Goa Foundation v. Union Of India .

Factual and Procedural Background

The order concerns ongoing proceedings in which the petitioner’s counsel drew the Court’s attention to two main factual developments:

• A letter dated 5 February 2002 from the Additional Director-General (Wildlife), Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) to the Chief Wildlife Warden, Goa, recording a decision taken on 21 January 2002 by the Indian Board for Wildlife under the Chairmanship of the Prime Minister to declare areas within 10 km of national parks, wildlife sanctuaries and wildlife corridors as eco-sensitive zones. The letter sought proposals for such notifications under the Environment (Protection) Act.
• A list (Annexure R-11) filed by the State of Goa identifying seventy-five mining lessees who allegedly failed to apply for renewal of their mining leases within the period stipulated by a Notification dated 27 January 1994 (as periodically extended).

The petitioner asserted that the MoEF had nonetheless been issuing environmental clearances for mining projects in close proximity to wildlife sanctuaries. The Court, in this interim order, required the MoEF to clarify its position by affidavit and fixed the matter for further hearing four weeks later. Applications for impleadment or intervention were also directed to be listed on the same date.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the MoEF has acted upon the 21 January 2002 decision to declare a 10-kilometre eco-sensitive buffer around protected areas, and what policy, if any, presently governs the grant of mining leases in proximity to wildlife sanctuaries.
2. Whether the Supreme Court’s earlier order dated 11 March 2005, which directed closure of mines operating without requisite permissions, should equally apply to mining lessees who did not even file applications for renewal within the prescribed time-frame.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

• The 5 February 2002 communication and a Bombay High Court order dated 14 July 2003 demonstrate that all information needed to notify eco-sensitive zones had already been supplied to the MoEF, yet no action has followed.
• Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) clearances continue to be granted for projects located in close proximity to wildlife sanctuaries, contrary to the 2002 decision.
• The list in Annexure R-11 shows seventy-five lessees who never applied for renewal; the omission should have been disclosed when the Supreme Court passed its order on 11 May 2005. Consequently, the closure order of 11 March 2005 ought to extend to these lessees as well.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The order is primarily procedural. After considering the petitioner’s submissions and the documentary references, the Court:

• Required the MoEF to file, within three weeks, an affidavit stating (i) its position on the implementation of the 21 January 2002 decision regarding eco-sensitive zones; (ii) its policy on the permissible distance of mining operations from wildlife sanctuary boundaries; and (iii) its view on whether the 11 March 2005 closure order applies to lessees who failed to apply within the stipulated period.
• Directed that the matter, along with all applications for impleadment or intervention, be listed after four weeks.

Holding and Implications

Interim directions issued; MoEF ordered to file a comprehensive affidavit within three weeks.

Immediate Implications: The MoEF must clarify its policy on eco-sensitive zones and mining clearances, and address the status of lessees who failed to apply for renewal. The matter remains sub judice, and no final precedent has been established at this stage.