2025 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 438
NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL BHOPAL (CENTRAL ZONE BENCH)
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sheo Kumar Singh, Hon’ble Dr. Afroz Ahmad, JJ
Brajesh Kumar Bharadwaj – Appellant
Versus
Secretary, Ministry of Forest, Environment & Climate Change – Respondent
Original Application No.188/2023(CZ) | O.A.No.619/2023 - PB
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Brajesh Kumar Bharadwaj
For the Respondents: Parul Bhadoria, Sapna Aggarwal, Prashant M. Harne, Mehul Bhardwaj
Projects within eco-sensitive zones or buffer areas of protected tiger habitats require wildlife clearance and NBWL/NTCA approvals; expansion or construction cannot proceed without mandatory ecological permissions and environmental clearance, guided by precautionary and ecocentric principles.
Headnote:(A) Laws and Sections cited: Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 - sections 38-O(1)(g); 38-V; 38-O(1) and 38-XA (amendments); 38-V(3)(b); 38-V(4)(i); NBWL/NTCA procedures under the Act; EIA Notification, 2006 - item 7A (airports and airstrips for commercial use) and exemptions for certain expansions under S.O. 3067(E) (2009); S.O. 1886(E) (2022) and S.O. 3194(E) (2022) (expansion of airstrips); Eco-Sensitive Zone Notification, S.O. 2538(E) dated 9.08.2017; MoEF&CC Office Memorandum dated 17.05.2022 guiding ESZ/NBWL considerations; National Wildlife Action Plan 2017-2031; regional and Supreme Court guidance on ecological balance and ecocentrism in environmental justice jurisprudence; NTCA circulars and NBWL/SCNBWL prerequisites for projects within tiger reserves or buffer zones.
(B) Key legal principles and points: (i) the buffer zone around a tiger reserve must be kept inviolate and any project proposal within the ESZ requiring wildlife clearance; (ii) a project located within an ESZ or tiger reserve area must obtain wildlife clearance and NBWL/SCNBWL recommendations before any environmental or ecological approvals; (iii) expansion of airstrips in such zones falls under a category requiring prior environmental clearance and wildlife clearance where applicable; (iv) noncompliance with ESZ, EC and wildlife clearances constitutes violation and justifies cessation and injunctions; (v) precautionary/ecocentric principles and landscape-scale conservation considerations apply to safeguard habitat integrity and corridor function; (vi) directions to halt work and explore alternative sites when statutory clearances are not obtained.
(C)
Facts of the case:
expansion of a regional airstrip from 1200 m to 1800 m located within 200 m of the boundary of a protected area and inside an eco-sensitive zone and biosphere; the project was awarded and earthworks commenced without mandatory permissions; environmental clearance, wildlife clearance, and NTCA/NBWL approvals were not obtained; a committee reported substantial vegetation clearance (333 trees), excavation volumes, and proximity to core zones (nearest pillar 162 m from the airstrip); UDAN 5.0 route and contractor details are stated; authorities failed to furnish ESZ compliance details and necessary clearances; the matter was examined by a Tribunal with an Expert Committee, which recommended cessation and alternative site exploration; the Tribunal concluded that the project requires wildlife clearances and ecological clearances and that no construction or expansion should proceed until those permissions are obtained.
(D)
Findings of Court:
(i) the airstrip expansion lies within the eco-sensitive zone around a tiger reserve and within the buffer area, triggering wildlife clearance and NBWL/NTCA considerations; (ii) no prior environmental clearance, wildlife clearance, or NBWL/SCNBWL consideration was obtained; (iii) the monitoring committee did not secure necessary central clearance; (iv) the project proponent must not restart any construction within the ESZ until due permissions are obtained and an environmental damage assessment/eco-restoration plan is completed and funded by the project proponent; (v) the court reiterates the precautionary principle and ecological restitution obligations; (vi) the Tribunal directs stoppage of expansion and consideration of alternative sites outside the protected area; (vii) the matter is disposed of with directions for compliance and environmental due process. (E)
Issues: (i) whether the expansion of the airstrip within the ESZ violates the ESZ notification and requires wildlife clearance and environmental clearance; (ii) whether NBWL/SCNBWL clearance and NTCA involvement are mandatory; (iii) whether expansion can proceed in light of lack of permits; (iv) whether an alternative site should be explored. (F)
Ratio Decidendi: (i) projects within ESZ and tiger reserve buffer zones require wildlife clearance and central approvals in conformity with the Wildlife Protection Act and NTCA/NBWL guidelines; (ii) expansion of a commercial airstrip in such zones without EC/CTE/CTO and wildlife clearance is impermissible; (iii) failure to secure ESZ compliance and central clearances warrants cessation, site reconsideration, and ecological impact assessment; (iv) environmental justice and ecocentrism guide protective measures for keystone species and ecological corridors; (G)
Result: The Original Application stands disposed of; the project proponent is directed to halt all construction and expansion within the ESZ until due permissions are obtained, to explore alternative sites outside the protected area, and to undertake detailed wildlife and ecological studies with funding under polluter-pays principles. (H) Parties: Applicant (private individual) vs Respondents comprising government ministries/departments and authorities related to environment, forest, wildlife, and civil aviation; (I) Dissent: None.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ecology-centric protection of tiger habitats and esz safeguards (Para 2 , 12 , 13 , 19 , 46 , 47) |
| 2. contentions and evidentiary arguments of the parties (Para 3 , 5 , 15 , 18 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 41 , 42) |
| 3. regulatory framework requiring esz/nbwl/ntca/eia compliance and prior clearances (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 16 , 17 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 4. procedural actions, expert committee findings, and interim directions (Para 10 , 14 , 40 , 50 , 51) |
| 5. court’s final directions and disposal of the application (Para 49 , 52) |
JUDGMENT
1. The Public Works Department of Madhya Pradesh started the expansion of the 1200 meter unreserved Pachmarhi air strip, which is in the eco- sensitive zone of Satpura Tiger and aggrieved by the above construction and expansion of the project, this application has been moved with the prayer that the project for expansion of the 1200 meter unreserved Pachmarhi air strip to 1800 meter which is located within 200 meter of the nearest protected area boundary of Satpura Tiger Reserve, construction of RCC building needs to be ceased to safeguard the sensitive area and restoration effort of the ecology of the region must be undertaken immediately. It is further prayed that strict action must be taken against the project proponent and officials for their callous attitude towards the law-endangered wildlife and environment.
2. T he Satpura Tiger Reserve is one of the most vital Reserves for survival of tiger and this area has historically been renowned for one of the largest habitats of Tiger. Gaur and Sambhar. At least 14 endangered species of mammals, birds and reptiles inhabit these forests, the flying squirrel, Indian giant squirrel and Leaf nosed bats must be regarded among the most sensitive to habitat changes. Moreover, the airstrip is located within the Pachmarhi hills which was declared a Biosphere Reserve in the year 2009 by UNESCO for its wide range of rare flora and fauna present in the hills.
3. Such expansion shall gravely disrupt the natural movement of the wildlife present due to the proximity of the airstrip to the core area of the Satpura Tiger Reserve i.e., within 200 m. The noise generated from the landing, take-off and movement of aircrafts and helicopters would result in difficulty for the wildlife to use sound for navigation, finding food, mating, and avoiding predators, affecting many animals’ ability to survive. Engine run- up procedures for short take-off and landings, as well as the deployment of aircraft engine reversers during landings will produce exceptionally loud noise. The noise will have an impact on the migratory and reproductive habits of the endangered animals and birds in the vicinity. Fuel emissions from aircraft engines and lights below 1000 feet will pollute and impact the ecosystem and result in an increase in pollution in the area. Further, pits dug for expansion would collect water during ongoing monsoon, alluring (violation of wildlife protection act 1972) the wildlife towards the pseudo ponds and affect their safety. In the event of an accident or incident that causes the aircraft to crash/skid in the forest and catch fire, the fire would almost certainly spread rapidly and become uncontrollable due to the terrain, destroying the flora and wildlife.
4. Issue raised in this application is expansion of a non-functional Pachmarhi airstrip (Dimensions 3936 X 200 and Aerodrome Reference Point ARP GPS Coordinates-E 78°24′ N 22°27') owned by Madhya Pradesh state government located within 200 m from the nearest Protected Area boundary of the Satpura Tiger Reserve falling in the eco-sensitive zone (ESZ), i.e.. Pachmarhi hills in Narmadapuram district of Madhya Pradesh. and inside UNESCO Biosphere Reserve of Pachmarhi. The expansion is in violation of the Eco- Sensitive Zone Notification of Satpura Tiger Reserve dated 9.08.2017 which prohibits any commercial construction to take place within 1 km from the protected area. Furt
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
