BINAY KUMAR DALEI & ORS. V/S THE STATE OF ODISHA & ORS., 2022

CITATION	2022 SCC OnLine SC 252
DATE OF JUDGMENT	02nd MARCH, 2022
COURT	SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
APPELLANT	BINAY KUMAR DALEI & ORS
RESPONDENT	THE STATE OF ODISHA & ORS
BENCH	Justice L. Nageshwara Rao and Justice B.R. Gavai

INTRODUCTION

The case of “Binay Kumar Dalei & Ors. V. The State of Odisha & Ors.,2022″ revolves around a critical legal dispute concerning environmental law, forest, wildlife, zoos and mining & industry in the forest areas. Well this case is related to the cancellation of lease of the eco-sensitive zone of land by the National Green Tribunal (NGT). The legal proceedings originated from an appeal against a National Green Tribunal (NGT) order that had halted mining activities near the Hadgarh-Kuldiha-Similipal Elephant Corridor in Odisha. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) had designated the area around mining activities as an ESZ, covering the corridor used by elephants connecting Kuldiha Wildlife Sanctuary in Balasore district and Hadgarh Wildlife Sanctuary in Keonjhar district.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Rural Organisation for Social Empowerment filed Original Application No. 02 of 2019 before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in New Delhi, seeking the cancellation of stone quarry leases granted in the Kuldiha Wildlife Sanctuary and its eco-sensitive zone. The NGT, based on inspection reports, directed the State Government to include the entire corridor in the eco-sensitive zone and prohibited entry. This led to the stoppage of stone quarry operations in the Sarisua Hills, resulting in the appellants, leaseholders, filing for impleadment, which was rejected. The NGT, on 18.02.2020, disposed of the Original Application, prohibiting mining in the Simplipal – Hadagarh – Kuldiha – Simplipal elephant corridor and ordering the declaration of a conservation reserve under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. The appellants have appealed against these NGT orders.

The Government of Odisha, Forest and Environment Department, declared parts of Mayurbhanj, Balasore, Bhadrak, and Keonjhar as the Mayurbhanj (Similipal-Kuldiha-Hadgarh) Elephant Reserve on January 29, 2001, under the “Project Elephant” scheme. This reserve covered 3213.81 sq. kms, with an 845 sq. km core area within the Similipal Sanctuary. Guidelines from the Ministry of Environment and Forests on February 15, 2011, mandated environmental clearances for non-forestry activities within a 10 km boundary of National Parks and Sanctuaries, subject to NBWL Standing Committee recommendations.

The State of Odisha proposed operating 97 stone quarries near Kuldiha Wildlife Sanctuary, 2 km from its boundary, to the NBWL Standing Committee. In its 40th meeting on January 3, 2017, the committee recommended approval with the condition of implementing a Comprehensive Wildlife Management Plan. The Divisional Forest Officer, Balasore, formulated an approved plan, acknowledging the quarries’ location south of the Hadgarh Kuldiha Elephant Corridor.

On August 9, 2017, the Ministry of Environment designated an eco-sensitive zone around Kuldiha Wildlife Sanctuary. The Tehsildar Khaira later invited lease applications for mining operations in this zone. Despite this, the Appellants and other leaseholders began quarrying operations in March 2018.

In response to concerns raised by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests regarding stone quarries operating near the elephant corridor, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) issued an order on October 16, 2019. The NGT directed the State Government to consider expanding the eco-sensitive zone to include the entire elephant corridor and implement recommendations from the PCCF (HoFF), Odisha. Out of the 97 stone quarries, 11 were found to have encroached into the eco-sensitive zone.

In its judgment on February 18, 2020, the NGT instructed the 11 quarries to limit their activities outside the eco-sensitive zone. Furthermore, the NGT ordered the completion of the process under Section 36 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act to declare the traditional elephant corridor as a conservation reserve within three months. The NGT concluded the Original Applications by directing a ban on mining activities within and around the Similipal – Hadgarh – Kuldiha – Similipal Elephant Corridor. The appellants, leaseholders, had their applications for impleadment rejected and are dissatisfied with the order to cease mining activities near the elephant corridor.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the order passed by the NGT was justified and whether leaseholder can do mining activity in the area which does not fall within the ambit of eco-sensitive zone?

CONTENTIONS OF APPEALENT

1.  The main argument presented by the Appellants is that their stone quarries are not included among the 11 quarries accused of encroaching into the eco-sensitive zone. They contend that their quarries are situated on the opposite side of the hillock and, therefore, should not be compelled to cease operations. 

2. Furthermore, the Appellants claim that the National Green Tribunal (NGT) did not afford them the chance to state their case before issuing an order that adversely affects their interests, alleging a breach of the principles of natural justice.

3. Mr. Parija, the Advocate General, contends that the quarries in question are situated beyond the eco-sensitive zone and underscores their approval by the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife in its 40th meeting. 

4. He highlights an apparent inconsistency in the tribunal’s directive, which instructs certain quarries to operate outside the eco-sensitive zone while simultaneously forbidding mining activities near the elephant corridor. 

5. The Advocate General supports allowing quarrying operations around the eco-sensitive zone, subject to the implementation of a Comprehensive Wildlife Management Plan. 

6. Furthermore, an affidavit from the State of Odisha discloses the ongoing consideration to designate the Similipal-Hadgarh-Kuldiha-Similipal traditional Elephant Corridor as a conservation reserve. A proposal to declare 2781.485 hectares of land as a conservation reserve has been presented to the government.

CONTENTIONS OF REPONDENT

1. The Senior Counsel Mr. Manoj Swarup, representing Respondent No. 8, argued that the Comprehensive Wildlife Management Plan must be implemented before commencing mining operations. 

2. He emphasized that proposed measures to mitigate the impact of quarrying outlined in the plan have not been executed. He even highlighted that the National Board for Wildlife’s Standing Committee approved the quarrying proposal contingent on implementing the Comprehensive Wildlife Management Plan, asserting that mining operations cannot proceed without prior plan implementation. 

3. Additionally, Senior Counsel Mr. Ranjit Kumar supported Swarup’s arguments, referring to Section 36A of the Act and emphasizing the State Government’s obligation to declare areas adjacent to National Parks and Sanctuaries as conservation reserves. 

4. Mr. Kumar cited relevant legal provisions and court judgments highlighting the importance of preserving elephant corridors and wildlife sanctuaries, particularly in the cases of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai v. In Defence of Environment and Animal & Ors. and Goa Foundation v. Union of India.

5. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor General representing Respondent No. 2 – Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change (MoEF), brought to the court’s attention that the mentioned order mistakenly cites Section 36 instead of the relevant provision, Section 36A, for declaring the elephant corridor as a conservation reserve.

6. She stated that the MoEF does not oppose the functioning of stone quarries beyond the eco-sensitive zone, as long as they comply with the stipulations of Section 36A and the conditions specified in the Comprehensive Wildlife Management Plan.

JUDGEMENT

The The Supreme Court of India has directed the State of Odisha to enforce a Comprehensive Wildlife Management Plan in the Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) surrounding the Kuldiha Wildlife Sanctuary before authorizing any mining. The court’s decision, in the case of Binay Kumar Dalei & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Ors., also necessitates the completion of the declaration process for the traditional elephant corridor as a conservation reserve under Section 36A of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

The Supreme Court acknowledged the arguments presented by the original applicant before the NGT, stressing that mining should not be permitted in the ESZ unless the Comprehensive Wildlife Management Plan is implemented. This recommendation aligned with the suggestions of the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife during the approval of mining activities in the ESZ. Consequently, the Supreme Court directed the State Government to ensure adherence to these conditions before granting permission for any mining operations in the specified area.

ANALYSIS

1. The apex court in its judgement of the case Binay Kumar Dalei & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Ors. created a history and regarded as a landmark decision in the Indian judiciary. It underscores the conclusion of the formal process to declare the traditional elephant corridor as a conservation reserve under Section 36A of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

2. The court’s instruction underscores a careful and environmentally conscientious approach to mining operations within the specified region and the case illustrates a delicate equilibrium between safeguarding the environment and promoting economic pursuits. 

3. The Supreme Court underscores its dedication to wildlife preservation by stressing the necessity for executing a Comprehensive Wildlife Management Plan and adhering to the Wildlife (Protection) Act. 

4. The Court’s determination to permit mining activities solely subsequent to the formal declaration of the elephant corridor as a conservation reserve signifies a prudent approach, guaranteeing that ecological concerns are addressed before the resumption of economic endeavors.

5. The principles outlined in the cases of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai v. In Defence of Environment and Animals & Ors. and Goa Foundation v. Union of India have been underscored to prevent any infringement of the Wildlife Protection Act.

6. Analysis of mining activity near eco-sensitive zone and their repercussions to the environment and wildlife as many sites violated the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and giving an opportunity to amend their ignorance towards the ecosystem.

7. The Supreme Court rejected the plea of the leaseholders seeking compensation for the losses suffered during the period when they were not allowed to conduct mining operations despite possessing a valid lease.

CONCLUSION

In summary, the case of “Binay Kumar Dalei & Ors. v. The State of Odisha & Ors., 2022” establishes a significant legal precedent concerning conservation reserves. It underscores the importance of adhering to government guidelines in addressing environmental issues and reminds us of our dependence on the environment for everything in life. When dealing with such matters, strict compliance with state and central government directives is essential to preserve what remains. Mahatma Gandhi’s timeless quote, “Nature can meet all our needs, but not all our greed,” resonates strongly in today’s context, as we approach a future where concrete and cement dominate, posing a threat to clean air. These legal precedents provide a framework for dealing other cases within the realm of environmental law. 

REFERENCES

1. https://legiteye.com/apex-court-directs-odisha-govt-to-complete-process-of-declaration-of-traditional-elephant-corridor-as-conservation-reserve-as-provided-u-s-36a-of-wildlife-protection-act-1972/
2. https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/19961/19961_2020_5_1501_33808_Judgement_02-Mar-2022.pdf
3. https://www.scconline.com/Members/NoteView.aspx?enc=SlRYVC05MDAxMTQ3MDIxJiYmJiY0MCYmJiYmU2VhcmNoJiYmJiZmdWxsc2NyZWVuJiYmJiZmYWxzZSYmJiYmQmluYXkgS3VtYXIgRGFsZWkgdi4gU3RhdGUgb2YgT2Rpc2hhLCAoMjAyMikgNSBTQ0MgMzMgOiAyMDIyIFNDQyBPbkxpbmUgU0MgMjUyIDogQUlSIDIwMjIgU0MgMTE5MSA6ICgyMDIyKSA0IE1BSCBMSiA0MDkgOiAoMjAyMikgMyBNUExKIDI3NiYmJiYmUGhyYXNlJiYmJiZDYXNlSW5kZXgmJiYmJmZhbHNl

This Article is written by Saumya Raj student of ILS Law College, Pune; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.