LAWS(SC)-2006-1-93

GOA FOUNDATION Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On January 30, 2006
GOA FOUNDATION Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Our attention has been drawn by Mr Panjwani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, inter alia, to a communication dated 5-2-2002 sent to the Chief Wildlife Warden, Government of Goa by Additional DGF (Wildlife) of the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) which sets out Chronological list of cases cited the decision taken in a meeting of the Indian Board for Wildlife under the Chairmanship of the Honble Prime Minister of India on 21-1-2002 where a decision was taken to notify the areas within 10 km of the boundaries of national parks and sanctuaries and the wildlife corridors as eco-sensitive areas. A request was made in that letter for listing out such areas and furnishing detailed proposals for notification as eco-sensitive areas under the Environment Protection Act. Learned counsel, drawing our attention to an order dated 14-7-2003 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 343 of 2002 by the High Court of Bombay, contends that all that information was supplied. Our attention has also been drawn to EIA clearance being granted by MoEF in areas in close proximity to wildlife sanctuaries. MoEF is directed to file an affidavit, within three weeks, placing on record their stand in respect of the decision taken in the meeting of 21-1-2002 and on the issue of grant of clearances for mining in areas in close proximity of the sanctuaries and the policy, if any, as to the distance of the area from the boundaries of the sanctuaries for the purpose of considering the application for grant of mining lease.

(2.) Our attention has also been drawn to a list, Annexure R-l 1, filed along with the affidavit of the State of Goa, particularly, Part II thereof which lists 75 mine lessees who, it is claimed, had not even applied for grant of mining lease within the time stipulated under notification dated 27-1-1994 as extended by the Ministry from time to time.

(3.) The submission of Mr Panjwani is that this fact should have been brought to the notice of this Court when the order dated 11-5-2005, Goa Foundation Vs. Union of India, (2005) 11 SCC 564 , was passed and that the order dated 11-3-2005, Goa Foundation Vs. Union of India, (2005) 11 SCC 561 , directing the closure of the mines of those who have no permission should be applicable to those who did not even apply within the stipulated time. MoEF shall examine this issue too and place its stand on record by filing an affidavit within three weeks.