Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(emphasis supplied) & 6 have not been granted clearance by the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL), as its case has not been placed before the said board for approval. Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 have never applied to the NBWL for its approval.

8) The Petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of this court in WP(PIL) No. 65 and 76 of 2014 "Ayub v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors", wherein this Court by its order dated 13.06.2018, had directed the respondent State to ensure that no mining activity is carried out within the radius of 10 KM from the boundaries of all National Parks.

33) The Affidavit has also provided a stock of the judicial pronouncements related to the present subject matter. It states that the Supreme Court in "T.N. Godavarman v. Union of India" in WP (Civil) No. 202 of 1995, dated 11.12.2018, directed that: "Under the circumstances we direct that an area of 10 KM around these 21 National Parks and wild life sanctuaries (in which no proposal was received for declaration of ESZ) be declared as ESZ by the MoEF. The declaration be made by the MoEF at the earliest." Thus, this judgment related to those 21 National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries, in respect of which, proposals had not been received by the MoEF till that time. The order passed by the NGT, in Nandan Singh Bora (supra) dated 17.12.2018 was particularly concerned with the Nandhaur Wildlife Sanctuary only. In the Review Application No. 54 of 2018 in "M/s LSC Infratech Ltd v. Union of India" the NGT in its Order dated 04.01.2019, while referring to its earlier order dated 17.12.2018 (wherein the word 'mining' was left out), directed that "all the cases of mining and stone crushers operating within 10 KM of Nandhaur Wildlife Santuary and within ESZ, if so notified be referred to the National Board for Wild Life. Till it is approved by NBWL such operation shall be stayed." The Affidavit further states that in "Saket Agarwal v. State of Uttarakhand", Execution Application No. 11/2019 in O.A. No. 33/2018 with O.A. No. 297/2019, the NGT vide order dated 01.05.2019 directed that "we make it clear that in case any stone crusher unit is found violating any of the condition of consent or the order passed by the Tribunal, the State Pollution Control Board shall immediately take action to stop them from operating." In this order there was a reference to an earlier order dated 16.01.2019, wherein the tribunal - referring to the case of "Tejinder Singh Jolly v. State of Uttarakhand" in O.A. 332 of 2017, has observed that the State Government had laid down its policy on 19.11.2016, and slight amendments were made on 20.11.2018, with regards to the norms to be followed by the Stone Crushers etc., and thereby the State Government was directed to assess the functioning of units, and in case those were found violating any of the norms of the Policy, then immediate action was to be taken against them for their closure. This shows that the policy of the State Government regarding stone crusher etc. was considered and duly approved by the NGT. The Affidavit further states that this High Court in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 65 of 2015, and Writ Petition (PIL) No. 76 of 2014, "Ayub v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.", vide order dated 13.06.2018, has held "according to the norms laid down by the NBWL, no mining activities can be carried out within the radius of 10 KMs from the boundaries of all the National Parks". The Court further observed that:

whether the storage of crushed stones is lower than the height of the boundary wall; whether the Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 have provided sufficient green cover to prevent spread of dust; whether the said stone crusher is adhering to the limits of time set for operation; whether it is crushing stone beyond the permissible limits, whether the distance of the Sigaddi Nallah from the boundary of the stone crusher is 50 meter, or more, and; whether the noise pollution levels are being met or not, are aspects, which we are not proposing to go into, as these involve determination of disputed questions of facts. The reports placed on record are not very clear with regard to compliance of the aforesaid norms. However, it is abundantly clear that the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are not situated outside the ESZ of the Rajaji National Park/Rajaji Tiger Reserve. We are, thus, of the considered view that Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are running the stone crusher plant in breach of the mandatory and binding obligation of obtaining the approval of the NBWL, which cannot be allowed. Admittedly, the stone crusher in question is located at a distance of only 161 meters from the boundary of the Rajaji National Park. Therefore, it clearly falls within the ESZ which, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court, reported in In re T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (2022) 10 SCC 544, is 01 KM. Industrial activity of running stone crusher within the ESZ cannot be undertaken without obtaining prior permission, inter alia, of the NBWL, which, admittedly, the Petitioner has not obtained. Pertinently, even the State Pollution Control Board has submitted before us, that the stone crusher in question cannot be permitted to operate, and they must obtain the approval of the NBWL.

99) Accordingly, we allow the petition and direct Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to stop the operation of the stone crusher forthwith. Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 shall apply to the NBWL to obtain its clearance for running its stoner crusher plant. The NBWL shall examine the case threadbare, and shall also examine, amongst others, the aspects taken note of in paragraph 97 hereinabove, and by a speaking order shall either grant, or refuse, its approval for the running of the stone crusher plant of Respondent Nos. 5 & 6. The NBWL shall take its decision, and communicate the same within three months from the date of this judgment. In the event of the NBWL granting approval to the stone crusher plant of the Respondent Nos. 5 & 6, it may resume operation. On the other hand, if the NBWL refuses to grant its approval, the Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 shall proceed to dismantle its stone crusher plant, and remove all its equipments and machinery from the site within two months of the order being passed by the NBWL.