Madras High Court
Black Rock Hill Planters Association vs The Union Of India
Author: M.M.Sundresh
Bench: M.M.Sundresh, S.Ananthi
W.P.(MD)Nos.925 of 2021, 11982 and 17277 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 18.03.2021 Delivered on : 26.03.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.P.(MD)Nos.925 of 2021, 11982, 17277 and 17415 of 2020
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.783 & 784 of 2021, 10326, 10328 & 10329 of 2020, 14465,
14467 of 2020, 1144 & 2373 of 2021 and 14555 & 14558 of 2020
W.P.(MD)No.925 of 2021:-
Black Rock Hill Planters Association,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Mr.P.Lalaji
No.6, Perumal Street, K.P. Road,
Ramavarmapuram,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Union of India,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change,
Indiraparyavaran Bhavan,
Jorbagh Road,
New Delhi – 110 003.
2.The 41st ESZ Expert Committee,
Rep. by its Chairman,
Ministry of Environment and Forest,
New Delhi.
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/23
W.P.(MD)Nos.925 of 2021, 11982 and 17277 of 2020
3.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
and Chief Wildlife Warden,
Panagal Maligai,
Saidapet,
Chennai – 600 015.
4.The District Collector,
Kanyakumari District,
Kanyakumari.
5.The District Forest Officer,
Kanyakumari District,
Kanyakumari. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
seeking for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records pertaining to the impugned Gazette Notification in CG-DL-
E-23092020-221903, dated 22.09.2020, on the file of respondent No.1, quash
the same as illegal and consequently, direct the respondents to consider the
objections submitted by the petitioners Association, dated 21.07.2020 and pass
orders within the time frame to be stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
For R1 & R2 : Mrs.L.Victoria Gowri
Assistant Solicitor General of India
For R3 to R5 : Mr.Sricharan Rengarajan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss
Special Government Pleader
http://www.judis.nic.in
2/23
W.P.(MD)Nos.925 of 2021, 11982 and 17277 of 2020
W.P.(MD)No.11982 of 2020:-
1.S.Elango Kalaisigamani
2.P.Chellapandi
3.C.Durai
4.P.Ramakrishnan
5.K.Chandrasekar
6.P.Chandran
7.G.Suresh
8.V.Samuthirapandi
9.N.Paul Nadar
10.P.Murugesan
11.T.Balakrishnan
12.M.Kannan
13.G.Thomas
14.P.Sukumar ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Union of India,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,
Indiraparyavaran Bhavan,
Jorbagh Road, Aliganj,
New Delhi – 110 003.
2.The Chairman,
Expert Committee for Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ),
Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,
Indiraparyavaran Bhavan,
Jorbagh Road,
New Delhi – 110 003.
3.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Environment and Forests Department,
Chennai – 600 009.
http://www.judis.nic.in
3/23
W.P.(MD)Nos.925 of 2021, 11982 and 17277 of 2020
4.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Chief Wildlife Warden,
Panagal Maaligai,
Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.
5.The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Kokkirakulam,
Tirunelveli – 627 009.
6.The District Forest Officer and Wildlife Warden,
Tirunelveli Division,
Tirunelveli – 627 007.
7.The District Forest Officer and Wildlife Warden,
Kanniyakumari Division,
Nagercoil – 629 001. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
seeking for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records of Notification gazetted and published on 20.02.2020, by the first
respondent, bearing S.O.No.795(E) and consequential report of the Expert
Committee, dated 24.06.2020, consists of second respondent, pertaining to the
declaration of petitioners' Villages viz., Pazhavoor, Karunkulam and
Levinchipuram Villages of Radhapuram Taluk in Tirunelveli District as
Kanniyakumari Wildlife Sanctuary Eco-sensitive Zone, quash the same and
consequently, direct the respondents to retain the petitioners' Villages viz.,
Pazhavoor, Karunkulam and Levinchipuram Villages of Radhapuram Taluk in
Tirunelveli District as ''Zero Meter'' Eco-sensitive Zone.
For Petitioners : Mr.P.R.Raman
Senior Counsel
for Mr.C.Seethapathy
For R1 & R2 : Mrs.L.Victoria Gowri
Assistant Solicitor General of India
http://www.judis.nic.in
4/23
W.P.(MD)Nos.925 of 2021, 11982 and 17277 of 2020
For R3 to R7 : Mr.Sricharan Rengarajan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss
Special Government Pleader
W.P.(MD)No.17277 of 2020:-
M.Satheesh ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government of India,
Union Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,
Indiraparyavaran Bhavan,
Jorbagh Road,
New Delhi – 110 003.
2.The Chairman,
41st ESZ Expert Committee,
Ministry of Environment and Forest,
New Delhi.
3.Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
and Chief Wildlife Warden,
Panagal Maligai,
Saidapet,
Chennai – 600 015.
4.The District Collector,
Kanyakumari District.
5.The District Forest Officer,
Kanyakumari District,
http://www.judis.nic.in
5/23
W.P.(MD)Nos.925 of 2021, 11982 and 17277 of 2020
6.The Deputy Manager (Tech)-cum-The Project Director,
National Highways Authority of India, PIU Nagercoil,
No.395/3-1, M.S.Road, Majestic Colony,
Near Ayyappankottai, Parvathipuram,
Nagercoil – 629 003.
7.A.Ajikumar
8.S.Robinson ... Respondents
[R6 to R8 are impleaded vide order dated 08.02.2011,
in W.M.P.(MD)Nos.49, 1143 and 1368 of 2011 in
W.P.(MD)No.17277 of 2020]
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
seeking for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for records pertaining to
Gazette Notification, dated 22.09.2020 in CG-DL-E-23092020-22193 and
quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Puhazh Gandhi
For R1 & R2 : Mrs.L.Victoria Gowri
Assistant Solicitor General of India
For R3 to R5 : Mr.Sricharan Rengarajan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss
Special Government Pleader
For R6 : Mr.Su.Srinivasan
Standing Counsel for NHAI
For R7 : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan
Senior Counsel
for Mrs.AL.Gandhimathi
For R8 : Mr.Isaac Mohanlal
Senior Counsel
for M/s.Isaac Chambers
http://www.judis.nic.in
6/23
W.P.(MD)Nos.925 of 2021, 11982 and 17277 of 2020
W.P.(MD)No.17415 of 2020:-
S.Austin ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government of India,
Union Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,
Indiraparyavaran Bhavan,
Jorbagh Road,
New Delhi – 110 003.
2.The Chairman,
41st ESZ Expert Committee,
Ministry of Environment and Forest,
New Delhi.
3.Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
and Chief Wildlife Warden,
Panagal Maligai,
Saidapet,
Chennai – 600 015.
4.The District Collector,
Kanyakumari District,
5.The District Forest Officer,
Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
seeking for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for records pertaining to
Gazette Notification, dated 22.09.2020 in CG-DL-E-23092020-22193, issued
by the first respondent and quash the same.
http://www.judis.nic.in
7/23
W.P.(MD)Nos.925 of 2021, 11982 and 17277 of 2020
For Petitioner : Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh
For R1 & R2 : Mrs.L.Victoria Gowri
Assistant Solicitor General of India
For R3 to R5 : Mr.Sricharan Rengarajan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss
Special Government Pleader
*****
COMMON ORDER
(Common Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.) W.P.(MD)No.11982 of 2020 has been filed challenging the draft Notification of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi, while W.P.(MD) Nos.17277 and 17415 of 2020 and 925 of 2021 are filed laying a challenge to the final Notification. Accordingly, all of them are taken up and disposed of by this common order.
2.Kanniyakumari Wildlife Sanctuary forms part of the Western Ghats housing a minimum of 40 types of mammals, 120 species of birds, including 14 species of migratory birds and rich diversity of fishes, reptiles and amphibians and there are more than 2272 species of flowering plants recorded here apart from 62 species of orchids and 91 species of ferns with the existence of animals like Asian Elephant, Indian Gaur, Sambar Deer, Wild Boar, Wild Dog, http://www.judis.nic.in 8/23 W.P.(MD)Nos.925 of 2021, 11982 and 17277 of 2020 Tiger, Leopard etc., Thus, the bio-diversity of the area is rather rich. Kanniyakumari District is unique, as it is sandwiched between the sea and the forest with the human population in between.
3.Indian Board of Wildlife in its Wildlife Conservation Strategy-2002, contemplated Eco-fragile Zone. Accordingly, Eco-sensitive Zones are perceived under the National Environment Policy, 2006 and Eco-sensitive Zone is meant to create some kind of ''Shock Absorber'' to stand between human population and the forest to maintain the Eco-system. Hence, it acts as a transition zone giving protection to areas involving lesser protection. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Goa Foundation v. Union of India [(2014) 6 SCC 590] directed the stakeholders to look into the said aspect while clarifying the fixation of 10 Kms. from the boundaries of National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries. The following paragraphs will be apposite:-
''50. When, however, we read the order dated 4.12.2006 of this Court in Writ Petition (C) No.460 of 2004 Goa Foundation v. Union of India [(2011) 15 SCC 79], we find that the Court has not prohibited any mining activity within 10 kilometer distance from the boundaries of the National Parks or Wildlife Sanctuaries. The relevant portion of the order dated 04.12.2006 is quoted hereinbelow:
'The Ministry is directed to give a final opportunity to all States/Union Territories to respond to its http://www.judis.nic.in 9/23 W.P.(MD)Nos.925 of 2021, 11982 and 17277 of 2020 letter dated 27th May, 2005. The State of Goa also is permitted to given appropriate proposal in addition to what is said to have already been sent to the Central Government. The Communication sent to the States/Union Territories shall make it clear that if the proposals are not sent even now within a period of four weeks of receipt of the communication from the Ministry, this Court may have to consider passing orders for implementation of the decision that was taken on 21st January, 2002, namely, notification of the areas within 10 km. of the boundaries of the sanctuaries and national parks as eco-sensitive areas with a view to conserve the forest, wildlife and environment and having regard to the precautionary principles. If the State/Union Territories now fail to respond, they would do so at their own risk and peril.
The MoEF would also refer to the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife, under sections 5 (b) and 5 (c) (ii) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, the cases where environment clearance has already been granted where activities are within 10 km. Zone.' It will be clear from the order dated 4.12.2006 of this Court that this Court has not passed any orders for implementation of the decision taken on 21st January, 2002 to notify areas within 10 kms. of the boundaries of National Parks or Wildlife Sanctuaries as eco sensitive areas with a view to conserve the forest, wildlife and environment. By the order dated 04.12.2006 [(2011) 15 SCC 79] of this Court, however, the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of http://www.judis.nic.in 10/23 W.P.(MD)Nos.925 of 2021, 11982 and 17277 of 2020 India, was directed to give a final opportunity to all States/Union Territories to respond to the proposal and also to refer to the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife the cases in which environment clearance has already been granted in respect of activities within the 10 kms. zone from the boundaries of the wildlife sanctuaries and national parks. There is, therefore, no direction, interim or final, of this Court prohibiting mining activities within 10 kms. of the boundaries of National Parks or Wildlife Sanctuaries. ...
87.In the result, we declare that:
87.1. The deemed mining leases of the lessees in Goa expired on 22.11.1987 and the maximum of 20 years renewal period of the deemed mining leases in Goa expired on 22.11.2007 and consequently mining by the lessees after 22.11.2007 was illegal and hence the impugned order dated 10.09.2012 of Government of Goa and the impugned order dated 14.09.2012 of the MoEF, Government of India are not liable to be quashed; 87.2. Dumping of minerals outside the leased area of the mining lessees is not permissible under the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder;
87.3. Until the order dated 04.08.2006 of this Court is modified by this Court in I.A. No.1000 in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors. [2010) 13 SCC 740], there can be no mining activities within one kilometer from the boundaries of National Parks and Sanctuaries in Goa; 87.4. By the order dated 04.12.2006 in Goa Foundation v.
Union of India [(2011) 15 SCC 79], this Court has not http://www.judis.nic.in 11/23 W.P.(MD)Nos.925 of 2021, 11982 and 17277 of 2020 prohibited mining activities within 10 kilometers distance from the boundaries of the National Parks or Wildlife Sanctuaries; 87.5. It is for the State Government to decide as a matter of policy in what manner mining leases are to be granted in future but the constitutionality or legality of the decision of the State Government can be examined by the Court in exercise of its power of judicial review.''
4.The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change issued guidelines in the year 2011, informing the State Governments the need to send a strong message to the general public that by the creation of Eco-sensitive Zones, the day-to-day activities are not hampered, but it is only to achieve the laudable object. Suffice it to state that fixation of 10 Kms. as the buffer has never been fixed.
5.A draft Notification was issued on 20.07.2018 for the Kanniyakumari Wildlife Sanctuary. It was deliberated in the Expert Committee Meeting held on 06.03.2019. It recommended the conduct of a public hearing. Accordingly, public consultation for Kanniyakumari and Tirunelveli Districts were conducted under the presence of the Collectors. Translated copies of the draft Notification were made available, while holding Grama Sabha Meeting. Objections were also received from the Districts of both Tirunelveli and http://www.judis.nic.in 12/23 W.P.(MD)Nos.925 of 2021, 11982 and 17277 of 2020 Kanniyakumari. On receipt of the said objections and upon considering the same, the earlier draft proposal was revised and a new one was published on 20.02.2020, excluding number of habitations in the Villages of both Kanniyakumari and Tirunelveli District. It was placed for approval before the Expert Committee in the meetings held on 23.06.2020 and 24.06.2020. The Expert Committee consists of the following representatives among other experts:-
''''(i) Indian Institute of Remote Sensing/Indian Space Research Organization.
(ii) Central Water Commission, Ministry of Water Resources.
(iii) Forest Survey of India.
(iv) National Tiger Conservation Authority.
(v) Wildlife Institute of India.
(vi) GB Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment & Development.
(vii) World Wildlife Fund.
(viii) Zoological Survey of India.
(ix) Botanical Survey of India.
(x) Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education.'' On the recommendations of the Expert Committee, as noted above, a final Notification was issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi, vide S.O.3236(E), dated 22.09.2020, fixing a varying extent of 0 - 3 Kms. from the boundary of the protected area. It also records the http://www.judis.nic.in 13/23 W.P.(MD)Nos.925 of 2021, 11982 and 17277 of 2020 rationale for fixing 0 Km at relevant locations. Under the said notification, it is not as if 3 Kms. has been fixed for the entire stretch, but only on the need basis.
6.Both the draft and final Notifications are put to challenge by the petitioners, raising different grounds viz., despite the objections given, certain villages are included; there is no uniform pattern followed; the objections have not been considered properly; if the extent is more, the human population would be affected; and there is likelihood of existing infrastructure would be closed. It is also their contention that it should be 0-10 kms.
7.The Notifications are sought to be sustained on the following grounds:-
There is no room for apprehension as the object is only to protect the ecology, to protect men. What is required is only regulations and not prohibitions. There is no specific provision for public hearing and same is mandatory only when an environmental impact assessment is involved. The existing infrastructure and activities would not be disturbed. There is an in-built mechanism available under the Notification. The actual varying extent will be made known only after an appropriate stage. The assessment has been made by the Expert Committee. The nature of application has also been indicated in the Notification itself. It clearly shows about the extent starting from 0 - 3 Kms.
http://www.judis.nic.in 14/23 W.P.(MD)Nos.925 of 2021, 11982 and 17277 of 2020 The Zonal Master Plan for the Eco-sensitive Plan will be made in consultation with the local people. The said Plan will take into consideration of various factors. The idea is to regularise the development and permit eco-friendly development for the betterment of the local community. There is no law, which mandates that the area should be from zero to10 Kms.
8.This Court, after hearing the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.17277 of 2020, passed a detailed order, prohibiting mining operations within 10 Kms, on an mistaken understanding that the area originally decided has been reduced from 10 Kms. to 3 Kms. and no adequate hearing has taken place. But once again, mistook the entire proceedings by treating it as case of environmental impact assessment. Consequently, not only the mining operations within 10 Kms., but also all construction activities came to a grinding halt. Accordingly, impleading petitions were also filed, seeking to sustain the Notification and also bringing to the notice of this Court the interim order passed on misconception of facts, which requires to be interfered with. It is also alleged that in any case, laying of the roads by the National Highways Authority, having been exempted, cannot be stopped.
http://www.judis.nic.in 15/23 W.P.(MD)Nos.925 of 2021, 11982 and 17277 of 2020
9.We have heard all the counsels appearing for the parties and perused the records. A factual narration has also been made. The Law does not require a procedure akin to one, which is being followed at the time of making an environment impact assessment before giving clearance. We are concerned with the declaration of an Environment Sensitive Zone. The final Notification also provides for a clear mechanism. However, in the case on hand, a fair discussion has been made and objections were called for. Such objections have been given both by the general public and also by the authorities of the Districts. The District Forest Officers have also given their inputs. Upon considering the same, another draft Notification was published, excluding number of Villages in Kanniyakumari and Tirunelveli Districts. On its draft Notification, a meeting was held by the Expert Committee. On the recommendations of the Expert Committee, the final Notification was issued. The operative portion of the final Notification is reproduced hereunder:-
''1.Extent and boundaries of Eco-sensitive Zone. – (1) The Eco-sensitive Zone shall be to an extent of 0 (zero) to 3.0 kilometres around the boundary of Kanniyakumari Wildlife Sanctuary and the area of the Eco-sensitive Zone is 117.7772 square kilometres. The extent of Eco-sensitive Zone at various direction of the Protected Area are given below:-
http://www.judis.nic.in 16/23 W.P.(MD)Nos.925 of 2021, 11982 and 17277 of 2020 Direction Maximum Extent (kilometer) North 0 North-East 0 East 1.0 South-East 1.0 South 3.0 South-West 1.25 West 2.8 North-West 0 Zero extent of Eco-sensitive Zone in the North, North-East and East directions of Kanniyakumari Wildlife Sanctuary is due to the bordering Kalakkad Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve. Similarly, Eco-sensitive Zone extent is zero in the West and North-West as it is bordering Neyyar Wildlife Sanctuary of Kerala State. In the South, it is zero along the Poigaimalai Reserve Forest.
1. The boundary description of Kanniyakumari Wildlife Sanctuary and its Eco-sensitive Zone is appended in Annexure-I.
2. The maps of the Kanniyakumari Wildlife Sanctuary demarcating Eco-sensitive Zone along with boundary details and latitudes and longitudes are appended as Annexure-IIA, Annexure-IIB, Annexure-IIC and Annexure-IID.
3. Lists of geo-coordinates of the boundary of Kanniyakumari Wildlife Sanctuary and Eco-sensitive Zone are given in Table A and Table B of Annexure-III.
4. The lists of villages falling in the proposed Eco-sensitive Zone along with their geo co-ordinates at prominent points is appended as Annexure-IV.
2. Zonal Master Plan for Eco-sensitive Zone.-
http://www.judis.nic.in 17/23 W.P.(MD)Nos.925 of 2021, 11982 and 17277 of 2020 (1) The State Government shall, for the purposes of the Ecosensitive Zone prepare a Zonal Master Plan within a period of two years from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette, in consultation with local people and adhering to the stipulations given in this notification for approval of the competent authority of State. (2) The Zonal Master Plan for the Eco-sensitive Zone shall be prepared by the State Government in such manner as is specified in this notification and also in consonance with the relevant Central and State laws and the guidelines issued by the Central Government, if any.
(3) The Zonal Master Plan shall be prepared in consultation with the following Departments of the State Government, for integrating the ecological and environmental considerations into the said plan:-
(i) Environment;
(ii) Forest and Wildlife;
(iii) Agriculture;
(iv) Revenue;
(v) Urban Development;
(vi) Tourism;
(vii) Rural Development;
(viii) Irrigation and Flood Control;
(ix) Municipal;
(x) Panchayati Raj; and
(xi) Public Works Department.
http://www.judis.nic.in 18/23 W.P.(MD)Nos.925 of 2021, 11982 and 17277 of 2020 (4) The Zonal Master Plan shall not impose any restriction on the approved existing land use, infrastructure and activities, unless so specified in this notification and the Zonal Master Plan shall factor in improvement of all infrastructure and activities to be more efficient and eco-friendly. (5) The Zonal Master Plan shall provide for restoration of denuded areas, conservation of existing water bodies, management of catchment areas, watershed management, groundwater management, soil and moisture conservation, needs of local community and such other aspects of the ecology and environment that need attention. (6) The Zonal Master Plan shall demarcate all the existing worshipping places, villages and urban settlements, types and kinds of forests, agricultural areas, fertile lands, green area, such as, parks and like places, horticultural areas, orchards, lakes and other water bodies with supporting maps giving details of existing and proposed land use features. (7) The Zonal Master Plan shall regulate development in Eco- sensitive Zone and adhere to prohibited and regulated activities listed in the Table in paragraph 4 and also ensure and promote eco-friendly development for security of local communities’ livelihood. (8) The Zonal Master Plan shall be co-terminus with the Regional Development Plan. (9) The Zonal Master Plan so approved shall be the reference document for the Monitoring Committee for carrying out its functions of monitoring in accordance with the provisions of this notification.” http://www.judis.nic.in 19/23 W.P.(MD)Nos.925 of 2021, 11982 and 17277 of 2020 On a perusal, we find that clear extent has been given at various directions of protective areas. Insofar as Eco-sensitive Zone is concerned, clause (2) deals with the preparation of Zonal Master Plan for the Eco-sensitive Zone. This can only be done after consultation with the local people. It is absolutely wrong to state that the ongoing agricultural operations and other activities will be put on hold.
10.As rightly submitted by the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India and the learned Additional Advocate General what is proposed is, only regulations and not prohibitions. The day-to-day life of the general public will not be affected. In fact, it only help the general public. Protecting the environment is the duty of one and all. In fact, we are not protecting the environment, but minimizing its damage. All these Writ Petitions have been filed on mere apprehension. The decision has been made by a Committee of Experts. When such a decision is made and in the absence of any malice in law, we cannot interfere with the same in exercise of powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This applies to extent as well. There is also no mandate for 0-10 Kms.
11.Thus, we do not find absolutely any reason to interfere with the publication of the final Notification. Perhaps, one may have a grievance to the http://www.judis.nic.in 20/23 W.P.(MD)Nos.925 of 2021, 11982 and 17277 of 2020 Zonal Master Plan. The said stage has not come. The Notification itself takes care of all contingencies. It involves a consultation process at the time of publication of the Zonal Master Plan for Eco-sensitive Zone. It further provides for a Monitoring Committee for Monitoring the Eco-sensitive Zone Notification. A specific reference could be seen under Clauses 5 and 6. Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioners does not have any legal or factual basis. The implementation is after a prolonged thought process and a procedure, involving further discussion and deliberation on various suggestions, intended to protect the sensitive ecology of the Country.
12.Accordingly, these Writ Petitions stand dismissed. However, it is always open to the aggrieved persons, including the petitioners, to seek redressal after the Zonal Master Plan comes out, which is required to take into consideration the various factors, not only from the point of view of environment, but also the general public. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index :Yes [M.M.S., J.] [S.A.I., J.]
Internet :Yes 26.03.2021
sj
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be http://www.judis.nic.in 21/23 W.P.(MD)Nos.925 of 2021, 11982 and 17277 of 2020 utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned. To
1.The Secretary to Government of India, Union Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Indiraparyavaran Bhavan, Jorbagh Road, New Delhi – 110 003.
2.The Chairman, 41st ESZ Expert Committee, Ministry of Environment and Forest, New Delhi.
3.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Chief Wildlife Warden, Government of Tamil Nadu, Panagal Maligai, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.
4.The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Kanyakumari.
5.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Environment and Forests Department, Chennai – 600 009.
6.The District Collector, Collectorate, Kokkirakulam, Tirunelveli – 627 009.
7.The District Forest Officer and Wildlife Warden, Tirunelveli Division, Tirunelveli – 627 007.
8.The Deputy Manager (Tech)-cum-The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, PIU Nagercoil, No.395/3-1, M.S.Road, Majestic Colony, Near Ayyappankottai, Parvathipuram, Nagercoil – 629 003.
http://www.judis.nic.in 22/23 W.P.(MD)Nos.925 of 2021, 11982 and 17277 of 2020 M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
AND S.ANANTHI, J.
sj Pre-delivery common order in W.P.(MD)Nos.925 of 2021, 11982, 17277 and 17415 of 2020 Delivered on 26.03.2021 http://www.judis.nic.in 23/23