Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Kanha Hotels And Spa Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India on 27 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:16915]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5863/2024
Kanha Hotels And Spa Pvt. Ltd., Having Its Registered Office At
J-5, Himmat Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur 302018 (Rajasthan)
Through Its Director Vijay Sharda S/o Natwar Lal Sharda Aged
About 27 Years.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment, Forest And Climate Change (Wildlife
Division), 6Th Floor, Vayu Wing, Indira Paryavaran
Bhawan, Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110003
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary,
Forest, Environment And Climate Change Department,
Van Bhawan, Vanki Path, Janpath, Jaipur-302005 (Raj.)
3. Standing Committee Of National Board For Wildlife,
Environment, Forest And Climate Change, Government Of
India, 2Nd Floor, Vayu Wing, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan,
Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110003
4. National Board For Wildlife, Ministry Of Environment,
Forests And Climate Change Government Of India, 2Nd
Floor, Vayu Wing, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Jor Bagh,
New Delhi-110003
5. Rajasthan State Wildlife Board, Through Member
Secretary, Jaipur
6. Deputy Conservator Of Forest Wildlife Jaipur, Pani Pech
Shastri Nagar, Jaipur 302016 (Raj.)
7. Jaipur Development Authority, Through Its Commissioner,
J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur 302004 (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.B. Mathur, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Daksh Pareek Mr. Falak Mathur Mr. Manish Bhodiwal Mr. Yug Singh Mr. Utsav Verma Mr. Keshav Parashar (Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM) (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16915] (2 of 51) [CW-5863/2024] For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Vyas, ASG with Mr. CS Sinha Ms. Neeti Jain Bhandari Ms. Anima Chaturvedi Mr. BS Chhaba, AAG with Mr. Vinayam Saran Ms. Mahi Choudhary Mr. Hardik Singh Ms.Niharika Choudhary Ms. Eva Choudhary Mr. Amit Kuri with Mr. Ayush Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 1 Arguments concluded on 16/04/2026 2 Judgment Reserved on 16/04/2026 3 Full Judgment or Operative Part Pronounced Full Judgment 4 Pronounced on 27/04/2026 REPORTABLE :
1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been instituted by Kanha Hotels and Spa Private Limited, through its Director, being aggrieved by the impugned findings recorded in the minutes of meeting 22.02.2024, communicated under cover letter dated 28.02.2024 by the Wildlife Division, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India. The said findings are assailed as being ex-facie perverse, illegal, arbitrary, and having been rendered with a prejudiced and pre-determined mindset; and that the impugned findings are non est in the eyes of law, having been passed in contravention of the mandatory statutory requirements, and are thus sans jurisdiction. The present petition is, accordingly, filed seeking the following reliefs:
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM) (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16915] (3 of 51) [CW-5863/2024] "(a) By appropriate writ, orders, or directions, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the records of the case of the Petitioner for its kind perusal and may hold and declare that impugned findings/"decision taken" including its basis, detailed in Para 78.3.23 [under the heading "Agenda Item No.03" and sub-
heading 78.3 "(Fresh Proposal falling inside/outside the Protected Area)"] of the minutes of the 78th meeting dated 22.02.2024 communicated under the cover of the letter dated 28.02.2024has been passed in complete disregard to mandatory requirements of principles of natural justice, and in complete disregard to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 03.06.2022, passed in IA No.1000 of 2003 in WP (Civil) No.202 of 1995, and therefore, quash and set-aside impugned findings dated 28.02.2024 for being arbitrary, illegal, and violative of principles of natural justice; and/or
(b) By appropriate writ, orders, or directions, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to hold and declare that impugned findings/"decision taken" including its basis, detailed in Para 78.3.23 [under the heading "Agenda Item No.03" and sub-heading 78.3 "(Fresh Proposal falling inside/outside the Protected Area)"] of the minutes of the 78th meeting dated 22.02.2024 communicated under the cover of the letter dated 28.02.2024, passed by Respondent No.3, has been passed in disregard to mandatory statutory requirements flowing from the ESZ Notification dated 08.03.2019 as well as the order dated 03.06.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in IA No. 1000 of 2003 in WP (Civil) No.202 of 1995, and therefore, quash and set-aside impugned findings dated 28.02.2024 for being arbitrary, illegal, and violative of principles of natural justice; and/or (Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM) (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16915] (4 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]
(c) By appropriate writ, orders, or directions, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for records of the case of the Petitioner for its kind perusal and after analysing the same, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue necessary Writ or Order or directions directing the Respondent No.3 to grant Wildlife Clearance to the Petitioner in terms of Notification dated 08.03.2019, and Notification dated 14.09.2006, and the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 03.06.2022; and/or
(d) By appropriate writ, orders, or directions, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to restrain the Respondents including their servants and agents from taking any action prejudicial to the interest of the Petitioner including coercive action in furtherance of and in the execution of and in the enforcement of impugned findings dated 28.02.2024; and/or
(e) pass any such other order or orders as may be deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case in the favour of the Petitioner."
THE CHRONOLOGICAL ENUMERATION OF STATUTORY PERMISSIONS SECURED BY THE PETITIONER AND THE FACTUAL MATRIX APPERTAINING THERETO ARE AD-INFRA:
2. That the petitioner purchased land bearing Khasra Nos.
54, 55, and 56 situated at Village Chimanpura, Tehsil Amer, Jaipur, on 16.01.1995. It is pertinent to note that the said land stood recorded under the Khatedari rights of one Shri Seduram, resident of Village Chimanpura, Tehsil Amer, Jaipur, and the nature of the land had already been converted from agricultural to industrial use vide order dated 19.05.1994 passed by the District Collector, Jaipur. Subsequently, permission was sought from the District (Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM) (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16915] (5 of 51) [CW-5863/2024] Collector, Jaipur, for transfer of rights in respect of the said land in favour of M/s Exclusive Exports Private Limited. The said permission was duly granted vide order dated 16.01.1995 issued by the office of the District Collector, Jaipur.
3. That the petitioner thereafter purchased additional land bearing Khasra No. 54/2 from Shri Seduram after obtaining requisite permission from the District Collector, Jaipur, vide order dated 17.03.1998; consecutively, the Tourism Department of the State of Rajasthan introduced a new Hotel Policy in the year 2006, envisaging various concessions to tourism units, including hotels, camping sites, quality resorts, and restaurants. With a view to avail the benefits under the said policy, M/s Exclusive Exports Private Limited applied for establishment of a new tourism unit, which came to be approved by the Tourism Department, Government of Rajasthan, vide order dated 24.03.2007. Thereafter, the Department of Revenue and Land Records, State of Rajasthan, vide order dated 06.11.2007, accorded permission for setting up a tourism unit/hotel in favour of the Petitioner.
4. That in furtherance thereof, the petitioner submitted an application dated 04.12.2009 before the Jaipur Development Authority, Rajasthan, (hereinafter referred to as 'JDA') along with the requisite development plan and maps seeking approval; and the Jaipur Development Authority, vide its letter dated 13.01.2011, granted approval for development of a hotel on the land bearing Khasra Nos. 54 to 56, which approval remained valid till the year 2017. Successively, the petitioner applied for grant of (Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM) (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16915] (6 of 51) [CW-5863/2024] a temporary No Objection Certificate (hereinafter referred to as 'NOC') from the Fire Department for carrying out development activities. The Jaipur Nagar Nigam, vide order dated 16.12.2010, granted temporary Fire NOC subject to the terms and conditions stipulated therein. Consecutively, the petitioner on 09.01.2017 applied for the Environmental Clearance, in terms of para 2 read with para 6 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'EIA'). Upon obtaining all requisite permissions and approvals from the competent authorities, the petitioner proceeded further with the development and construction of the proposed hotel/tourism unit.
5. That as per the inspection conducted by the Fire Department at the hotel premises and the records made available, the construction of the hotel stood completed on 19.02.2019. Thereafter, a site inspection was carried out by the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Rajasthan, and the project was recommended for grant of wildlife clearance vide report dated 04.03.2020. Pursuant thereto, the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board granted its consent to establish Kanha Hotels, and subsequently accorded consent for operation of the said establishment.
SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED AND CONTENTIONS PROFFERED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER HEREIN ARE AD-SERIATIM:
6. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. R.B. Mathur, assisted by learned counsel Mr. Daksh Pareek, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, submitted that the present writ petition has been filed (Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM) (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16915] (7 of 51) [CW-5863/2024] assailing the illegality, arbitrariness, and validity of the decision embodied in Para 78.3.23 under the heading "Agenda Item No. 03
- Fresh Proposals falling Inside/Outside the Protected Area", as considered by the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (Wildlife Division) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Standing Committee') in its meeting dated 22.02.2024. It was further contended that, as per the minutes of the aforesaid meeting, the Standing Committee has, vide communication dated 28.02.2024, conveyed its decision to reject the grant of Wildlife Clearance to the petitioner. The said rejection has been purportedly founded upon the Notifications dated 14.09.2006 (EIA Notification -
making environment impact assessments envisaged projects requiring environmental clearance), and 08.03.2019 (the ESZ Notification - passed declaring the Nahargrah Sanctuary as Eco Sensitive Zone and that as per Table-B Entry No. 1 - Hotels and resorts fall under the regulated activities and that no construction is henceforth permissible within 1 Km from the boundary of protected area). Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the impugned decision, as reflected in the said minutes and consequential communication, is ex facie unsustainable in law, being arbitrary, contrary to the settled principles governing grant of wildlife clearance, and vitiated by non-application of mind, inasmuch as it fails to duly consider the factual and legal position governing the petitioner's project.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that, in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment (Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM) (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16915] (8 of 51) [CW-5863/2024] Notification, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 'EIA Notification'), and more particularly in accordance with Paras 2 and 6 thereof, the Petitioner had duly applied for grant of Environmental Clearance on 09.01.2017. Thereafter, following the rigorous procedure prescribed under Rule 7 of the EIA Notification, and upon due appraisal and analysis by the competent authority, namely the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee, Rajasthan, in its meetings held on 01.03.2017 and 09.05.2017, Environmental Clearance came to be granted in favour of the Petitioner vide order dated 23.06.2017 (Annexure - 8).
8. It was further submitted that, subsequently, in the backdrop of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumilpad vs. Union of India, (2006) 5 SCC 25 and Goa Foundation vs. Union of India, (2011) 15 SCC 791, a draft Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) Notification was published on 11.09.2017 inviting objections and suggestions from stakeholders, culminating in the issuance of the final ESZ Notification dated 08.03.2019 (Annexure-10). Learned counsel further submitted that as per the said ESZ Notification read with the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1986') and the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1972'), the Central Government and competent authorities are empowered to regulate, prohibit, or restrict establishment and operation of industries in the vicinity of protected areas, including sanctuaries, national parks, and eco-sensitive zones, by classifying activities into different categories so as to strike a balance (Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM) (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16915] (9 of 51) [CW-5863/2024] between environmental protection and sustainable development. Thus, the Central Government, while exercising its powers under the Act of 1986, adopted the policy of Environmental Impact Assessment and introduced the mandatory requirement of prior Environmental Clearance vide Notification dated 14.09.2006, further classifying projects into Category "A" and Category "B".
9. It was further submitted that the Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary (hereinafter referred to as 'NWS') was declared as an eco-sensitive zone extending from 0 to 13 Kms from its boundary; and as per para 2 of the ESZ Notification dated 08.03.2019, it was categorically articulated that a Zonal Master Plan (ZMP) shall be prepared in consultation with the concerned departments, and that such plan shall not impose any restriction on already approved existing land use, infrastructure, and activities unless expressly provided in the Notification. Thus, making it in toto unambiguous that the petitioner has strictly complied with all applicable Notifications, including those dated 14.09.2006 and 08.03.2019, as well as the statutory framework under the Act of 1986 and other relevant enactments/statues. It was further submitted that the ESZ framework classifies activities into I) prohibited, II) regulated, and III) permissible/promoted categories, and that establishment of hotels and resorts falls within the category of regulated activities and not the prohibited category.
10. It was vehemently contended that the petitioner's unit falls within the category of an "Existing Unit" as defined under the (Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM) (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16915] (10 of 51) [CW-5863/2024] ESZ Notification dated 08.03.2019, and cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be treated as a new commercial hotel, albeit the unit is situated within 1 Km from the boundary of the protected area. It was further submitted that the ESZ Notification dated 08.03.2019, read with the Zonal Master Plan for NWS (Annexure-
12), undisputedly stipulates that existing units, as specifically defined therein, shall not be subjected to retrospective application of new restrictions, conditions, or regulatory requirements, particularly with respect to already approved land use, infrastructure, and construction. Learned counsel emphasized that the term "existing unit" has been defined in a specific and exclusive manner under the Notification and has been reiterated in the Zonal Master Plan, which was formulated after due consideration by all concerned departments, including the Jaipur Development Authority, Forest Department, Wildlife Authorities, Revenue Department, and Local Bodies.
11. It was submitted that the Petitioner satisfies the criteria of an existing unit, having obtained all requisite statutory approvals prior to the coming into force of the ESZ Notification dated 08.03.2019. These include approval from the Tourism Department dated 24.12.2007, land conversion permission dated 17.03.1998, building plan approval from the Jaipur Development Authority dated 14.12.2009, and Environmental Clearance dated 23.06.2017. It was further submitted that, in continuation thereof, the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board granted Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate vide orders dated 15.06.2020 and 26.11.2022 respectively (Annexures-13 and 14), and the Fire (Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM) (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16915] (11 of 51) [CW-5863/2024] Department also issued the requisite No Objection Certificate at the relevant time. Hence, it can be drawn that the petitioner's unit squarely qualifies as an existing unit and cannot be classified as a new unit under the ESZ Notification dated 08.03.2019.
12. Learned counsel further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 03.06.2022 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202/1995 titled as IN RE : T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Versus Union Of India And Ors., has clarified the legal position regarding applicability of ESZ norms vis-a-vis activities already undertaken within 1 kilometre of protected areas, holding that activities not falling within the prohibited category, as per Guidelines dated 09.02.2011, may be permitted to continue subject to approval of the Chief Conservator of Forests of the respective State. The relevant extract from the order dated 03.06.2022 passed in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:
"56.5. In the event any activity is already being undertaken within the one kilometer or extended buffer zone (ESZ), as the case may be, of any wildlife sanctuary or national park which does not come within the ambit of prohibited activities as per the 9-2-2011 Guidelines, such activities may continue with permission of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests of each State or Union Territory and the person responsible for such activities in such a situation shall obtain necessary permission within a period of six months. Such permission shall be given once the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests is satisfied that the activities concerned do not come within the prohibited list and were continuing prior to passing of this order in a (Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM) (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16915] (12 of 51) [CW-5863/2024] legitimate manner. No new permanent structure shall be permitted to come up for whatsoever purpose within the ESZ."
13. In this backdrop, it was submitted that the Deputy Conservator of Forests conducted a site inspection on 04.03.2020 and, upon due satisfaction, recommended the petitioner's project for grant of wildlife clearance, notwithstanding the fact that the unit falls within the regulated zone of 1 Km from the ESZ of NWS. In pursuance thereof, the State Board for Wildlife also granted its clearance to the project of the petitioner vide order dated 26.08.2023.
14. However, the impugned decision of the Standing Committee, as reflected in Para 78.3.23, has been passed in a cryptic, non-speaking, and ex parte manner, based on an erroneous understanding of facts and law. It was submitted that the Standing Committee has wrongly treated the Petitioner's project as a "fresh proposal" for construction of a new hotel and has, without proper consideration of the existing record, approvals, and statutory framework, rejected the case by mechanically and cryptically relying upon the Notification dated 08.03.2019. It was further submitted that neither any proper or satisfactory analysis of the material on record was undertaken, nor was any opportunity of hearing afforded to the Petitioner. It was contended that, had such an opportunity been granted, the Petitioner would have been able to demonstrate that the project is an existing unit and does not fall within the category of fresh proposals requiring prior approval of the Standing Committee.
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM) (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16915] (13 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]
15. In the aforesaid background, it was submitted that the impugned order has been passed under circumstances where the Petitioner's fully operational hotel, in which substantial investments running into crores of rupees have been made, land has been duly acquired, employees have been engaged, commercial collaborations have been entered into with the Taj Group of Hotels, and bookings for marriages and accommodation have been undertaken, is now under imminent threat of demolition.
16. In support of the submissions made insofar, learned counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance upon a catena of judgments, inter alia, CCT V. Shukla & Bros.: (2010) 4 SCC 785, Syed Yakoob V. K.S. Radhakrishnan and Ors.: AIR 1964 SC 477, G. Veerappa Pillai V. Messrs Raman and Raman Ltd. Kumbakonam, Tanjore District and ors.: (1952) 1 SCC 334, Sachidanand Pandey & Anr. V. State of West Bengal & Ors.: (1987) 2 SCC 295 and Pahwa Plastics Private Ltd. and anr. V. Dastak NGO and Ors.: (2023) 12 SCC 774. In light of the aforesaid facts and submissions, it was pleaded that the impugned decision of the Standing Committee, as communicated vide letter dated 28.02.2024, is wholly arbitrary, non-speaking, and unsustainable in law, having been passed without due application of mind and in disregard of the material on record, statutory framework, and binding judicial precedents. The Petitioner's project, being an "existing unit" duly established after obtaining all requisite approvals prior to the issuance of the ESZ Notification dated 08.03.2019, could not have been (Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM) (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16915] (14 of 51) [CW-5863/2024] erroneously treated as a fresh proposal requiring approval of the Standing Committee. The impugned action, having been taken in violation of principles of natural justice and settled legal position, has resulted in grave prejudice to the Petitioner. Therefore, the same is ought to be set aside and appropriate reliefs in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice, be ordered. SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED AND CONTENTIONS PROFFERED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN ARE AD-SERIATIM:
17. Per contra, learned Additional Solicitor General Mr. Bharat Vyas, appearing on behalf of the Respondent-Union of India, learned Additional Advocate General Mr. B.S. Chhaba, appearing for the Respondent-State, and learned counsel Mr. Amit Kuri appearing for JDA, along with other learned counsel representing the respective respondent departments, have raised preliminary objections as well as advanced detailed submissions seeking dismissal of the present writ petition.
18. It was contended at the outset that the present writ petition is not maintainable inasmuch as it seeks to substitute the opinion of an expert statutory body, namely the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife. It was submitted that the Standing Committee comprises eminent ecologists, conservationists, environmentalists, wildlife experts, and representatives of the Central and State Governments, and therefore, its decisions, being founded upon expert evaluation, ought not to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Whilst placing reliance upon the ratio encapsulated in (Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM) (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16915] (15 of 51) [CW-5863/2024] M.K. Ranjitsinh V. Union of India: (2024) 19 SCC 139, it was submitted that the writ court ought to exercise restraint and should be slow in substituting its own opinion in place of that of such an expert body.
19. It was further submitted that the National Board for Wildlife (hereinafter referred to as 'NBWL') is a statutory body whose constitution and functioning stand recognized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and the decisions taken by the NBWL and its Standing Committee with respect to eco-sensitive zones are final and binding in nature. In support of this proposition, reliance was placed upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.K. Ranjitsinh (supra), and Goa Foundation vs. Union of India: (2011) 15 SCC 791.
20. It was further contended that there exists uncertainty regarding the exact location of the petitioner's land, inasmuch as there is a possibility that the same may fall within the boundaries of the Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary (NWS) itself, and not merely within the eco-sensitive zone, particularly in light of subsequent developments. It was submitted that the order dated 09.01.2025 issued by the State of Rajasthan constitutes a committee for re-
defining the boundaries of the NWS and it is and admitted position of fact that the land of the petitioner is approximately 90 mts. away from the boundary of the Sanctuary. However, vide an interim order dated 19.09.2025 passed in Public Interest Litigation No. 14254/2025 titled Nahargarh Van Evam Vanya Jeev Suraksha Evam Seva Samiti V. Union of India, the said operation, as on date, is stayed.
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM) (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16915] (16 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]
21. Learned counsel further submitted that, in terms of the EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006, it was mandatory for the Petitioner to obtain prior Environmental Clearance from the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) before undertaking any construction activity for projects falling under Categories "A" and "B". It was contended that the petitioner has admittedly undertaken construction exceeding 20,000 square meters, thereby attracting the requirement of prior Environmental Clearance. It was also pointed out that the first building permission was obtained by the petitioner on 13.01.2011, which is far late to the publication of EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006. It was further submitted that the Environmental Clearance granted to the Petitioner on 23.06.2017 was conditional in nature and subject to strict compliance with stipulated terms and conditions. In particular, reliance was placed upon General Condition No. 10 of the said clearance, which mandated obtaining prior approval from the Standing Committee of the NBWL, if applicable. It was contended that, in the absence of such approval, any construction activity undertaken by the petitioner was entirely at its own risk, and any adverse consequences arising therefrom would not be attributable to the Ministry of Environment and Forests.
22. It was thus argued that the Environmental Clearance and other approvals obtained by the Petitioner are rendered void ab initio on account of non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of prior clearance from the Standing Committee of the NBWL. It was further submitted that the Petitioner, despite being aware of the said condition, proceeded to obtain building (Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM) (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16915] (17 of 51) [CW-5863/2024] approval from the Jaipur Development Authority and deliberately botched to approach the Standing Committee at the relevant stage, thereby committing a fundamental procedural lapse. It was also contended that the petitioner commenced construction activities in or around the year 2019, and only thereafter, on 30.09.2019, preferred an application before the Standing Committee of the NBWL. It was submitted that such permission was required to be obtained prior to commencement of any construction activity, and therefore, the petitioner's subsequent application cannot cure the initial illegality. It was further argued that the petitioner's unit cannot be categorized as an "existing unit" and must be treated as a "new unit", particularly in view of the Building Completion Certificate having been obtained only on 28.02.2023, thereby indicating that the project remained under construction prior thereto.
23. Learned counsel further submitted that it is an admitted position on record that no wildlife clearance or 'No Objection Certificate' was obtained by the petitioner prior to commencement of construction in the year 2019, and that the application for such clearance was filed only on 03.09.2019, pursuant to the Gazette Notification dated 08.03.2019, which made it mandatory for newly constructed hotels and similar establishments to obtain prior approval from the NBWL/Standing Committee. In support of the said submission, learned counsel had placed reliance upon the ratio encapsulated in Director of Treasuries V. Somyashree:
(2021) 12 SCC 20. It was also contended that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and has suppressed (Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM) (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16915] (18 of 51) [CW-5863/2024] and misrepresented material facts, as that there were deviations from the approved building plan; that the permission granted by the Jaipur Development Authority was valid only till 20.01.2018;
and that no valid approval existed thereafter for continued construction.
24. It was further submitted that, despite directions to obtain necessary NOCs from various departments, including the Wildlife authorities, the petitioner proceeded sans securing requisite approvals from the Screening/Standing Committee of the Wildlife Board. Albeit, subsequent recommendations were made by the Forest Department and Wildlife authorities, and a completion certificate was issued on 28.02.2023, such approvals, cannot be treated as valid in the eyes of law and are liable to be treated as nullities.
25. It was further argued that the petitioner cannot be classified as an existing project within the meaning of the relevant Notifications, as the requirement of obtaining approvals from all competent authorities, including clearance from the Wildlife Board, as envisaged under Condition 10.4, was never fulfilled. Learned counsel also emphasized that in matters concerning ecology and environment, where the doctrine of public trust is applicable, economic considerations or financial investments cannot override environmental safeguards. It was reiterated that, in terms of Condition No. 10 of the Environmental Clearance, any construction undertaken without requisite wildlife clearance was entirely at the risk and cost of the Petitioner.
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM) (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16915] (19 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]
26. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance was placed upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter alia, T.N. Godavarman vs. Union of India: (2022) 10 SCC 544, City and Industrial Development Corporation V. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala & Ors.: (2009) 1 SCC 168 and Tata Housing Development Co. Ltd. vs. Alok Jagga, (2020) 15 SCC 784. In view of the foregoing submissions, learned counsel for the respondents prayed that the present writ petition, being devoid of merit and not maintainable, deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
OBSERVATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS RECORDED AND THE RESULTANT FINDINGS ARRIVED AT THEREUPON ARE AD-INFRA:
27. Having afforded a persistent hearing to the learned counsel for the rival parties, upon a meticulous perusal of the record and an appraisal of the judgments cited at the Bar, the legal grounds necessitating deliberation for the purposes of final adjudication, together with the salient facts germane thereto, are set forth in the observations and findings ad-seriatim:
28. At the outset, it is deemed just and proper to address the preliminary objection as raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents with regard to maintainability of the present writ petition, premised on the contention that this Court ought not to substitute the opinion of an expert body, does not commend acceptance in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. While it is trite that courts ordinarily exercise restraint in interfering with decisions rendered by expert bodies, (Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM) (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16915] (20 of 51) [CW-5863/2024] particularly in matters concerning environmental and ecological considerations, it is equally well-settled that such restraint is not absolute. Where the decision-making process is vitiated by arbitrariness, non-application of mind, violation of statutory provisions, or breach of principles of natural justice, the constitutional courts are not only empowered but duty-bound to exercise judicial review. The doctrine of judicial deference cannot be extended to the extent of sanctifying illegality. It can further be noted that there is apparent violation of natural justice and principle of audi alteram partem, nonetheless the impugned findings have been passed in an ex parte manner, thus while placing reliance upon the ratio encapsulated in Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors.:
AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 22, it can be opined that the existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 by a writ court. The relevant extract from the relied upon ratio is reproduced hereinbelow:
"15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a Writ Petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a (Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM) (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16915] (21 of 51) [CW-5863/2024] violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order of proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the virus of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case-law on this point put to cut down this circle of forensic Whirlpool, we would rely on some old decisions of an evolutionary ear of the constitutional law as they still hold the field."
(Emphasis supplied)
29. In the present case, this Court finds that the impugned decision of the Standing Committee, as reflected in Para 78.3.23 and communicated vide letter dated 28.02.2024, suffers from manifest arbitrariness and is ex facie a non-speaking order, as the said decision neither discloses any cogent reasoning, nor does it reflect due consideration of the extensive material placed on record by the petitioner, including prior statutory approvals, environmental clearance dated 23.06.2017, and other permissions granted by competent authorities from time to time. The attempt to retrospectively apply the rigours of the Notification dated 08.03.2019 so as to invalidate an otherwise lawful and duly sanctioned project cannot be countenanced in law, being violative of the principle lex prospicit non respicit (meaning thereby that the law looks forward, not backward). In support of the said opinion reliance can be placed upon the ratio encapsulated in G. Veerappa Pillai (supra), the relevant extract from which is reproduced hereinbelow:
"26. Such writs as are referred to in Article 226 are obviously intended to enable the High Court to issue them in grave cases where the subordinate tribunals or bodies or officers act wholly without jurisdiction, or in excess of it, or in violation of the (Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM) (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16915] (22 of 51) [CW-5863/2024] principles of natural justice, or refuse to exercise a jurisdiction vested in them, or there is an error apparent on the fact of the record, and such act, omission, error, or excess has resulted in manifest injustice."
(Emphasis supplied)
30. In view of the aforesaid irregularities noted hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case warrants exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to examine and adjudicate upon the issues arising in the present lis, and holds that the instant writ petition is maintainable.
31. The observations noted henceforth, shall have a go at the issues as to scope of judicial review over expert bodies; whether and to what extent this court can exercise judicial review over the decisions of the standing committee of the national board for wildlife, and under what circumstances such interference is warranted; nature of the petitioner's project; whether the petitioner's hotel project qualifies as an "existing unit" or is liable to be treated as a "new/fresh proposal" under the ESZ notification dated 08.03.2019 and the applicable zonal master plan; whether the ESZ notification dated 08.03.2019 is applicable retrospectively to the petitioner's project, and whether it can affect approvals and permissions granted prior to its issuance; whether the petitioner has complied with the conditions stipulated in the environmental clearance dated 23.06.2017, particularly condition no. 10 requiring prior approval from the standing committee of NBWL; whether prior approval from the standing committee of NBWL was (Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM) (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16915] (23 of 51) [CW-5863/2024] mandatory before commencement of construction, and if so, the legal consequences of non-compliance by the petitioner; validity of approvals granted to the petitioner; whether the impugned decision dated 28.02.2024 suffers from violation of principles of natural justice, particularly on account of being a non-speaking order and passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner; whether the decision of the standing committee, as reflected in para 78.3.23 and communicated vide letter dated 28.02.2024, is arbitrary, illegal, or suffers from non-application of mind; what is the impact of subsequent developments, including the order dated 09.01.2017 and any proposed modification of ESZ boundaries, on the rights and liabilities of the petitioner, etc.
32. In view of the aforementioned, it is observed that the Petitioner is a juristic entity, being a private limited company, which was originally incorporated under the name M/s Exclusive Exports Pvt. Ltd. and subsequently rechristened as Kanha Hotels and Spa Pvt. Ltd. The Petitioner is presently operating a Five Star Hotel situated at Village Chimanpura, Tehsil Amer, Jaipur, Rajasthan. The said establishment is located on the main Jaipur- Delhi National Highway, approximately 5 kilometres from the centre of Jaipur, and is spread over a total land area admeasuring approximately 19,600 square metres, with a constructed area of about 41,500 square feet. It is further borne out from the record that the Petitioner is operating the said Five Star Hotel in collaboration with the Taj (Tata) Group of Hotels, under the Indian Hotels Company Limited (IHCL). The hotel comprises approximately 250 rooms, along with three restaurants having a (Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM) (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16915] (24 of 51) [CW-5863/2024] seating capacity of around 350 persons, an additional dining facility accommodating approximately 70 persons, and a banquet hall measuring about 20,000 square feet, which is utilized for marriages, social functions, and conferences. The premises also include ancillary service areas and provide parking facilities for approximately 180 vehicles.
33. This Court further notes that as per the submissions advanced and the material placed on record, the Petitioner has employed approximately 350 individuals, and the annual turnover of the establishment, as on date, is stated to be around Rs. 125 crores. It is also indicated that the Petitioner has secured bookings from both national and international clientele extending over the next two years, including high-profile events such as marriages and conferences. The Petitioner is stated to be contributing approximately Rs. 20 to Rs. 25 crores annually towards tax revenues and is also carrying financial liabilities, both secured and unsecured, to the extent of approximately Rs. 100 crores. It is further observed that the petitioner has obtained various statutory permissions and approvals from different competent authorities over a considerable period of time. These include permissions from the Tourism Department dated 31.03.1995 for establishment of the hotel, conversion of land use from agricultural to industrial purposes from the concerned Revenue authorities, building plan approval from the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA), land use change and allotment permissions, environmental clearance, as well as consent to establish and operate from the Pollution Control authorities. In addition, approvals from other departments such as (Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM) (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16915] (25 of 51) [CW-5863/2024] the Fire Department and Local Bodies were also obtained on different dates, including 31.03.1995, 13.01.2017, and 15.06.2020.
34. The record further reflects that vide order dated 24.03.2007 (Annexure-4), the Tourism Department, Jaipur, granted approval to the Petitioner's project for establishment of a Star Category Hotel under the New Hotel Policy, 2006, with the objective of promoting tourism, encouraging investment, and generating employment opportunities in the State. It is also noted that vide allotment letters dated 31.03.1995 (Annexure-3), the competent authorities accepted the requisite fees and granted permission for conversion of the subject land from agricultural to non-agricultural use, thereby enabling the Petitioner to proceed with the intended project. Further, vide order dated 13.01.2011 (Annexure-6), the building plan submitted by the Petitioner was duly approved by the Jaipur Development Authority after detailed consideration of the site plan, maps, and blueprints in the meetings of the Building Committee held on 22.03.2010, 02.08.2010, and 14.10.2010. The said approval remained valid till December 2017 and was subsequently extended up to the year 2020. Ultimately, a completion certificate came to be issued by the competent authority in the year 2023. It is also observed that Environmental Clearance was granted to the Petitioner on 23.06.2017 (Annexure-8) under the EIA Notification, 2006, after due appraisal and consideration of the project by the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee, Rajasthan, in its meetings held on 01.03.2017 and 09.05.2017, along with their recommendations.
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM) (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16915] (26 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]
35. It is also observed that the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee, Rajasthan, vide order dated 23.06.2017 (Annexure-
8), upon due consideration of the location of the project, its details, estimated cost, water requirements, environmental management plan, and the project report, and after recording its observations thereon, proceeded to grant Environmental Clearance in favour of the Petitioner. It is pertinent to note that, vide the order dated 23.06.2017, certain terms and conditions were imposed, including Condition No. 10, which forms a material stipulation governing the grant of Environmental Clearance, as reflected in the observations reproduced hereunder:
"The SEAC Rajasthan after due consideration of he relevant documents submitted by the project proponent and additional clarifications/documents furnished to it have recommended for Environmental Clearance with certain stipulations. The SEIAA Rajasthan after considering the proposal and recommendations of the SEAC Rajasthan hereby accord Environmental Clearance to the project as per the provisions of Environmental Impact Assessment Notification 2006 and its subsequent amendments, subject to strict compliance of the terms and conditions as follows:"
"10. The Environmental Clearance is subject to the specific condition that PP shall obtain prior clearance from forestry and wild life angle including clearance from Standing Committee of the National Board Wild Life if applicable. It is further categorically stated that grant of EC does not imply that forestry and wild life clearance shall be granted to the project and that their proposals for forestry and wild life clearance will be considered by the respective authorities on their merits and Decision (Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM) (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16915] (27 of 51) [CW-5863/2024] taken. The investment made in the project, if any, based on environment clearance so granted, in anticipation of the clearance from forestry and wildlife angle shall be entirely at the cost and risk of the project proponent and Authority or Ministry of Environment & Forests shall not be responsible in this regard in any manner."
36. It is further observed that the Fire Department, under the aegis and legal authority of the Nagar Nigam, has also issued the requisite "No Objection Certificate" (NOC). Further, the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, vide its orders dated 15.06.2020 and 26.11.2022 (Annexures-13 and 14), granted Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate, which remained valid for the periods from 30.07.2018 to 30.06.2023 and from 25.11.2022 to 31.10.2027, respectively, after due consideration of the applicable environmental laws relating to air, water, and noise pollution. Further, upon a perusal of Annexure-16 it is further revealed that a Site Inspection Report was prepared by the Deputy Conservator of Forests (Wildlife), Zoo, Jaipur, wherein the project of the Petitioner was duly inspected, and upon recording observations therein, the same was recommended for grant of wildlife clearance. The relevant extract of the said report is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:
"Office of Deputy Conservator of Forest (Wild Life) Zoo Jaipur Site Inspection Report (Kanha Hotels & Spa Pvt. Ltd. Main Jaipur Delhi Highway Village Chimanpura, Teh. Amer, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.) On 04.03.2020 I have visited the site mentioned above on 04.03.2020. This site is 97 mts far from the boundary (Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM) (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16915] (28 of 51) [CW-5863/2024] of Nahargarh Sanctuary. The project site falls in Eco- sensitive zone of Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary. This project have no negative impact on sanctuary and are do not falls in any corridor.
I recommended this project for wildlife clearance.
(Sudarshan Sharma) Deputy Conservator of Forests Wildlife (Zoo) Jaipur XXXXXXX Office of Deputy Conservator of Forest (Wild Life) Zoo Jaipur Recommendation Kanha Hotels & Spa Pvt. Ltd. Main Jaipur Delhi Highway Village Chimanpura, Teh. Amer, Distt. Jaipur Rajasthan is 97 mts. far from the boundary of Nahargarh Sanctuary. This project falls in notified Eco-Sensitive zone of Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary. This project have no negative impact on Sanctuary and area do not fall in any corridor.
I recommend this project for wildlife clearance.
(Sudarshan Sharma) Deputy Conservator of Forests Wildlife (Zoo) Jaipur"
37. It is observed that vide approval order dated 28.02.2023, a Completion Certificate was issued in favour of the Petitioner by the competent authority, certifying that the construction of the building was in conformity with the applicable laws and regulations of the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA). The said certificate was granted without imposition of any penalty or requirement of further clarification, and upon due compliance (Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM) (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16915] (29 of 51) [CW-5863/2024] with the Building Regulations, 2020, as well as all requisite permissions, as reflected in affidavits dated 21.02.2024 (Annexures-R/7 and R/8). This Court further notes that, as per Annexure-RR/5, being the Agenda of the 78th Meeting of the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife, the Warden/competent authority of the Standing Committee had duly taken into consideration the recommendations of the State Board for Wildlife. It is borne out that in the 14th Meeting of the State Board for Wildlife held in the year 2023, the case of the petitioner was specifically examined, and the Chief Wildlife Warden, upon due consideration, recorded a finding that no violation was made out. The applicability of the Notifications dated 14.09.2006 and 08.03.2019, as well as the relevant judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, were also duly taken into account while making such recommendation. Subsequently, a Circular dated 26.09.2023 (Annexure-RR/6) was issued by the Joint Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Department of Forest, Environment & Climate Change, wherein guidelines were laid down for classification of units as "existing" or "new" in terms of the Notifications of the years 2006 and 2019. The said Circular further took into consideration the guidelines issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, particularly with respect to eco-sensitive zones and categorization of industrial and commercial activities therein, thereby providing clarity on the regulatory framework governing such projects.
38. This Court further takes note of the Office Memorandum dated 17.05.2022 (Annexure-19), issued by the (Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM) (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16915] (30 of 51) [CW-5863/2024] Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, concerning the grant of clearances for projects situated in and around eco-sensitive zones. The said Office Memorandum elucidates the requirement of obtaining permissions from various authorities, including environmental, forest, and the National Board for Wildlife, depending upon the nature, location, and classification of the project. The same delineates, in a tabulated form, the categories of projects and the corresponding approvals required, thereby bringing greater clarity and uniformity in the application of the statutory framework. The relevant table is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:
"Prescribed w.r.t. applicability of EC, FC, and WC in ESZ/ESA and other ecologically significant areas outside PA:
Clearance Project/Activity in Project/Activity Project/Activity Category Notified ESZ outside PA outside PA in area Around PA or in wherein ESZ is which is part of notified ESA not notified or Tiger Reserve or ESZ Notification is linking one PA or at draft stage Tiger Reserve to another PA or Tiger Reserve Environmental Project/Activity shall For Project/Activity For Project/Activity Clearance (EC) be regulated and covered under the covered under the governed by the Schedule of EIA Schedule of EIA concerned ESZ/ESA Notification, 2006: Notification, 2006:
Notification. prior EC as per the prior EC as per the
Accordingly, prescribed prescribed
activities prohibited procedure is procedure is
under the ESZ/ESA mandatory, mandatory
Notification cannot anywhere outside anywhere outside
be undertaken. the PA. the PA.
Whereas for
regulated and other
activities in
ESZ/ESA
Notification covered
under the Schedule
of EIA Notification
2006: prior EC as
per the prescribed
procedure is
mandatory.
Forest Clearance Projects shall be Forest Clearance will Forest Clearance will
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16915] (31 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]
(FC) regulated and be required be required
governed by the anywhere outside anywhere outside
concerned ESZ/ESA the PA, only if forest the PA, only if forest Notification. land is involved and land is involved and Accordingly, proposed activity is proposed activity is activities prohibited for non-foresty use, for non-foresty use, under the ESZ as per provisions of as per provisions of Notification cannot Forest Forest (Coversation) be undertaken. (Conversation) Act, Act 1980 and Rules Whereas, for 1980 and Rules and and guidelines made regulated and other guidelines made there under, activities; Forest there under, irrespective of the Clearance will be irrespective of the notified required, only if notified limits/default limits forest land is limits/default limits of ESZ/ESA.
involved and of ESZ/ESA.
proposed activity is
for non-foresty use,
as per provisions of
Forest
(Conversation) Act,
1980 and Rules and
guidelines made
there under.
Consideration by Projects/activities Project/Activity Approval of
the National proposed to be covered under the NBWL/SCNBWL is
Board of Wild located within Schedule of EIA mandatory if the
Life/Standing notified ESZ/ESA Notification, 2006 project/activity is
Committee of the shall be regulated and located within proposed to be
National Board for and governed by the 10 km of National located in an area Wild Life concerned ESZ Park of Sanctuary which forms part of (NBWL/SCNBWL) Notification. shall require a Tiger Reserve or Accordingly, consideration by the area linking one PA activities prohibited NBWL/SCNBWL. or Tiger Reserve as under the ESZ per section 380(1) Notification shall not (g) of the Wild be undertaken. Life(Protection Act, Whereas, regulated 1972.
and other activites
proposed within
notified ESZ around
National Park or
Sanctuary shall
require
consideration by the
NBWL/SCNBWL, if
such activity is
covered under the
Schedule of EIA
Notification, 2006.
39. It is further observed that the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, vide Notification dated 14.11.2006 issued under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, prescribed that any project or activity situated in and around forest or sanctuary areas is required to be appraised by the Environmental Impact Assessment Authority with respect to (Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM) (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16915] (32 of 51) [CW-5863/2024] its environmental impact, in consonance with the National Environmental Policy. The said Notification, inter alia, provided that building construction projects having a built-up area exceeding 20,000 square meters shall be governed by specified terms and conditions and would mandatorily require environmental appraisal and clearance. Subsequently, vide Notification dated 08.03.2019 (Annexure-10), a final notification was issued whereby, for the first time, the concept of Eco-
Sensitive Zone (ESZ) was delineated in respect of the boundary of the NWLS, specifying the extent thereof. The said Notification further mandated preparation of a Zonal Master Plan for the Eco- Sensitive Zone within a period of two years from the date of its publication, in consultation with local stakeholders and with the involvement of as many as thirteen different departments of the State Government. However, a plain reading of the said Notification makes it abundantly clear that "existing units" were specifically excluded from the rigours of the Notification, inasmuch as the restrictions and regulatory measures introduced therein were not intended to operate retrospectively so as to affect already approved and existing land use and activities. The relevant provisions of the said Notification are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:
"MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 8th March, 2019 NOW THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) and clauses (v) and (xiv) of sub-
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM) (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16915] (33 of 51) [CW-5863/2024] section (2) and sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986) (hereafter in this modification referred to as the Environment Act) read with sub-rule (3) of rule 5 of the Environment(Protection) Rules, 1986 the Central Government hereby notifies an area to an extent of 0( zero) to 13 kilometers around the boundary of Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary, in Jaipur district of Rajasthan as Eco-Sensitive Zone (hereafter in this notification referred to as the Eco-Sensitive Zone) detail of which are as under namely:
1. Extent and boundaries of Eco-Sensitive Zone. -
(1) The Eco-Sensitive Zone shall be to an extent of 0(zero) to 13 kilometers around the boundary of Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary and the area of Eco- Sensitive Zone is 79.356 square kilometers. Zero extent is towards the sides with heavy urbanization. (2) xxxxx (3) xxxxx (4) xxxxx (5) xxxxx
2. Zonal Master Plan for Eco-Sensitive Zone.-(1) The State Government shall, for the purpose of the Eco- Sensitive 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 (Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM) (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16915] (34 of 51) [CW-5863/2024] 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,
(iii) Urban Development,
(iv) Tourism,
(v) Revenue,
(vi) Agriculture,
(vii) Rural Development,
(viii) Irrigation and Flood Control,
(ix) Municipal,
(x) Panchayati Raj,
(xi) Public Works Department, and
(xii) Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board.
(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) xxxxx (6) xxxxx (7) xxxxx (8) The Zonal Master Plan shall be co-terminus with the Regional Development Plan.
E. Tourism or Eco-Tourism- (a) All new eco-tourism activities or expansion of existing tourism activities within the Zone shall be as per the Tourism Master Plan for the Eco-Sensitive Zone.
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM) (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16915] (35 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]
(b) The Eco-Tourism Master Plan shall be prepared by the State Department of Tourism in the consultation with State Departments of Environment and Forests.
(c) The Tourism Master Plan shall form a component of the Zonal Master Plan.
(d) The activities of eco-tourism shall be regulated as under namely :-
(i) new construction of hotels and resorts shall not be allowed within one kilometer from the boundary of the Wildlife Sancturary or upto the extent of the Eco-
Sensitive Zone whichever is nearer :
Provided that beyond the distance of one kilometer from the boundary of the Wildlife Sanctuary till the extent of the Eco-Sensitive Zone, the establishment of new hotels and resorts shall be allowed only in pre-defined and designated areas for eco-tourism facilities as per Tourism Master Plan;
(ii) all new tourism activities or expansion of existing tourism activities within the Eco-Sensitive Zone shall be in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Central Government in the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and the eco-tourism guidelines issued by National Tiger Conversation Authority(as amended from time to time) with emphasis on eco-Tourism;
(iii) until the Zonal Master Plan is approved, development for tourism and expansion of existing tourism activities shall be permitted by the concerned regulatory authorities based on the actual site specific scrutiny and recommendation of the Monitoring Committee and no new hotel, resort or commercial (Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM) (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16915] (36 of 51) [CW-5863/2024] establishment construction shall be permitted within Eco-Sensitive Zone area"
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 Act 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, 1972, (53 of 1972), and amendments made thereto and be regulated in the manner specified in the Table below, namely:-
TABLE S.No. Activity Description (1) (2) (3) A. xxxxx B. Regulated Activities
12. Commercial No new commercial hotels and establishment of resorts shall be permitted within hotels and resorts one kilometer of the boundary of the protected area or upto the extent of Eco-Sensitive Zone, whichever is nearer, except for small temporary structures for eco-tourism activities:
Provided that, beyond one kilometer from the boundary of the protected area or upto the extent of Eco-Sensitive Zone which is nearer, all new tourist activities or expansion of existing activities shall be in conformity with the Tourism Master Plan and (Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM) (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16915] (37 of 51) [CW-5863/2024] guidelines as applicable.
13. Construction (a) New commercial construction activities. of any kind shall not be permitted within one kilometer from the boundary of the protected area or up to extent of the Eco-sensitive Zone, whichever is nearer:
Provided that, local people shall be permitted to undertake construction in their land for their use including the activities mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 3 as per building bye-
laws to meet the residential needs of the local residents.
40. In pursuance of the Notification dated 08.03.2019, the Zonal Master Plan for the Eco-Sensitive Zone of Nahargarh was duly prepared and issued by the Respondent-JDA in coordination and consultation with the Forest Department and in consultation with other concerned departments. The said Zonal Master Plan, in consonance with the aforesaid Notification, specifically delineates, under Para 10.4, the classification and treatment of "existing activities/uses" and "new hotel" projects, by providing distinct definitions aligned with tourism-related activities, thereby adopting a balanced and regulated approach. The relevant extract thereof is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:
"10.4 Existing Activity/Use ESZ Notification dated 08-03-2019 prescribed regulations regarding new hotel, resort, commercial (Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM) (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16915] (38 of 51) [CW-5863/2024] establishments, etc. This leads to the requirement of defining what is "existing".
For purpose of ZMP for the ESZ, hotels, resorts, commercial establishments, etc. shall be considered as existing if they have any of the following issued prior to 08-03-2019 ESZ Notification of Nahargarh :
1. Electricity connection for non-agricultural use.
2. Approval by Tourism Department as tourism unit.
3. Conversation order/Patta for non-agricultural use.
4. Building Plan approval.
5. Order regarding change in landuse.
6. Proof of deposition of tax as hotel, resort, commercial establishments, etc.
7. CTE/CTO /Environment Clearance.
Additionally, all the duly approved uses existing prior to issue of Nahargarh ESZ Notification shall be honored. Further process will be done in conformity with the development controls & zoning regulation as per Zonal Master Plan of ESZ."
41. This Court further observed that in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 08.08.2019 (Annexure-RR/2) issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (IA Division), a detailed procedure was prescribed for consideration of developmental projects situated within a radius of 10 kms. from National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries, while seeking Environmental Clearance under the provisions of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006. It is also discerned therefrom that prior approval of the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife is required in respect (Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM) (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16915] (39 of 51) [CW-5863/2024] of developmental projects falling within the aforesaid 10 Kms radius of the Eco-Sensitive Zone. The relevant extract of the said Office Memorandum dated 08.08.2019 is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:
"4. In light of the aforesaid Orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the issues related to the prior clearance from SCNBWL for the notified ESZs and the remaining areas have been examined in detail, in this regard, it has been decided by the Competent Authority in the Ministry to adopt a following procedure for consideration of developmental projects located within 10 km of National Park/Wildlife Sanctuary seeking environmental clearance under the provisions of the EIA Notification in supersession of the ealier O.M. s dated 27.2.2007 and 2.12.2009:
i. Proposals involving developmental activity/project located within by the notified Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZ) shall be regulated and governed by the concerned ESZ notification. However, for the developmental Schedule of the EIA notification. However, for the developmental project/activity located within the notified ESZ and covered under the schedule of the EIA Notification 2006, prior clearance from Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (SCNBWL) is mandatory. In such cases, the project proponent shall submit the application simultaneously for grant of Terms of Reference as wells as wildlife clearance.
ii. Proposals involving developmental activity/ project located outside the stipulated boundary limit of notified ESZ and located within 10 km of National Park/Wildlife Sanctuary, prior clearance from Standing Committee of the National Board for (Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM) (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16915] (40 of 51) [CW-5863/2024] Wildlife (SCNBWL) may not be applicable.
However, such proposals from environmental
angle including impact of developmental
activity/project on the wildlife habitat, if any, would be examined by the sector specific Expert Appraisal Committee and appropriate conversation measures in the form of recommendations shall be made. These recommendations shall be explicity mentioned in the environmental clearance letter and shall be ensured by the member secretary concerned.
iii. Proposals involving developmental activity/project located within 10 km of National Park/Wildlife Sanctuary wherein final ESZ notification is not notified (or) ESZ notification is in draft stage, prior clearance from Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (SCBNWL) is mandatory. In such cases, the project proponent shall submit the application simultaneously for grant of Terms, of Reference/ environmental clearance as well as wildlife clearance.
iv. Proposals involving mining of minerals within the ESZ (or) one kilometer from the boundaries of National Parks and Sanctuaries whichever is higher is prohibited in accordance with the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 4.08.2006 in the matter of T.N. Godavarman Thirmulpad Vs. UOI in W.P. (C) No. 202 of 1995 and dated 21.4.2014 in the matter of Goa Foundation Vs. UOI in W.P. (C) No. 435 of 2012."
42. Thus upon a bare perusal of the aforesaid Office Memorandum, it is opined that the projects situated within the Eco-Sensitive Zones are made subject to regulatory control and mandatorily require prior clearance from the Standing Committee (Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM) (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16915] (41 of 51) [CW-5863/2024] of the National Board for Wildlife (SCNBWL). However, it is equally evident from Clause (ii) thereof that in cases where a project is located outside the demarcated boundaries of the notified Eco- Sensitive Zone, though within a radial distance of 10 Kms. from a National Park or Wildlife Sanctuary, the requirement of obtaining prior clearance from the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife shall not be applicable.
42. Upon a comprehensive consideration of the aforesaid facts, the material placed on record, and in light of the issues enumerated in paragraph no. 31 of this judgment for adjudication, this Court records its findings as under:
42.1 That it is an admitted and undisputed position that the Petitioner commenced the process of obtaining requisite statutory permissions for establishment of a Star Category Hotel as early as the year 1995, and has since acted in furtherance thereof in a continuous and bona fide manner. In terms of the Notification dated 14.11.2006, read conjointly with the Office Memorandum dated 08.08.2019, it is manifest that developmental projects situated outside the demarcated boundaries of a notified Eco-
Sensitive Zone, albeit within a radius of 10 kilometers from a National Park or Wildlife Sanctuary, do not attract the requirement of prior clearance from the SCNBWL. Consequently, the said stipulation is not applicable to the case of the present Petitioner. 42.2 That the Notification dated 08.03.2019 distinctly classifies activities into "prohibited", "regulated", and "promotional" categories. The hotel project of the petitioner, by its very nature and in view of the approvals granted, falls within the (Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM) (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16915] (42 of 51) [CW-5863/2024] ambit of "regulated activity". The said Notification further mandates preparation of a Zonal Master Plan for Eco-Sensitive Zones, to be formulated with the approval of the competent State authority in consultation with as many as thirteen concerned departments, including but not limited to the Environment, Forest, Tourism, and Local Bodies Departments. The object of such a coordinated framework is to ensure infrastructural development and ecological balance, without disturbing or imposing restrictions upon already approved and existing land-use and infrastructural developments. The Zonal Master Plan is further intended to operate in harmony with the Regional/Tourism Development Plans, thereby ensuring a balanced approach towards eco-tourism and sustainable development.
42.3 That as per the Notification dated 08.03.2019, only new constructions of hotels and resorts located within a distance of 1 Km from the boundary of a Wildlife Sanctuary are expressly prohibited. The Zonal Master Plan, issued subsequently in the year 2023, in terms of Para 10.4, provides a categorical definition of "existing units". As per the said provision, any hotel or resort which had obtained requisite approvals prior to the issuance of the Notification dated 08.03.2019 is to be treated as an "existing unit". In the present case, the Petitioner had already secured multiple statutory approvals, including those relating to electricity, tourism, land use conversion, building plan sanction, and environmental clearance, prior to the cut-off date. Therefore, the Petitioner squarely falls within the definition of an "existing unit", and its vested rights cannot be divested or impaired, in (Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM) (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16915] (43 of 51) [CW-5863/2024] consonance with the settled principles of certainty, legitimate expectation, and continuity in administrative action. 43.4 That qua the contention advanced by the learned Additional Solicitor General, Mr. Bharat Vyas, with respect to the Environmental Clearance dated 23.06.2007 being subject to prior approval of the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife, is concerned, this Court finds that a holistic reading of the said clearance, particularly Para 10 thereof, makes it evident that such requirement is conditional and would arise only where "the same is otherwise applicable in law". In view of Para 10.4 of the Notification dated 08.03.2019, read with the Office Memorandum dated 08.08.2019, the Petitioner qualifies as an "existing unit", situated outside the Eco-Sensitive Zone, though within 10 Kms of the sanctuary boundary. Hence, the requirement of obtaining prior clearance from the SCNBWL does not arise in the facts of the present case. Consequently, the permissions and approvals granted by the competent authorities in favour of the Petitioner cannot be held to be void or without jurisdiction, but rather stand validly issued in accordance with law.
43.5 That from the record it is noted that the State Forest Authority, upon due inspection and verification of the project site, recommended the case of the Petitioner to the competent Screening Committee. In light of the Notification dated 08.03.2019 and the provisions of the Zonal Master Plan, such recommendation, having been made upon due application of mind and in accordance with the prescribed procedure, ought to have been duly considered and approved by the concerned authorities.
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM) (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16915] (44 of 51) [CW-5863/2024] 43.6 This Court further observes that, upon a bare perusal of Para 78.3.23 of the impugned findings recorded by the Standing Committee, it becomes evident that the Standing Committee, while dealing with more than 33 fresh proposals across four different agenda items, failed to undertake a proper and case- specific analysis of the material facts pertaining to the Petitioner's project. It is discernible that the proposal placed before the Standing Committee was in relation to the construction of a hotel in proximity to the Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary. However, the record unequivocally reflects that the competent State Wildlife Authority had after due consideration and inspection, positively recommended the Petitioner's proposal. Despite the same, the Standing Committee appears to have proceeded without adequately appreciating the factual matrix and the favourable recommendation of the State authorities, thereby rendering its consideration perfunctory and lacking in due application of mind. The relevant extract from the impugned findings made by the Standing Committee is reproduced hereinbelow:
"78.3.23. Proposal for construction of Kanha Hotels and Spa Pvt. Ltd. Over an area of 0.0845 ha at Khasra No. 54,55 village Chimanpura Tehsil Amer Dist Jaipur, Rajasthan 95 mts from the boundary of Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary.
FP/RJ/Others/4553/2019 The Standing Committee was informed that the proposal is for construction of Kanha Hotels and Spa Pvt. Ltd. Over an area of 0.0845 ha at Khasra No. 54,55 and 56 village Chimanpura Tehsil Amer Dist (Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM) (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16915] (45 of 51) [CW-5863/2024] Jaipur, Rajasthan 95 mts from the boundary of Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary.
The proposal has been recommended by Chief Wild Life Warden, the State Board for Wild Life and the State Government.
The ESZ of the Nahargarh Sanctuary has been finally notified and as per the notification, no new commercial hotels and resorts shall be permitted within one kilometer of the boundary of the protected area upto the extent of Eco- sensitive zone, whichever is nearer, except for small temporary structures for Eco- tourism activities and new commercial construction of any kind shall not be permitted within one kilometer from the boundary of the protected area or upto extent of the Eco- sensitive Zone whichever is nearer.
Decision Taken: After discussion, the Standing Committee decided not to recommend the project proposal."
43.7 In light of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the Standing Committee has committed a manifest error in considering the proposal, as stated above, in an ex-parte manner because the petitioner's case was of an "existing unit", which was already operational. The specific words used by the Standing Committee, like, "proposal for construction", "new hotel", "shall be permitted in eco-sensitive zone" signifies the facts that they were under the impression that proposal was for setting-up of a new hotel; howsoever, as per the records and after attaining different permissions, inter alia, the JDA Completion Certificate, zonal (Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM) (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16915] (46 of 51) [CW-5863/2024] master plan and the fact that the construction of the petitioner's unit was already completed, way back, the said unit qualifies as an "existing unit" and is therefore, not required to have any permission from the Standing Committee or Wild Life Board. The fact could have been otherwise if opportunity of hearing would have been granted to the petitioner. The Standing Committee has committed a manifest error in law as well as on facts by erroneously classifying the Petitioner's project as a "new commercial hotel", instead of recognizing it as an "existing unit". It has further drawn an incorrect inference that, as on 22.12.2024, the Petitioner was required to obtain permission for construction as a "new unit". Such a conclusion is ex facie contrary to the statutory framework, inasmuch as, in terms of Para 10.4 of the Notification dated 08.03.2019 read with the Zonal Master Plan, the Petitioner squarely qualifies as an "existing unit", and therefore, no prior approval of the Standing Committee was required.
44. Having addressed the issues in light of the detailed factual matrix and the attendant intricacies of the matter at hand, this Court now deems it apposite to draw guidance from the authoritative pronouncements rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as follows:
44.1 It is a settled proposition of law that any administrative decision, particularly one which departs from or rejects a recommendation duly accorded by competent State Authorities, must adhere to the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and due process, which are the foundational tenets of the rule of law. Any decision rendered in contravention of such principles cannot be (Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM) (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16915] (47 of 51) [CW-5863/2024] said to be immune from judicial review. In the present case, this Court finds that there is an apparent failure of due application of mind on the part of the Standing Committee while recording the impugned findings, thereby rendering the decision vulnerable to interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. In support of the said stance, reliance can be placed upon the ratio encapsulated in Syed Yakoob (supra) the relevant extract of which is reproduced hereinbelow:
"8. It is, of course, not easy to define or adequately describe what an error of law apparent on the face of the record means. What can be corrected by a writ has to be an error of law; hut it must be such an error of law as can be regarded as one which is apparent on the face of the record. Where it is manifest or clear that the conclusion of law recorded by an inferior Court or Tribunal is based on an obvious misinterpretation of the relevant statutory provision, or sometimes in ignorance of it, or may be, even in disregard of it, or is expressly founded on reasons which are wrong in law, the said conclusion can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In all these cases, the impugned conclusion should be so plainly inconsistent with the relevant statutory provision that no difficulty is experienced by the High Court in holding that the said error of law is apparent on the face of the record. It may also be that in some cases, the impugned error of law may not be obvious or patent on the face of the record as such as the Court may need an argument to discover the said error; but there can be no doubt that what can be corrected by a writ of certiorari is an error of law and the said error must, on the whole, be of such a character as would satisfy the (Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM) (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16915] (48 of 51) [CW-5863/2024] test that it is an error of law apparent on the face of the record. If a statutory provision is reasonably capable of two constructions and one construction has been adopted by the inferior Court or Tribunal, its conclusion may not necessarily or always be open to correction by a writ of certiorari. In our opinion, it is neither possible nor desirable to attempt either to define or to describe adequately all cases of errors which can be appropriately described as errors of law apparent on the face of the record. Whether or not an impugned error is an error of law and an error of law which is apparent on the face of the record, must always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and upon the nature and scope of the legal provision which is alleged to have been misconstrued or contravened."
(Emphasis supplied) 44.2 Further, reliance can be placed upon the ratio enunciated in CCT (supra), relevant extract from which is reproduced hereinbelow:
"14. The principle of natural justice has twin ingredients; firstly, the person who is likely to be adversely affected by the action of the authorities should be given notice to show cause thereof and granted an opportunity of hearing and secondly, the orders so passed by the authorities should give reason for arriving at any conclusion showing proper application of mind. Violation of either of them could in the given facts and circumstances of the case, vitiate the order itself. Such rule being applicable to the administrative authorities certainty requires that the judgment of the Court should meet with this requirement with higher degree of satisfaction. The order of an administrative (Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM) (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16915] (49 of 51) [CW-5863/2024] authority may not provide reasons like a judgment but the order must be supported by the reasons of rationality. The distinction between passing of an order by an administrative or quasi- judicial authority has practically extinguished and both are required to pass reasoned orders."
(Emphasis supplied) PARTING OBSERVATIONS, FINAL DETERMINATION, AND OPERATIVE DIRECTIVES:
45. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is persuaded to allow the present writ petition for the following, amongst other, compelling reasons emerging from the record, as that the Petitioner has, since the year 1995, acted bona fide and in a continuous manner, obtaining all requisite statutory approvals from the competent authorities for establishment and operation of the hotel project, including land conversion, tourism approvals, building plan sanction, environmental clearance, and consents from pollution control and fire authorities; that the project in question stands duly completed, with construction having been finalized, followed by issuance of completion certificate and all operational permissions, thereby conferring upon the Petitioner a vested and crystallized right in respect of the project; that in terms of the Notification dated 08.03.2019 read with the Zonal Master Plan (Para 10.4), the Petitioner's project unequivocally qualifies as an "existing unit", having secured requisite approvals prior to the cut-off date, and therefore is not subject to the rigours applicable to new constructions; that the Memorandum dated 08.08.2019 clearly stipulates that projects situated outside the (Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM) (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16915] (50 of 51) [CW-5863/2024] notified Eco-Sensitive Zone, though within a radius of 10 Kms, do not require prior approval of the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife, thereby rendering the objection raised in the impugned findings unsustainable; that the competent State Wildlife Authorities, after due inspection and verification, have positively recommended the Petitioner's project, which recommendation has not been accorded due consideration by the Standing Committee; that the Standing Committee has proceeded on an erroneous factual and legal premise by misclassifying the Petitioner's project as a "new unit", and has failed to appreciate the applicable statutory framework, thereby vitiating its decision on account of non-application of mind; that the impugned findings have been rendered in violation of the principles of natural justice, particularly audi alteram partem, as no effective opportunity of hearing was afforded to the Petitioner; that the decision-making process adopted by the Standing Committee is arbitrary, suffers from procedural impropriety, and is contrary to the settled principles of administrative law, thereby attracting the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
46. Thence, upon due analysis of facts, and the settled position of law, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned findings/decision dated 28.02.2024, as contained in Para 78.3.23 under Agenda Item No. 03 of the minutes of the 78th meeting dated 22.02.2024, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, being arbitrary, legally untenable, and violative of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the present writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed, with the following direction (Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM) (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:16915] (51 of 51) [CW-5863/2024] that the impugned findings/decision dated 28.02.2024, to the extent and as reflected in Para 78.3.23 of the minutes of the 78th meeting dated 22.02.2024, are hereby quashed and set aside, in terms of the prayer, asked for by the petitioner in the writ petition in toto.
48. No orders are passed as to costs. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J Preeti Asopa (Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM) (Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)