Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, owner of patta land in Herandyapanahalli Village, Kanakapura Taluk, was granted a work order on 14.01.2016 under Rule 32(1) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 for granite quarrying, along with environmental clearance. The land was situated near Bannerghatta National Park. Subsequently, the authorities sought to cancel the permission on the ground that the site was within one kilometer from the Park boundary. Litigation ensued, and by an order dated 22.01.2020 in Writ Petition No.31898/2019, the High Court set aside an earlier revocation of environmental clearance and directed that the revocation be treated as a show cause notice. Meanwhile, on 11.03.2020, the Central Government issued a final notification under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 declaring the Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) of Bannerghatta National Park; for Herandyapanahalli Village, the ESZ extended only 100 meters from the boundary. The quarry site was admittedly beyond 100 meters but within one kilometer. On 20.03.2020, the second respondent again revoked the environmental clearance citing the site’s location within one kilometer and alleging misrepresentation by the petitioner. The petitioner challenged this revocation and also sought to assail an Office Memorandum dated 08.08.2019 which prohibited mining within one kilometer of National Parks. The State and Union of India defended the revocation relying on Supreme Court orders in T.N. Godavarman and Goa Foundation, claiming a blanket one-kilometer buffer zone. The High Court analyzed the Supreme Court orders and held that the one-kilometer prohibition was an interim measure pending notification of ESZs. Once the ESZ notification dated 11.03.2020 was issued, mining prohibition applies only within the notified zone, not to the entire one-kilometer area. The court found that the petitioner’s land fell outside the 100-meter ESZ and hence quarrying was permissible. It also held that the Office Memorandum could not override the statutory notification, and the allegation of misrepresentation was unfounded. The petition was allowed, the impugned revocation communication was quashed, and environmental clearance was directed to be restored. The court directed respondents to permit quarrying operations in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Environment Law - Eco-Sensitive Zones - Mining Prohibition - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Section 3 - After a final Eco-Sensitive Zone notification is issued for a National Park, the prohibition on mining activities applies only within the notified Eco-Sensitive Zone, not automatically within one kilometer from the boundary, unless the land falls within the ESZ. Held, the site in question was outside the 100-meter ESZ of Bannerghatta National Park as per notification dated 11.03.2020, so the prohibition on mining does not apply. (Paras 11-15) B) Interpretation of Judgments - Supreme Court Orders - Precedential Value - The directions in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (2010) and Goa Foundation (2014) regarding one-kilometer buffer zone around National Parks were interim measures until final ESZ notifications are issued; after such notification, the regulations under the Environment (Protection) Act prevail. Held, the Office Memorandum dated 08.08.2019 could not supersede the statutory notification issued on 11.03.2020. (Paras 11-16) C) Environmental Clearance - Revocation - Misrepresentation - Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 - Environmental clearance cannot be revoked on the ground of misrepresentation if the application truthfully disclosed the distance from the National Park and no deceit was practiced. Held, the petitioner had not provided false information, and the finding of concealment was not supported by evidence; thus, the revocation was invalid. (Paras 17-21)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prohibition on mining within one kilometer of Bannerghatta National Park continues after the final notification of Eco-Sensitive Zone dated 11.03.2020, and whether the Office Memorandum dated 08.08.2019 can override such notification
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed. The impugned communication dated 20.03.2020 revoking environmental clearance is quashed. The second respondent is directed to restore the environmental clearance granted to the petitioner. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to carry on quarrying operations in the subject land in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Mining prohibition within one kilometer of National Park is an interim measure until Eco-Sensitive Zone notification
- after notification
- prohibition applies only within notified Eco-Sensitive Zone
- Environment (Protection) Act
- 1986 prevails over Office Memorandum
- revocation of environmental clearance requires proof of misrepresentation
