Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: nbwl in Shri Kuber Associates vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 May, 2024Matching Fragments
11. The petitioner thereafter furnished the replenishment study to the competent authorities on 14.10.2020 and thereafter EC was granted in favour of petitioner vide correspondence dated 03.02.2022 (Annex.13) with a condition to acquire permission from the National Board for Wildlife ('NBWL').
12. In the meanwhile, pursuant to order dated 03.06.2022 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Writ Petition No.202/1995, whereby it was directed that no mining lease shall be operated within 1 KM area of Eco Sensitive Zone, the petitioner submitted an application dated 30.09.2022 before the respondent authorities with a request that the area of its mining lease, falling under the Eco Sensitive Zone be reduced from the original area and for rest of the area, which is not in Eco Sensitive Zone, he may issued amended LoI. Exceeding on the request of the petitioner, the respondent No.4 found that out of 4280 hectare area, a total of 380.87 hectare area was falling within Eco Sensitive Zone and requested the respondent No.2 for issuing amended LoI qua remaining area i.e. 3899.13 hectare.
14. Since some of the area was falling into 10 KM radius of Eco Sensitive Zone, the requisite Consent to Operate could not be applied for the same, inasmuch it required permission of the NBWL. The petitioner thus submitted an application before the respondent authorities informing the same and sought reduction of the area falling within Eco Sensitive Zone from the mining lease area. Exceeding to the request of the petitioner, the Mining Engineer vide his letter dated 16.01.2024 (Annex.16) addressed to the Superintending Mining Engineer requesting that out of 4280 hectare area of the petitioner, 380.87 falls within Eco Sensitive Zone and thus approval for remaining area ad-measuring 3899.13 ha may be issued.
32. Thus, by filing the reply to writ petition, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
33. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties at length and have perused the material available on record.
34. This Court finds that despite the fact that 380.87 hectares area spreading across the districts of Anaji ki Dhani, Kheda Kalyanpura, Guda Bhopat, Guda Himta, Golki, Jodkiya, Bansor, Halawar, Dhelpura, Rananadi, Jojawar and Dhanla out of the 4280 hectares area sanctioned to the petitioner, was falling within the ESZ, as is evident from the communication made by the petitioner dated 16.01.2024 (Annex.16) addressed to the Superintending Mining Engineer and therefore, in compliance with order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Naveen Sharma v. State of Rajasthan [Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 34811/2013 decided on 16.10.2017] (Annex.9), the petitioner applied to the NBWL in the year 2022, however upon perusal of the application made by the petitioner to the NBWL, it is seen that against the heading at S.No. (xix) titled 'Project Area inside Ecologically Sensitive Zone (in ha.)' and heading at S.No. (xx) 'Project Area [2024:RJ-JD:20945] (19 of 25) [CW-6330/2024] outside Ecologically Sensitive Zone (in ha.)', the answer is mentioned as '0' (zero), which shows that the petitioner was intending to proceed with the mining activity without having permission from the NBWL and also tried to mislead NBWL about the fact that there was no area falling under the ESZ on petitioner's land sanctioned for mining.
Thus, in the absence of permission from the NBWL, the respondent could not have permitted the petitioner to undertake mining activities. Furthermore, the petitioner's communication dated 16.01.2024 (Annex.16) requesting the respondents to reduce the mining area to 3899.13 hectares from the total mining area 4280 hectares, sanctioned to him while stating that upon the said reduction, permission of NBWL is not required and the petitioner can proceed with the mining activities is not acceptable as in the light of the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the [2024:RJ-JD:20945] (20 of 25) [CW-6330/2024] case of In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (supra.), wherein it is mandatory to take permission from the NBWL, where the part of area is falling under ESZ. Further, it is also seen that there is no such provision under the Rules of 2017, demonstrated by the petitioner or direction issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (supra.) under which the respondent could have reduced the mining area falling within the ESZ, and the petitioner without taking permission from the NBWL could have been permitted to undertake mining activities.