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

2025 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 414

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
SUDHIR AGARWAL, J, AFROZ AHMAD, ACJ
RIDHIMA PANDEY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 429/2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: None
For the Respondents: Mr. Nikhil Rohatgi, Ms. Anjali Rajput, Mr. Mukesh Verma, Ms. Vatsala Tripathi, Mr. C. B. Singh, Mr. Tarun Pant, Mr. Bhanwar Pal Singh Jadon, Mr. Harsh Vardhan Singh Rajawat, Ms. Laxmi Singh

Permitting mining activities in Eco-Sensitive Zones without proper environmental clearance is illegal, highlighting the need for adherence to environmental laws for ecological preservation.

Headnote:(A) National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Sections 14 and 15 - Disaster Management Act, 2005 - Environmental Protection Act, 1986 - Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 - Permissions were issued for mineral collection in Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) of Nandhaur Wildlife Sanctuary; however, such permissions conflicted with environmental protections, and no commercial mining was allowed in ESZ, thus leading the Tribunal to find such permissions illegal. (Paras 1-44)

(B) Environmental Conservation - Prohibition of Mining - It is impermissible to permit mining activities in protected areas like ESZ without adhering to legal requisites such as Environmental Clearance, even under the guise of dredging for disaster management. (Paras 10, 41, 52)

Facts of the case:
The application was filed against the government and other agencies for illegally permitting mining activities in the ESZ of Nandhaur Wildlife Sanctuary by a private firm, risking the ecological balance and violating statutory safeguards. The Tribunal recognized the applicant's role as a climate activist and the detrimental impacts of proposed mining activities on wildlife and the environment, necessitating lawful and ecological compliance. (Paras 1-7)

Findings of Court:
No mining activities should be permitted in the ESZ without requisite permissions, and those who allow illegal mining face accountability. Environmental compensation may be levied on violators for ecological damage caused. (Paras 44, 52-56)

Issues: The legality of permissions granted for mineral collection in ESZ and the accountability of state entities in upholding environmental regulations. Whether permissions granted facilitate unlawful mining rather than necessary dredging. (Paras 10, 52)

Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal affirmed that dredging should strictly adhere to ecological laws and recognized the illegality inherent in granting mining permissions within protected areas, with significant emphasis on environmental health and legal compliance. (Paras 41, 55)

Result: The application is disposed of with directions for monitoring and enforcing environmental laws in sensitive areas.

Table of Content
1. claims regarding environmental protection laws. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. observations on the need for compliance with environmental protection efforts. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
3. findings of the joint committee on environmental impacts. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. legal assessments of permissions granted and oversight failures. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
5. final conclusions regarding mining activities and responsibilities. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)

JUDGMENT

BY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1. This Original Application (hereinafter referred to as ‘OA’) was registered by Tribunal under Sections 14 and 15 of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to asNGT Act, 2010) in exercise of suo-moto jurisdiction in view of law laid down by Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Ankita Sinha , (2022) 13 SCC 401, in the light of complaint made in the Letter Petition dated 09.04.2022, sent by Ridhima Pandey, daughter of Dinesh Chandra Pandey, resident of 16 A, Sadhu Belapuram Colony, Haripur Kalan, District-Dehradun who claims herself to be a Global Climate activist and engaged in protection of environment and forest since her childhood when she was 9 years old age.

2. Complainant has said that Nandhaur Wildlife Sanctuary (hereinafter referred to asNWS) is situated in the Haldwani Forest Division of Nainital District in State of Uttarakhand. The area is surrounding NWS has been notified as “Eco-Sensitive Zone” (hereinafter referred to asESZ). The upstream part of Nandhaur River falls under ESZ.

3. Uttarakhand Government Industrial Development Department (Mining), vide letter dated 07.01.2022 and the follow up letter/order issued by District Magistrate, Nainital on 25.03.2022 had authorised M/s. A.P. S. Infra Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to asrespondent 4 or project proponent) to collect river bed mineral lying in ESZ of Nandhaur river for a duration of 06 months. The permission was granted with reference to the powers under Disaster Management Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to asDM Act, 2005). The order permits collection of minerals from an area which falls under “Reserve Forest” as well as part of “ESZ of NWS”.

4. District Magistrate, Champawat also, following the same procedure, permitted collection of river bed mineral from upper stream part of Sharda Barrage, Tanakpur vide order dated 05.04.2022 with reference to the provisions of DM Act, 2005. The area, where collection of minerals was allowed by District Magistrate, Champawat, is also part of “Reserve Forest”.

5. Haldwani Forest Division of both the rivers i.e., Nandhaur and Sharda are rich bio-diversity area and important Schedule I Wildlife habitat and ESZ. Mining activity in such area is harmful to wildlife and their habitat and may cause big loss to environment.

6. Government of India, under the provisions of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to asFC Act, 1980) reserves right to grant permission for collection of minor minerals from any river that passes through “Reserve Forest” but at the time of granting permission, volume of river bed minerals to be collected is surveyed by Expert Institutions as well as National Board for Wildlife. Environmental Clearance (hereinafter referred to asEC) is to be taken in advance. If it is not incumbent or necessary to remove river bed minerals from river bed for safety of human life under DM Act, 2005, then permission should be granted only after taking expert team’s opinion about river bed minerals removal from the rivers and the removed river bed minerals from the river should be deposited on both the sides of river itself. No private company or others should be allowed to take out river bed minerals from the forest area for any purposes. “Nandhaur Forest Area” is rich wildlife habitat and known home of Tigers, Elephants, Sloth Bears and other wildlife. If mining is allowed i

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