page 211 to the memo ofappeal.

10. Learned Counsel appearing forappellantalso contended that SEIAA, Rajasthan has interpreted the above orders of Supreme Court differently in case of other miners and, therefore, the same should been applied to appellant on the principal of array. However, understanding of SEIAA authorities on Supreme Court‟s order in other matters, is neither subject matter listed before us nor any principle of res judicata orconstructiveres judicata is applicable in this case. The order of Supreme Court is law of the land and no plea of res judicata can be pleaded against law.

11. We ourselve