National Green Tribunal
Rajendra Tiwari vs Union Of India Through The Secretary ... on 6 May, 2026
Item No.10
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
CENTRAL ZONE BENCH, BHOPAL
(THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)
Original Application No.115/2025(CZ)
Rajendra Tiwari Applicant(s)
Vs.
Union of India & Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of Hearing: 06.05.2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. SUDHIR KUMAR CHATURVEDI, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant (s): Mr. Vaibhav Pancholy, Adv. with
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rohit Sharma, Adv. for State & RSPCB
Mr. Gigi George, Adv. for CGWA
Ms. Simran Sharma, Adv. on behalf of
Mr. Divanshu Gupta, Adv. for JDA
Mr. Lokendra Singh Kachhawa, Adv.
ORDER
1. Issues raised in this application are violation of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. The contentions of the Learned Counsel for the applicant are that Old Khasra No.174 of Village Kachrawala measuring 48 Bheegas was entirely recorded in the name of forest department in view of Van Bandobast Plan of Vankhand Amer-54 and Khasra No.l74 carne to be divided in number of Khasras indicated in Para No.8 of this Original Application and New Khasra No's 377, 378, 379,380, 461, 467, 403/711 and 487/7lO of Village Kachrawala (Old Khasra No.174) are found to be recorded in tJ:e name of Jaipur Development Authority and also New Khasra No's 460 (Old Khasra No. 174), 46a, 469, 472, 474, 477 and 478 are recorded in the name of Respondent No. 1 1 . It is to clarify here that 1 O.A. No.115/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors. New Khasra No.460 of Village Kachrawala got originated from Old Khasra No.174 of Village Kachrawala which was entirely recorded in the name of forest department as reserved forest land and thus the reserved forest land is being misappropriated for commercial purposes as the Respondent No.11 had converted the land of Khasra No.460 of Village Kachrawala for commercial purposes which is against the very scheme of Forest Conservation Act, 1980.
2. That Respondent No.18 is operating a commercial establishment named Tree Life Resort upon the land of Khasra No's 460, 467, 462, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 47O, 471, 472, 473, 474, 477, 478, 479 and 7421460 of Village Kachrawala, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur and most of the part of commercial establishment is situated upon reserved forest land of Khasra No. 460, 461,462,464 and 467 of Village Kachrawala and rest of land of impugned commercial establishment is revenue land, however same is integral part of Eco Sensitive Zone of Nahargarh Wildtife Sanctuar5r and Village Kachrawala has been mentioned in Iist of Villages falling within the periphery of Eco Sensitive Zone of Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary and thus the commercial establishment of Respondent No.2O is also integral part of Eco Sensitive Zone of Nahargarh Witdlife Sanctuary.
3. The members of the Joint Committee visited the site and submitted the report as follows :
Observations Following is the factual observation of the site visit:
(i) The unit named as M/s Rajscape Resorts Pvt. (Tree of Life Resort& Spa) is a Hotel activity and is engaged in operation of a 17 room Hotel at Khasra No. 469, 472, 474, 477, 478, 468, 460 VillageKachrawala, Kukas, Tehsil- Amber, District- Jaipur.
(ii) As per the categorization of the State Board, Hotels (upto20 rooms) are covered under Green Category. The unit had 2 O.A. No.115/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
submitted first application dated 31.01.2010 for Consent to Establish under the provisions of the Water Act, 1974 and the Air Act, 1981, which was granted vide State Board's letter dated 10.02.2010 for hotel activity for 34 beds. Subsequently, unit applied for further Consent to Establish/Consent to Operate, which were disposed of by the RSPCB on merits. At present, the unit is having valid Consent to Operate under the provisions of the Water Act, 1974 and the Air Act, 1981 dated 22.11.2023, valid till 30.11.2033 for Hotel activity for 17 rooms.
(iii) There is one borewell in the premises of the unit. The unit has submitted self-exemption certificate obtained from CGWA for abstraction of 09.18 KLD ground water (below 10 KLD) from 01 borewell. Unit has provided water meters at the borewell and maintaining a physical logbook of groundwater abstraction as per the conditions of the self-exemption certificate. The unit representative informed the committee that they are using the ground water only for drinking purpose and the other requirement of water are met through tanker supply.
(iv) The total built up area of the unit is less than 20,000 Square Meter (As per the map approved by the Panchayat Samiti, built up area is 2439.25 Square Meter), therefore, unit does not require to obtain Environmental Clearance under the provisions of the EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006.
(v) During the visit, it was enquired by the committee from the hotel management that whether any events/marriage functions are being organized by them and it was informed and also found that no such facility is being provided by the hotel. The hotel property is not being used for marriage/events.
(vi) With reference to the location of the project, It was reported by the representative of Forest Department that unit's premises falls outside the forest boundaries and falls within the Eco Sensitive Zone of Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary notified on 08.03.2019.
(vii) As per the land conversion order dated 05.12.2006 issued from District Collector, Jaipur, land was converted for Industrial (tourism unit) on 05.12.2006 (for Khasra No. 469, 472, 474, 477, 478, 468, 460 Village- Kachrawala).
(viii) That Zonal Master Plan of the Nahargarh Wild Life Sanctuary, referred above has been approved by the State 3 O.A. No.115/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Government which inter-alia says as under:- "10.4 Existing Activity/Use ESZ Notification dated 08-03-2019 prescribed regulations regarding new hotel, resort, commercial 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.Conversion order/Patta for non-agricultural use.
4. Building Plan approval.
5. Order regarding change in land use.
6. Proof of deposition of tax as hotel, resort, commercial establishment, etc.
7. CTE/CTO/Environmental Clearance."
(ix) Further, as per the circular dated 26.09.2023 issued from Forest, Environment & Climate Change Department, Govt. of Rajasthan regarding clarification of Hotels, resorts etc. it has been clarified that projects having any 07 listed documents (as mentioned above) prior to issue of Notification of Eco Sensitive Zone 08.03.2019 would be considered as existing.
(x) The unit under question is having 04 documents from the above list i.e. Approval by Tourism Department as tourism unit, Conversion order/Patta for non-agricultural use, Building Plan approval, CTE/CTO/ issued prior to 08.03.2019 which confirms that the establishment was in existence prior to issuance of the Notification dated 08.03.2019..
(xi) As per the notification and Zonal Master Plan, the hotel activity is covered under regulated activities.
(xii) The occupancy during visit of the joint committee on 18.11.2025 was of total 53 persons only (Guest-17 people and staff-36 people). Unit is having Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) for treatment of waste water generated from the unit. No discharge of treated or untreated waste water was observed within or outside 4 O.A. No.115/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
the premises during visit. Treated waste water is being utilized for plantation within premises.
(xiii) It is also noteworthy that, the work related to defining the boundary of Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary is under review by the State Forest Department as the matter is sub judicial in E.A. No. 06/2024 in O.A. No. 97/2022, Kamal Tiwari V/s Union of India & Ors pending before NGT, CENTRAL ZONAL BENCH, BHOPAL. In this regard, as per the representative of Forest Department, meetings were convened under the chairmanship of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Chief Wild Life Warden, Rajasthan, Jaipur on 07.01.2025, 21.01.2025, 26.03.2025 and 27.06.2025. As per the minutes, the exercise for identification and demarcation of the sanctuary boundary has been completed by the Forest Department and digital map has been finalized in accordance with the SOP and the original Notification dated 22.09.1980. The finalized map and digital map has been submitted by the Forest Department, GoR before Hon'ble NGT after due approval from the Hon'ble Forest Minister, GoR on 18.07.2025.
Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the matter of D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 14254/2025 (Nahargarh Van Evam Vanya Jeev Suraksha Evam Seva Samiti Vs Union of India & Ors.) passed an order dated 19.09.2025 which inter-alia say as under:
"It is directed that in the meanwhile, no change in the boundaries of the existing Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary which would include the Eco Sensitive Zone and the described area, shall be made"
Conclusion (I) The unit is being operated outside Forest Area and within ESZ of the sanctuary.
(II) The Hotel was pre-existing before the issuance of notification dated 08.03.2019.
(III) The unit is operational after obtaining valid consent from the State Board under the provisions of the Water Act, 1974 and the Air Act, 1981 for the hotel activity for 17 rooms. (IV) The unit does not require to obtain Environmental Clearance under the provisions of the EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006.
5O.A. No.115/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
(V) The unit has obtained a self-exemption certificate from Central Groundwater Authority for the groundwater abstraction to the tune of 9.18 KLD through 1 existing borewell.
3. Submission of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/State Pollution Control Board are that the unit has obtained the valid consent to operate. Necessary permission has been granted by the State PCB.
4. Learned Counsel for the respondent no. 8/ Central Ground Water Board argued that the respondent has obtained the Self Exemption Certificate from the authority and there are no violations. Relevant reply of Central Ground Water Board is quoted below :
In respect of the allegation regarding absence of NOC from CGWA, it is most respectfully submitted that, as per paragraph 1.0 of the Ministry of Jal Shakti (MoJS) Notified Guidelines dated 24.09.2020 followed by amendment dated 29.03.2023, the following categories are exempted from seeking a No Objection Certificate for groundwater extraction:
(i) Rural drinking water supply schemes.
(ii) Armed Forces Establishments and Central Armed Police Forces establishments in both rural and urban areas.
(iii) Agricultural activities.
(iv) Micro and small Enterprises drawing ground water less than 10 cum/day.
(v) All industries/ mining projects/ infrastructure projects drawing ground water only for drinking/ domestic purposes up to 5 Cum /day in all assessment units.
(vi) Residential Apartments and Group Housing Societies:
(a) For drinking water and domestic uses, drawing ground water upto 20 m3/day subject to the conditions mentioned in Para 2.0 of the guidelines.
(b) Dwelling units for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) under Government schemes.
Since, the firm is classified under the SMALL category as per the Udyam Registration Certificate issued by the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, is exempted from seeking NOC 6 O.A. No.115/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
from CGWA for abstraction of ground water less than 10 m³/day. Accordingly, Respondent No. 18 has obtained a Self-Exemption Certificate from the CGWA in the name of Rajscape Resorts Private Limited for abstraction of groundwater for the quantum of 9.18 m³/day. A true copy of the Self-Exemption Certificate issued by the CGWA is annexed herewith as Annexure-1 and true copy of the Udyam Registration Certificate is annexed as Annexure-2.
3. That the averments contained in para 4 to 12 are related to other respondents and does not pertain to answering respondent. Hence, do not warrant any reply.
4. That the averments contained in paragraph 13 pertain to the alleged encroachment by the Tree of Life Resort upon the reserved forest land of Vankhand Amer 54 and the Eco-Sensitive Zone of the Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary, and its alleged operation without requisite permissions from the National Wildlife Board, the Forest Department, the RSPCB, and the CGWA. It is further alleged that Respondent No. 18 had installed borewells and was extracting groundwater without authority. As stated earlier, Respondent No. 18 has obtained a Self- Exemption Certificate from the Authority for abstraction of groundwater to the quantum of 9.18 m³/day through one existing borewell as the firm is classified under the SMALL category as per the Udyam Registration Certificate issued by the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises.
"Furthermore, As per Point No. 12 of the Exemption Certificate for Groundwater Abstraction, the conditions of the self-exemption category are as follows:
1. This is to certify that as per information furnished by the applicant, the ground water withdrawal comes under Exemption category as per S.O. 3289(E) dated 24/09/2020 by Department Of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, guidelines to regulate and control ground water extraction in India, 2020.
2. This exemption letter is being issued under relevant provision(s) of extant guidelines.7
O.A. No.115/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
3. The firm shall install digital water flow meter on all ground water abstraction structures and maintain the logbook.
4. This certificate is system generated and based on information provided by the applicant. CGWA has not verified the claim made by applicant. Any false information furnished/violation by the applicant, shall invite legal action against him/her as per S.O. 3289(E) dated 24/09/2020.
5. If, at any stage, it is established that this exemption letter has been obtained on the basis of false/ fake document(s), the exemption letter shall be deemed cancelled and extant penal provisions shall be applied on the firm"
5. The perusal of the report reveals that the unit is outside the forest area and pre-existing before the notification and there are valid environmental clearances and there are no violations.
6. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has relied on [2026.RJ-
JP.16915] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5863/2024 where the Hon'ble High Court for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur has observed the constructions, regulations and law on the point of completion certificate and existing units within the ESZ area as follows:
"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 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 8 O.A. No.115/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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 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:9
O.A. No.115/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
" Prescribed w.r.t. applicability of EC, FC, and WC in ESZ/ESA and other ecologically significant areas outside PA:10
O.A. No.115/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.11
O.A. No.115/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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 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 EcoSensitive 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 EcoSensitive 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-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 12 O.A. No.115/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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 EcoSensitive 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 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,
(iii) Urban Development,
(iv) Tourism,
(v) Revenue,
(vi) Agriculture,
(vii) Rural Development, 13 O.A. No.115/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
(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.
(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 EcoSensitive 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 14 O.A. No.115/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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 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:-15
O.A. No.115/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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 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.16
O.A. No.115/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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 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 17 O.A. No.115/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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 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 2012.18
O.A. No.115/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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 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 EcoSensitive 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.
43. 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:
43.1 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 EcoSensitive 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.
43.2. 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 ambit of "regulated activity". The said Notification further mandates preparation of a Zonal Master Plan for Eco-19
O.A. No.115/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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.
43.3 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 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 20 O.A. No.115/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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.
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 casespecific 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 21 O.A. No.115/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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 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 Ecosensitive 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 Ecosensitive 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 22 O.A. No.115/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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 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 said to be immune from judicial review. In the 23 O.A. No.115/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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 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 24 O.A. No.115/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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."
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 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."
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 25 O.A. No.115/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
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 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.
7. Since the unit is operated outside the forest area as pre-existing unit and there are valid environmental clearances and consent condition from the Competent Authority, thus, no violation has been found.
Thus, no further action is required by this Tribunal and another 26 O.A. No.115/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
question has been raised with regard to the identification, measurement, demarcation, protection, mutation or removal of the encroachment but these are the subject-matter of the Revenue Courts or the Competent Forest Department to identify and demarcate it and the High Level Committee, has been constituted to do it and the matter is pending before Hon'ble the High Court.
8. In State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Raghu Ramakrishna Raju Kanumuru decided on 01st of June, 2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when the matter has been taken by the Higher Court/Constitutional Court, then in that case precedence of Constitutional Courts over the statutory Tribunals like - NGT, in the matter of territorial jurisdiction prevails. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:-
"i. Priya Gupta v. Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (2013) 11 SCC 404: This case underscored that government departments are not exempt from complying with court orders. It emphasized that orders from higher courts hold paramount authority, and lower tribunals must adhere to them to maintain legal coherence and respect for the judiciary.
ii. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1995) 1 SCC 400: A Constitutional Bench judgment that established the hierarchy and jurisdictional boundaries between different judicial bodies, reinforcing that statutory tribunals like the NGT are subordinate to High Courts within their territorial jurisdiction. East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs AIR 1962 SC 1893: This case highlighted the necessity for administrative bodies to follow higher court directives to ensure consistency and predictability in judicial decisions. Official Liquidator v. Dayanand (2008) 10 SCC 1: Reiterated the indispensability of obeying higher court orders to preserve the integrity and functionality of the judicial system. These precedents collectively reinforced the principle that higher courts' orders supersede those of statutory tribunals, ensuring a unified legal framework.27
O.A. No.115/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Jurisdictional Hierarchy: The High Court holds territorial jurisdiction, making its orders binding over any subordinate tribunal operating within the same jurisdiction, such as the NGT. Conflict of Orders: When contradictory orders are issued by the High Court and NGT on the same matter, the higher court's directive takes precedence to prevent legal ambiguity.
Constitutional Authority: Referencing Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the Court emphasized that the law declared by a higher court is binding on all lower courts and -tribunals. Administrative Sanity:
Maintaining a clear hierarchy ensures Administrative Sanity: Maintaining a clear hierarchy ensures predictable and consistent application of the law, which is essential for administrative efficiency and public trust in the legal system.
By applying these principles, the Supreme Court concluded that the NGT had erred in continuing proceedings that conflicted with the High Court's jurisdiction and order."
9. In view of the above observations, the matter which is pending before the High Court will be governed by the orders of the Hon'ble High Court. So far as the violations are concerned, no violation has been found. Thus, no further action is required by this Tribunal.
The Original Application No. 115/2025(CZ) stands disposed of accordingly.
Sheo Kumar Singh, JM Sudhir Kumar Chaturvedi, EM 06th May, 2026, Original Application No.115/2025(CZ) RK 28 O.A. No.115/2025(CZ) Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors.