In Re : T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union Of India And Ors.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

IA NO. 3949 OF 2016 IN WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 202 OF 1995

IN RE : T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD ……Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ……Respondent(s)

AND IN THE MATTER OF:

M/S. PUNTAMBEKAR MINERALS (THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI DILIP BHAUSAHEB MADAKE) ...Applicant(s)

J U D G M E N T

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. When we pronounced our judgment in I.A. No.

131377 of 2022 along with connected applications

in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995 on 26th

April 2023, we did not anticipate that within a Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Deepak Singh Date: 2023.05.03 17:16:41 IST few days, we would be called upon to clarify the Reason:

position as to whether mining activities would 2

be permissible beyond the distance of one

kilometer from the boundary of the Protected

Area, irrespective of the fact that such an area

falls under the Eco-Sensitive Zone (in short

“ESZ”) notified by the Ministry of Environment,

Forest and Climate Change (“MoEF” for short).

2. We are grateful to the applicant in the

present application for giving us this

opportunity to clarify this position so that

further environmental damage is avoided.

3. The case of the applicant, in brief, is that

the applicant was granted permission to execute

a mining lease as early as in 2005, subject to

clearance from MoEF as well as the National

Board for Wild Life.

4. Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel

appearing for the applicant, submits that the

area where the applicant proposes to carry out

the activity is beyond 2.26 kilometer from the

nearest boundary of the Radhanagari Wildlife

Sanctuary. It is, therefore, submitted that it 3

falls beyond a distance of one kilometer from

the boundary of the Protected Area.

5. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel,

therefore, relying on our judgment dated 26th

April 2023 passed in in I.A. No. 131377 of 2022

along with connected applications in Writ

Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995, the ink of

which is yet to dry, submits that, since mining

is proposed to be carried out beyond a distance

of one kilometer from the boundary of Protected

Area, it would very much be permitted.

6. Learned senior counsel submits that this

Court has clearly held that mining within a

distance of one kilometer from the boundary of

the Protected Area is banned. He submits that,

however, the judgment does not prohibit mining

activities even in ESZ, which is a buffer area,

if it extends beyond a distance of one kilometer

from the boundary of the Protected Area.

7. He, however, submits that this would be

subject to permission from the Standing 4

Committee of National Board for Wild Life (in

short “SCNBWL”), which admittedly, has granted

permission.

8. Mr. Balbir Singh, learned Additional

Solicitor General appearing for the Union of

India as well as Mr. A.D.N. Rao, learned Amicus

Curiae have vehemently opposed this prayer and

they submit that the contention of the applicant

is based on a misreading of the directions

issued by this Court.

9. We find that the directions issued in

paragraph 65 of the judgment of this Court

delivered on 26th April 2023 are very much clear.

It reads thus:

“65. We also modify the direction contained in paragraph 56.4 of the order dated 3rd June, 2022 (Supra) and direct that mining within the National Park and Wildlife Sanctuary and within an area of one kilometre from the boundary of such National Park and Wild Life Sanctuary shall not be permissible.”

10. The perusal of the above para would reveal

that the directions, which were issued by this 5

Court earlier for prohibiting mining activities

within a distance of one kilometer from the

boundary of such National Parks and Wildlife

Sanctuaries only insofar as the State of Goa was

concerned, has been made applicable pan-India.

11. The aforesaid question arose since in case

of some of the National Parks and Wildlife

Sanctuaries, the ESZ areas are less than one

kilometer. In some, it is as less as 500 meters

and in some others, it is even less than 500

meters.

12. We, therefore, clarified that even in case

where the ESZ boundaries are less than one

kilometer from the Protected Area, the ban on

mining shall extend upto a distance of one

kilometer from the boundary of such areas.

13. It will further be relevant to refer to

paragraph 66.1 of our judgment dated 26th April,

2023, which reads thus:

“66(i) The MoEF & CC and all the State/Union Territory Governments shall strictly follow the provisions in the said Guidelines 6

dated 9th February 2011 and so also the provisions contained in the ESZs notifications pertaining to the respective Protected Areas with regard to prohibited activities, regulated activities and permissible activities;”

14. It could thus clearly be seen that we have

directed that MoEF as well as all the State

Governments/Union Territories shall strictly

follow the provisions in the Guidelines dated

9th February, 2011, as also the provisions

contained in the ESZs notifications pertaining

to the respective Protected Areas with regard to

prohibited activities, regulated activities and

permissible activities.

15. As such, our directions are very much clear.

Whatever is prohibited under the 2011 guidelines

and whatever is additionally prohibited under

the specific ESZ notifications of the particular

Protected Areas have to be strictly followed.

16. The perusal of paragraph 40 of the judgment

dated 26th April 2023 would reveal that the very

first activity, which is contained in Annexure- 7

I of the Guidelines, is commercial mining and

the same is prohibited.

17. Apart from that, it will also be relevant

to refer to paragraph 4 of the Notification

dated 15th October, 2020 vide which a final

notification had been notified in so far as the

ESZ for Radhanagari Sanctuary is concerned,

which reads thus:

“4. List of activities prohibited or to be regulated within Eco- sensitive Zone.- All activities in the Eco-sensitive Zone shall be governed by the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the rules made there under including the Coastal Regulation Zone, 2011 and the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 and other applicable laws including the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (69 of 1980), the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (16 of 1927), the Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972 (53 of 1972), and amendments made thereto and be regulated in the manner specified in the Table below, namely:-

S.No. Activity Description (1) (2) (3) A. Prohibited Activities. 8

1. Commercial (a) All new and mining, stone existing mining quarrying and (minor and major

crushing units minerals), stone quarrying and crushing units shall be prohibited with immediate effect except for meeting the domestic needs of bona fide local residents including digging of earth for construction or repair of houses within Eco Sensitive Zone;

(b) The mining operations shall be carried our in accordance with the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated the 4th August, 2006 in the matter of T.N. Godaverman Thirumulpad Vs. UOI in W.P.(C) No. 202 of 1995 and dated the 21st April, 2014 in the matter of Goa Foundation Vs. UOI in W.P(C) No. 435 9

of 2012.

18. It could thus clearly be seen that Clause

(a) of the Notification of the MoEF also clearly

mentions that all the new and existing minor and

major minerals, stone quarrying and crushing

units shall be prohibited with immediate effect,

except for meeting the domestic needs of bona

fide local residents, including digging of earth

for construction or repair of houses within ESZ.

19. No doubt that Clause (b) of the Notification

of the MoEF mentions that the mining operation

shall be carried out in accordance with the

order of this Court dated 04th August 2006 in the

matter of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union

of India reported in (2010) 13 SCC 740 and order

dated 21st April 2014 in the case of Goa

Foundation v. Union of India and Others reported

in (2014) 6 SCC 590.

20. However, the last word on the issue is the

judgment dated 26th April 2023. The notification 10

is dated 15th October 2020, i.e. prior to the

pronouncement of our judgment.

21. As such, the provisions made in clause 1(b)

of paragraph 4 of the Notification dated 15th

October 2020 would now become redundant in view

of our judgment and order dated 26th April 2023.

22. As such, any activity, which is prohibited

by both the guidelines as well as the ESZ

notification shall strictly be prohibited.

Since the mining activity in ESZ area is a

prohibited activity, there is no question of

such an activity being permitted in an ESZ area

even if it falls beyond the distance of one

kilometer from the boundary of the protected

area.

23. We clarify that even if in a particular

case, the ESZ is more than one kilometer, still,

if the concerned area where mining is proposed

falls within the ESZ, the mining activity will

not be permitted, even if it falls in an area

which is beyond one kilometer from the boundary 11

of the Protected Area.

24. The prohibition of one kilometer from the

boundary of Protected Area is only with regard

to the cases where the boundary of ESZ is less

than one kilometer from the boundary of the

sanctuary. Only in such cases, the ban on mining

will travel beyond the ESZ area and cover an

area upto a distance of one kilometer.

25. The aforesaid directions were issued in

order to protect the National Parks and Wildlife

Sanctuaries so that the mines would not become

a death trap for the flora and fauna within them.

26. Apart from that, the judgment dated 26th

April 2023 is delivered by a Bench of three

Judges of this Court, which is binding on us.

27. As such the application is rejected.

...................J (B.R. GAVAI)

...................J (VIKRAM NATH) New Delhi April 28, 2023