The Karnataka High Court has held that there is no automatic or “default” 10-kilometre Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) around the Kali Tiger Reserve (KTR) and quashed the rejection of a quarrying No Objection Certificate (NOC) that had been denied solely on that premise. The Court directed the authorities to reconsider the petitioner’s application in accordance with law.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha was hearing a petition challenging an endorsement issued by the Deputy Conservator of Forests refusing an NOC for a clay quarrying lease on the ground that the proposed site lay 9.5 kilometres from the Kali Tiger Reserve, which was assumed to fall within a prohibited 10-km ESZ.
The principal question before the Court was whether the Kali Tiger Reserve was governed by a mandatory 10-km Eco-Sensitive Zone pending final notification of its ESZ.
After examining the Supreme Court’s decisions in Goa Foundation and T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad, the High Court held that the authorities had proceeded on an erroneous legal assumption. It noted that the concept of a universal 10-km default ESZ has already been rejected and that the Supreme Court had clarified there is no blanket prohibition on mining within 10 kilometres of every national park or wildlife sanctuary.
The Bench further observed that the Supreme Court’s direction regarding a 10-km ESZ was confined only to 21 protected areas for which no ESZ proposals had been submitted. Since the Kali Tiger Reserve already had a draft ESZ notification issued in 2016, followed by consideration by the Expert Committee, the case did not fall within that category.
The Court also referred to an earlier Karnataka High Court decision in M/s Bhushan Enterprises v. State of Karnataka, W.P.No.15654/2020, which had held that the notion of a default Eco-Sensitive Zone extending 10 kilometres around every protected area has no legal foundation, observing that the 2011 MoEF Guidelines contemplate a protected area-specific approach rather than a rigid formula.
Holding that the rejection of the petitioner’s application rested entirely on a non-existent concept of a 10-km default ESZ, the Bench set aside the impugned endorsement and directed the competent authorities to reconsider the petitioner’s request for a quarrying lease afresh in accordance with law.
