Order
1. On 27-7-2004 this Court passed the following order in IA No. 12:
“The State Government will also report to the Court after consulting the experts as regards the outer limit beyond the boundaries of the notified sanctuary within which the stoppage of mining operations is desirable.”
2. Pursuant to this order, the State Government referred the issue to the expert body namely “Gujarat Ecological Education and Research (GEER) Foundation”. The expert body after intensive study has submitted a report and the recommendation of the expert body is as follows:
“The inferences drawn from the present study indicate that mining operations, if carried out within 2.5 km from the boundaries of Narayan Sarovar Wildlife Sanctuary, should be considered as detrimental to the wildlife and wildlife habitat of the sanctuary. It is opined, therefore, that mining operations should not be allowed within 2.5 km beyond the boundaries of Narayan Sarovar Wildlife Sanctuary.”
3. Earlier, the expert body referred to the adverse mining impact as per the visual observations made by it in three sites — Site A, Site B and Site C according to which the range varies from 2.00 km to 2.35 km. The expert body reported that the best indicator of the range of adverse mining impact, as per the data collected in the course of study, is 2.35 km as observed in the case of Site A. However, keeping in view the fact that the study was not done in all the seasons and there could be scope for some variation, the Committee commented that “the maximum range affected by the mining pollution would be more than the estimation of range based on the above visual observations i.e a realistic range would be more than 2.35 km”.
4. The report then stated as follows:
“In view of the aforesaid discussions and considerations, it appears that accepting a buffer range of adverse mining impact of about 2.5 km would be appropriate. Therefore, it is inferred from the present study that up to 2.5 km from the sanctuary boundaries, mining operations should be considered as detrimental to the wildlife and wildlife habitat of the sanctuary.”
5. An opportunity was given to the parties concerned to submit their responses to this report. The Government of Gujarat, Forests and Environment Department has filed an affidavit stating as follows:
“I further state that the State Government has carefully examined the above opinion and keeping in view the optimum use of natural resources available and the interest of wildlife of the sanctuary decided that no new mining lease shall be allowed within one kilometre from the outer boundaries of the notified Narayan Sarovar Wildlife Sanctuary.”
6. Apart from the vague statement made as above, the State Government has not chosen to give any reasons for deviating from the recommendation of the expert body. The 1 km limit, suggested by the State Government, seems to be in tune with the earlier report of the same expert body furnished in the year 2001 which stated that “in order to reduce the effects of developmental activities on long-term conservation prospect of the sanctuary …. mining activities should not be allowed within 1000 metres of the sanctuary boundary”. This report was apparently obtained by the State Government pursuant to Direction (3) in the operative part of the judgment in Consumer Education & Research Society v. Union of India (2000) 2 SCC 599. The latest report of the expert body has adverted to the view expressed in the earlier report and commented that the reasons for prescribing 1 km buffer zone have not been clearly spelt out in the said report. Moreover, the earlier expert body did not examine the issue from the standpoint of prescribing a reasonable outer limit beyond the notified area in the interests of conservation of wildlife.
7. Considering all these aspects, we are of the view that the recommendation of the expert body to the effect that the mining operations should not be allowed within 2.5 km beyond the boundaries of Narayan Sarovar Wildlife Sanctuary which obviously means the notified boundary in force, is prima facie acceptable and could serve as a guideline in the matter of grant or renewal of mining leases by the State Government. Final orders in this regard will be passed after the details mentioned in the next paragraph are furnished.
8. The State Government shall furnish the details to this Court in regard to the following aspects:
1. Whether the areas applied for by the following applicants for grant/renewal of mining leases fall within or outside the 2.5 km area beyond the notified boundary of the sanctuary:
1. Shivam Minerals & Allied Industries
2. M/s Gujarat Mineral Development Corpn. Ltd.
3. Chaganlal K. Waghela
4. Kodai Investment & Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd.
5. Mahendra J. Ramani
6. Manori Investment & Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd.
7. Ashapura International Ltd.
8. Smt Naynaben M. Ramani
9. Ashapura Minerals Pvt. Ltd.
10. Ashapura Minechem Pvt. Ltd.
11. Sanghi Industries Ltd.
12. Chetan N. Shah
13. Koteshwar Minechem Industries
14. Vinod P. Solanki
15. Sharda Industries Corpn.
16. Arlington Investments & Trading Co. Ltd.
2. Whether any mining operations are being carried out within the limit of 2.5 km by anyone and, if so, the names of lessees and the duration of leases held by such persons and other relevant details pertaining to leases shall be furnished. The distance of such mining area from the notified boundary of the sanctuary should also be given.
9. An affidavit furnishing the above details shall be furnished by the State Government within three months from the date of receipt of this order.
10. Post after three months.
Court Masters