Case Note & Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an endorsement dated 05.01.2023 issued by respondent No.6, the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Halliyal Division, declining to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for grant of a quarrying lease for clay over an area measuring one acre out of Sy.No.243/122, Plot No.485 of Ramnagar (Akrali) Village, Joida Taluk, Uttara Kannada District. The DCF rejected the request on the ground that the subject land was at a distance of 9.5 kms from the Kali Protected Area/Kali Tiger Reserve (KTR) and therefore quarrying was not permissible; the endorsement also observed that the ecosystem for Kali Protected Area was to be recognised as an Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ), and hence permission for commercial mining could not be granted. The petitioners contended that the endorsement was based on a non-existent concept of 10 km default ESZ around KTR, which was not part of any notified list. The only question before the High Court was whether the ESZ of KTR extended to a distance of 10 kms from its boundaries and whether commercial mining was prohibited within that zone. The respondents relied on the MoEF guidelines dated 09.02.2011, which provided that the width of ESZ could go up to 10 kms as a general principle; the Supreme Court order dated 03.06.2022 in In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (2022) 10 SCC 544, directing that for sanctuaries/national parks without proposals, the 10 km buffer zone as ESZ would operate; and the order dated 26.04.2023 in Godavarman-II, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 504, modifying/clarifying those directions. The High Court noted that the issue of a default ESZ had been considered in M/s. Bhushan Enterprises v. State of Karnataka, W.P.No.15654/2020 decided on 13.01.2021, where the Court held that the guidelines did not create a straight jacket formula of 10 km radius ESZ around every wildlife sanctuary; ESZ width was to be flexible and protected area specific. The Court also relied on Goa Foundation v. Union of India, (2014) 6 SCC 590, which clarified that the order dated 04.12.2006 in Goa Foundation-I did not prohibit mining activity within 10 km of national parks or sanctuaries. Accordingly, the High Court held that the impugned endorsement was based on the same non-existing concept of default ESZ and was legally unsustainable. The writ petition was allowed, the impugned endorsement was set aside, and the authorities were directed to consider the petitioner's application for quarrying lease in accordance with law, without relying on the non-existent default 10 km ESZ.
Headnote
A) Environmental Law - Eco-Sensitive Zones - No Default 10 Km Eco-Sensitive Zone - Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, Sections 5-B, 5-C(2); Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994, Rule 8A(4) - The petitioner challenged rejection of quarrying lease NOC on ground that subject land was within 10 km default ESZ of Kali Tiger Reserve. The High Court followed M/s. Bhushan Enterprises v. State of Karnataka and Goa Foundation v. Union of India (2014) 6 SCC 590 to hold that there is no automatic default ESZ of 10 km around every protected area; ESZ width must be protected area specific and determined by MoEF guidelines and draft/final notifications. Held that the impugned endorsement relying solely on non-existing default ESZ was unsustainable and applications must be considered within four corners of law (Paras 4-13). B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Quashing of Endorsement Under Articles 226 and 227 - Constitution of India, Articles 226, 227 - The High Court exercised writ jurisdiction to review the endorsement of Deputy Conservator of Forest rejecting NOC. Held that an administrative decision based on non-existent legal concept of default 10 km ESZ is erroneous and liable to be set aside; authorities must decide quarrying lease application according to existing law (Paras 1-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Eco-Sensitive Zone of Kali Tiger Reserve extends to a distance of 10 kms from its boundaries and whether commercial mining is prohibited within the said zone.
Final Decision
The High Court held that there is no automatic/default 10 km Eco-Sensitive Zone around protected areas; the impugned endorsement rejecting NOC based solely on such non-existent default ESZ was unsustainable and liable to be set aside. The writ petition was allowed and the authorities were directed to consider the petitioner's application for quarrying lease in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Eco-sensitive zones around protected areas are not automatically 10 km wide
- width is protected-area specific under MoEF guidelines and draft/final notifications
- no default 10 km ESZ exists
- mining prohibition within alleged default zone is legally untenable
- impugned endorsement based on non-existing default ESZ cannot be sustained
