Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Kanha Hotels And Spa Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India on 27 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:16915]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5863/2024
Kanha Hotels And Spa Pvt. Ltd., Having Its Registered Office At
J-5, Himmat Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur 302018 (Rajasthan)
Through Its Director Vijay Sharda S/o Natwar Lal Sharda Aged
About 27 Years.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment, Forest And Climate Change (Wildlife
Division), 6Th Floor, Vayu Wing, Indira Paryavaran
Bhawan, Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110003
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary,
Forest, Environment And Climate Change Department,
Van Bhawan, Vanki Path, Janpath, Jaipur-302005 (Raj.)
3. Standing Committee Of National Board For Wildlife,
Environment, Forest And Climate Change, Government Of
India, 2Nd Floor, Vayu Wing, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan,
Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110003
4. National Board For Wildlife, Ministry Of Environment,
Forests And Climate Change Government Of India, 2Nd
Floor, Vayu Wing, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Jor Bagh,
New Delhi-110003
5. Rajasthan State Wildlife Board, Through Member
Secretary, Jaipur
6. Deputy Conservator Of Forest Wildlife Jaipur, Pani Pech
Shastri Nagar, Jaipur 302016 (Raj.)
7. Jaipur Development Authority, Through Its Commissioner,
J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur 302004 (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.B. Mathur, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Daksh Pareek
Mr. Falak Mathur
Mr. Manish Bhodiwal
Mr. Yug Singh
Mr. Utsav Verma
Mr. Keshav Parashar
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16915] (2 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Vyas, ASG with
Mr. CS Sinha
Ms. Neeti Jain Bhandari
Ms. Anima Chaturvedi
Mr. BS Chhaba, AAG with
Mr. Vinayam Saran
Ms. Mahi Choudhary
Mr. Hardik Singh
Ms.Niharika Choudhary
Ms. Eva Choudhary
Mr. Amit Kuri with
Mr. Ayush Sharma
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment
1 Arguments concluded on 16/04/2026
2 Judgment Reserved on 16/04/2026
3 Full Judgment or Operative Part Pronounced Full Judgment
4 Pronounced on 27/04/2026
REPORTABLE :
1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India has been instituted by Kanha Hotels and Spa
Private Limited, through its Director, being aggrieved by the
impugned findings recorded in the minutes of meeting
22.02.2024, communicated under cover letter dated 28.02.2024
by the Wildlife Division, Ministry of Environment, Forest and
Climate Change, Government of India. The said findings are
assailed as being ex-facie perverse, illegal, arbitrary, and having
been rendered with a prejudiced and pre-determined mindset; and
that the impugned findings are non est in the eyes of law, having
been passed in contravention of the mandatory statutory
requirements, and are thus sans jurisdiction. The present petition
is, accordingly, filed seeking the following reliefs:
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16915] (3 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]“(a) By appropriate writ, orders, or directions, the
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for the records of
the case of the Petitioner for its kind perusal and may
hold and declare that impugned findings/”decision
taken” including its basis, detailed in Para 78.3.23
[under the heading “Agenda Item No.03” and sub-
heading 78.3 “(Fresh Proposal falling inside/outside the
Protected Area)”] of the minutes of the 78th meeting
dated 22.02.2024 communicated under the cover of the
letter dated 28.02.2024has been passed in complete
disregard to mandatory requirements of principles of
natural justice, and in complete disregard to the order
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 03.06.2022,
passed in IA No.1000 of 2003 in WP (Civil) No.202 of
1995, and therefore, quash and set-aside impugned
findings dated 28.02.2024 for being arbitrary, illegal,
and violative of principles of natural justice; and/or
(b) By appropriate writ, orders, or directions, the
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to hold and declare that
impugned findings/”decision taken” including its basis,
detailed in Para 78.3.23 [under the heading “Agenda
Item No.03” and sub-heading 78.3 “(Fresh Proposal
falling inside/outside the Protected Area)”] of the
minutes of the 78th meeting dated 22.02.2024
communicated under the cover of the letter dated
28.02.2024, passed by Respondent No.3, has been
passed in disregard to mandatory statutory
requirements flowing from the ESZ Notification dated
08.03.2019 as well as the order dated 03.06.2022
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in IA No. 1000 of
2003 in WP (Civil) No.202 of 1995, and therefore,
quash and set-aside impugned findings dated
28.02.2024 for being arbitrary, illegal, and violative of
principles of natural justice; and/or
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16915] (4 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]
(c) By appropriate writ, orders, or directions, the
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for records of the
case of the Petitioner for its kind perusal and after
analysing the same, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased
to issue necessary Writ or Order or directions directing
the Respondent No.3 to grant Wildlife Clearance to the
Petitioner in terms of Notification dated 08.03.2019,
and Notification dated 14.09.2006, and the order of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 03.06.2022; and/or
(d) By appropriate writ, orders, or directions, the
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to restrain the
Respondents including their servants and agents from
taking any action prejudicial to the interest of the
Petitioner including coercive action in furtherance of and
in the execution of and in the enforcement of impugned
findings dated 28.02.2024; and/or
(e) pass any such other order or orders as may be
deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court in the facts and
circumstances of the case in the favour of the
Petitioner.”
THE CHRONOLOGICAL ENUMERATION OF STATUTORY
PERMISSIONS SECURED BY THE PETITIONER AND THE
FACTUAL MATRIX APPERTAINING THERETO ARE AD-INFRA:
2. That the petitioner purchased land bearing Khasra Nos.
54, 55, and 56 situated at Village Chimanpura, Tehsil Amer, Jaipur,
on 16.01.1995. It is pertinent to note that the said land stood
recorded under the Khatedari rights of one Shri Seduram, resident
of Village Chimanpura, Tehsil Amer, Jaipur, and the nature of the
land had already been converted from agricultural to industrial use
vide order dated 19.05.1994 passed by the District Collector,
Jaipur. Subsequently, permission was sought from the District
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16915] (5 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]
Collector, Jaipur, for transfer of rights in respect of the said land in
favour of M/s Exclusive Exports Private Limited. The said
permission was duly granted vide order dated 16.01.1995 issued
by the office of the District Collector, Jaipur.
3. That the petitioner thereafter purchased additional land
bearing Khasra No. 54/2 from Shri Seduram after obtaining
requisite permission from the District Collector, Jaipur, vide order
dated 17.03.1998; consecutively, the Tourism Department of the
State of Rajasthan introduced a new Hotel Policy in the year 2006,
envisaging various concessions to tourism units, including hotels,
camping sites, quality resorts, and restaurants. With a view to
avail the benefits under the said policy, M/s Exclusive Exports
Private Limited applied for establishment of a new tourism unit,
which came to be approved by the Tourism Department,
Government of Rajasthan, vide order dated 24.03.2007.
Thereafter, the Department of Revenue and Land Records, State of
Rajasthan, vide order dated 06.11.2007, accorded permission for
setting up a tourism unit/hotel in favour of the Petitioner.
4. That in furtherance thereof, the petitioner submitted an
application dated 04.12.2009 before the Jaipur Development
Authority, Rajasthan, (hereinafter referred to as ‘JDA’) along with
the requisite development plan and maps seeking approval; and
the Jaipur Development Authority, vide its letter dated
13.01.2011, granted approval for development of a hotel on the
land bearing Khasra Nos. 54 to 56, which approval remained valid
till the year 2017. Successively, the petitioner applied for grant of
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16915] (6 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]
a temporary No Objection Certificate (hereinafter referred to as
‘NOC’) from the Fire Department for carrying out development
activities. The Jaipur Nagar Nigam, vide order dated 16.12.2010,
granted temporary Fire NOC subject to the terms and conditions
stipulated therein. Consecutively, the petitioner on 09.01.2017
applied for the Environmental Clearance, in terms of para 2 read
with para 6 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification,
2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘EIA’). Upon obtaining all requisite
permissions and approvals from the competent authorities, the
petitioner proceeded further with the development and
construction of the proposed hotel/tourism unit.
5. That as per the inspection conducted by the Fire
Department at the hotel premises and the records made available,
the construction of the hotel stood completed on 19.02.2019.
Thereafter, a site inspection was carried out by the Deputy
Conservator of Forests, Rajasthan, and the project was
recommended for grant of wildlife clearance vide report dated
04.03.2020. Pursuant thereto, the Rajasthan State Pollution
Control Board granted its consent to establish Kanha Hotels, and
subsequently accorded consent for operation of the said
establishment.
SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED AND CONTENTIONS PROFFERED
BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR AND ON
BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER HEREIN ARE AD-SERIATIM:
6. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. R.B. Mathur, assisted by
learned counsel Mr. Daksh Pareek, appearing on behalf of the
Petitioner, submitted that the present writ petition has been filed
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16915] (7 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]assailing the illegality, arbitrariness, and validity of the decision
embodied in Para 78.3.23 under the heading “Agenda Item No. 03
– Fresh Proposals falling Inside/Outside the Protected Area”, as
considered by the Standing Committee of the National Board for
Wildlife, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change
(Wildlife Division) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Standing
Committee’) in its meeting dated 22.02.2024. It was further
contended that, as per the minutes of the aforesaid meeting, the
Standing Committee has, vide communication dated 28.02.2024,
conveyed its decision to reject the grant of Wildlife Clearance to
the petitioner. The said rejection has been purportedly founded
upon the Notifications dated 14.09.2006 (EIA Notification –
making environment impact assessments envisaged projects
requiring environmental clearance), and 08.03.2019 (the ESZ
Notification – passed declaring the Nahargrah Sanctuary as Eco
Sensitive Zone and that as per Table-B Entry No. 1 – Hotels and
resorts fall under the regulated activities and that no construction
is henceforth permissible within 1 Km from the boundary of
protected area). Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the
impugned decision, as reflected in the said minutes and
consequential communication, is ex facie unsustainable in law,
being arbitrary, contrary to the settled principles governing grant
of wildlife clearance, and vitiated by non-application of mind,
inasmuch as it fails to duly consider the factual and legal position
governing the petitioner’s project.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted
that, in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16915] (8 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]
Notification, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘EIA
Notification’), and more particularly in accordance with Paras 2
and 6 thereof, the Petitioner had duly applied for grant of
Environmental Clearance on 09.01.2017. Thereafter, following the
rigorous procedure prescribed under Rule 7 of the EIA Notification,
and upon due appraisal and analysis by the competent authority,
namely the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee, Rajasthan, in
its meetings held on 01.03.2017 and 09.05.2017, Environmental
Clearance came to be granted in favour of the Petitioner vide
order dated 23.06.2017 (Annexure – 8).
8. It was further submitted that, subsequently, in the
backdrop of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in T.N. Godavarman Thirumilpad vs. Union of India, (2006)
5 SCC 25 and Goa Foundation vs. Union of India, (2011) 15
SCC 791, a draft Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) Notification was
published on 11.09.2017 inviting objections and suggestions from
stakeholders, culminating in the issuance of the final ESZ
Notification dated 08.03.2019 (Annexure-10). Learned counsel
further submitted that as per the said ESZ Notification read with
the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1986’) and the Wild Life
(Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of
1972’), the Central Government and competent authorities are
empowered to regulate, prohibit, or restrict establishment and
operation of industries in the vicinity of protected areas, including
sanctuaries, national parks, and eco-sensitive zones, by classifying
activities into different categories so as to strike a balance
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16915] (9 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]
between environmental protection and sustainable development.
Thus, the Central Government, while exercising its powers under
the Act of 1986, adopted the policy of Environmental Impact
Assessment and introduced the mandatory requirement of prior
Environmental Clearance vide Notification dated 14.09.2006,
further classifying projects into Category “A” and Category “B”.
9. It was further submitted that the Nahargarh Wildlife
Sanctuary (hereinafter referred to as ‘NWS’) was declared as an
eco-sensitive zone extending from 0 to 13 Kms from its boundary;
and as per para 2 of the ESZ Notification dated 08.03.2019, it was
categorically articulated that a Zonal Master Plan (ZMP) shall be
prepared in consultation with the concerned departments, and
that such plan shall not impose any restriction on already
approved existing land use, infrastructure, and activities unless
expressly provided in the Notification. Thus, making it in toto
unambiguous that the petitioner has strictly complied with all
applicable Notifications, including those dated 14.09.2006 and
08.03.2019, as well as the statutory framework under the Act of
1986 and other relevant enactments/statues. It was further
submitted that the ESZ framework classifies activities into
I) prohibited,
II) regulated, and
III) permissible/promoted categories,
and that establishment of hotels and resorts falls within the
category of regulated activities and not the prohibited category.
10. It was vehemently contended that the petitioner’s unit
falls within the category of an “Existing Unit” as defined under the
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16915] (10 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]
ESZ Notification dated 08.03.2019, and cannot, by any stretch of
imagination, be treated as a new commercial hotel, albeit the unit
is situated within 1 Km from the boundary of the protected area.
It was further submitted that the ESZ Notification dated
08.03.2019, read with the Zonal Master Plan for NWS (Annexure-
12), undisputedly stipulates that existing units, as specifically
defined therein, shall not be subjected to retrospective application
of new restrictions, conditions, or regulatory requirements,
particularly with respect to already approved land use,
infrastructure, and construction. Learned counsel emphasized that
the term “existing unit” has been defined in a specific and
exclusive manner under the Notification and has been reiterated in
the Zonal Master Plan, which was formulated after due
consideration by all concerned departments, including the Jaipur
Development Authority, Forest Department, Wildlife Authorities,
Revenue Department, and Local Bodies.
11. It was submitted that the Petitioner satisfies the criteria
of an existing unit, having obtained all requisite statutory
approvals prior to the coming into force of the ESZ Notification
dated 08.03.2019. These include approval from the Tourism
Department dated 24.12.2007, land conversion permission dated
17.03.1998, building plan approval from the Jaipur Development
Authority dated 14.12.2009, and Environmental Clearance dated
23.06.2017. It was further submitted that, in continuation thereof,
the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board granted Consent to
Establish and Consent to Operate vide orders dated 15.06.2020
and 26.11.2022 respectively (Annexures-13 and 14), and the Fire
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16915] (11 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]
Department also issued the requisite No Objection Certificate at
the relevant time. Hence, it can be drawn that the petitioner’s
unit squarely qualifies as an existing unit and cannot be classified
as a new unit under the ESZ Notification dated 08.03.2019.
12. Learned counsel further submitted that the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, vide order dated 03.06.2022 passed in Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 202/1995 titled as IN RE : T.N.
Godavarman Thirumulpad Versus Union Of India And Ors.,
has clarified the legal position regarding applicability of ESZ norms
vis-a-vis activities already undertaken within 1 kilometre of
protected areas, holding that activities not falling within the
prohibited category, as per Guidelines dated 09.02.2011, may be
permitted to continue subject to approval of the Chief Conservator
of Forests of the respective State. The relevant extract from the
order dated 03.06.2022 passed in T.N. Godavarman
Thirumulpad (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:
“56.5. In the event any activity is already being
undertaken within the one kilometer or extended buffer
zone (ESZ), as the case may be, of any wildlife
sanctuary or national park which does not come within
the ambit of prohibited activities as per the 9-2-2011
Guidelines, such activities may continue with permission
of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests of each
State or Union Territory and the person responsible for
such activities in such a situation shall obtain necessary
permission within a period of six months. Such
permission shall be given once the Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests is satisfied that the activities
concerned do not come within the prohibited list and
were continuing prior to passing of this order in a(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16915] (12 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]legitimate manner. No new permanent structure shall be
permitted to come up for whatsoever purpose within the
ESZ.”
13. In this backdrop, it was submitted that the Deputy
Conservator of Forests conducted a site inspection on 04.03.2020
and, upon due satisfaction, recommended the petitioner’s project
for grant of wildlife clearance, notwithstanding the fact that the
unit falls within the regulated zone of 1 Km from the ESZ of NWS.
In pursuance thereof, the State Board for Wildlife also granted its
clearance to the project of the petitioner vide order dated
26.08.2023.
14. However, the impugned decision of the Standing
Committee, as reflected in Para 78.3.23, has been passed in a
cryptic, non-speaking, and ex parte manner, based on an
erroneous understanding of facts and law. It was submitted that
the Standing Committee has wrongly treated the Petitioner’s
project as a “fresh proposal” for construction of a new hotel and
has, without proper consideration of the existing record,
approvals, and statutory framework, rejected the case by
mechanically and cryptically relying upon the Notification dated
08.03.2019. It was further submitted that neither any proper or
satisfactory analysis of the material on record was undertaken,
nor was any opportunity of hearing afforded to the Petitioner. It
was contended that, had such an opportunity been granted, the
Petitioner would have been able to demonstrate that the project is
an existing unit and does not fall within the category of fresh
proposals requiring prior approval of the Standing Committee.
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16915] (13 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]
15. In the aforesaid background, it was submitted that the
impugned order has been passed under circumstances where the
Petitioner’s fully operational hotel, in which substantial
investments running into crores of rupees have been made, land
has been duly acquired, employees have been engaged,
commercial collaborations have been entered into with the Taj
Group of Hotels, and bookings for marriages and accommodation
have been undertaken, is now under imminent threat of
demolition.
16. In support of the submissions made insofar, learned
counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance upon a catena of
judgments, inter alia, CCT V. Shukla & Bros.: (2010) 4 SCC
785, Syed Yakoob V. K.S. Radhakrishnan and Ors.: AIR
1964 SC 477, G. Veerappa Pillai V. Messrs Raman and
Raman Ltd. Kumbakonam, Tanjore District and ors.: (1952)
1 SCC 334, Sachidanand Pandey & Anr. V. State of West
Bengal & Ors.: (1987) 2 SCC 295 and Pahwa Plastics Private
Ltd. and anr. V. Dastak NGO and Ors.: (2023) 12 SCC 774.
In light of the aforesaid facts and submissions, it was pleaded that
the impugned decision of the Standing Committee, as
communicated vide letter dated 28.02.2024, is wholly arbitrary,
non-speaking, and unsustainable in law, having been passed
without due application of mind and in disregard of the material
on record, statutory framework, and binding judicial precedents.
The Petitioner’s project, being an “existing unit” duly established
after obtaining all requisite approvals prior to the issuance of the
ESZ Notification dated 08.03.2019, could not have been
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16915] (14 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]
erroneously treated as a fresh proposal requiring approval of the
Standing Committee. The impugned action, having been taken in
violation of principles of natural justice and settled legal position,
has resulted in grave prejudice to the Petitioner. Therefore, the
same is ought to be set aside and appropriate reliefs in favour of
the petitioner in the interest of justice, be ordered.
SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED AND CONTENTIONS PROFFERED
BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR AND ON
BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN ARE AD-SERIATIM:
17. Per contra, learned Additional Solicitor General Mr.
Bharat Vyas, appearing on behalf of the Respondent-Union of
India, learned Additional Advocate General Mr. B.S. Chhaba,
appearing for the Respondent-State, and learned counsel Mr. Amit
Kuri appearing for JDA, along with other learned counsel
representing the respective respondent departments, have raised
preliminary objections as well as advanced detailed submissions
seeking dismissal of the present writ petition.
18. It was contended at the outset that the present writ
petition is not maintainable inasmuch as it seeks to substitute the
opinion of an expert statutory body, namely the Standing
Committee of the National Board for Wildlife. It was submitted
that the Standing Committee comprises eminent ecologists,
conservationists, environmentalists, wildlife experts, and
representatives of the Central and State Governments, and
therefore, its decisions, being founded upon expert evaluation,
ought not to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its writ
jurisdiction. Whilst placing reliance upon the ratio encapsulated in
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16915] (15 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]M.K. Ranjitsinh V. Union of India: (2024) 19 SCC 139, it was
submitted that the writ court ought to exercise restraint and
should be slow in substituting its own opinion in place of that of
such an expert body.
19. It was further submitted that the National Board for
Wildlife (hereinafter referred to as ‘NBWL’) is a statutory body
whose constitution and functioning stand recognized by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the decisions taken by the NBWL and
its Standing Committee with respect to eco-sensitive zones are
final and binding in nature. In support of this proposition, reliance
was placed upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in M.K. Ranjitsinh (supra), and Goa Foundation vs.
Union of India: (2011) 15 SCC 791.
20. It was further contended that there exists uncertainty
regarding the exact location of the petitioner’s land, inasmuch as
there is a possibility that the same may fall within the boundaries
of the Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary (NWS) itself, and not merely
within the eco-sensitive zone, particularly in light of subsequent
developments. It was submitted that the order dated 09.01.2025
issued by the State of Rajasthan constitutes a committee for re-
defining the boundaries of the NWS and it is and admitted position
of fact that the land of the petitioner is approximately 90 mts.
away from the boundary of the Sanctuary. However, vide an
interim order dated 19.09.2025 passed in Public Interest
Litigation No. 14254/2025 titled Nahargarh Van Evam
Vanya Jeev Suraksha Evam Seva Samiti V. Union of India,
the said operation, as on date, is stayed.
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16915] (16 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]
21. Learned counsel further submitted that, in terms of the
EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006, it was mandatory for the
Petitioner to obtain prior Environmental Clearance from the State
Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) before
undertaking any construction activity for projects falling under
Categories “A” and “B”. It was contended that the petitioner has
admittedly undertaken construction exceeding 20,000 square
meters, thereby attracting the requirement of prior Environmental
Clearance. It was also pointed out that the first building
permission was obtained by the petitioner on 13.01.2011, which is
far late to the publication of EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006. It
was further submitted that the Environmental Clearance granted
to the Petitioner on 23.06.2017 was conditional in nature and
subject to strict compliance with stipulated terms and conditions.
In particular, reliance was placed upon General Condition No. 10 of
the said clearance, which mandated obtaining prior approval from
the Standing Committee of the NBWL, if applicable. It was
contended that, in the absence of such approval, any construction
activity undertaken by the petitioner was entirely at its own risk,
and any adverse consequences arising therefrom would not be
attributable to the Ministry of Environment and Forests.
22. It was thus argued that the Environmental Clearance
and other approvals obtained by the Petitioner are rendered void
ab initio on account of non-compliance with the mandatory
requirement of prior clearance from the Standing Committee of
the NBWL. It was further submitted that the Petitioner, despite
being aware of the said condition, proceeded to obtain building
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16915] (17 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]
approval from the Jaipur Development Authority and deliberately
botched to approach the Standing Committee at the relevant
stage, thereby committing a fundamental procedural lapse. It was
also contended that the petitioner commenced construction
activities in or around the year 2019, and only thereafter, on
30.09.2019, preferred an application before the Standing
Committee of the NBWL. It was submitted that such permission
was required to be obtained prior to commencement of any
construction activity, and therefore, the petitioner’s subsequent
application cannot cure the initial illegality. It was further argued
that the petitioner’s unit cannot be categorized as an “existing
unit” and must be treated as a “new unit”, particularly in view of
the Building Completion Certificate having been obtained only on
28.02.2023, thereby indicating that the project remained under
construction prior thereto.
23. Learned counsel further submitted that it is an admitted
position on record that no wildlife clearance or ‘No Objection
Certificate’ was obtained by the petitioner prior to commencement
of construction in the year 2019, and that the application for such
clearance was filed only on 03.09.2019, pursuant to the Gazette
Notification dated 08.03.2019, which made it mandatory for newly
constructed hotels and similar establishments to obtain prior
approval from the NBWL/Standing Committee. In support of the
said submission, learned counsel had placed reliance upon the
ratio encapsulated in Director of Treasuries V. Somyashree:
(2021) 12 SCC 20. It was also contended that the petitioner has
not approached this Court with clean hands and has suppressed
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16915] (18 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]and misrepresented material facts, as that there were deviations
from the approved building plan; that the permission granted by
the Jaipur Development Authority was valid only till 20.01.2018;
and that no valid approval existed thereafter for continued
construction.
24. It was further submitted that, despite directions to
obtain necessary NOCs from various departments, including the
Wildlife authorities, the petitioner proceeded sans securing
requisite approvals from the Screening/Standing Committee of the
Wildlife Board. Albeit, subsequent recommendations were made
by the Forest Department and Wildlife authorities, and a
completion certificate was issued on 28.02.2023, such approvals,
cannot be treated as valid in the eyes of law and are liable to be
treated as nullities.
25. It was further argued that the petitioner cannot be
classified as an existing project within the meaning of the relevant
Notifications, as the requirement of obtaining approvals from all
competent authorities, including clearance from the Wildlife Board,
as envisaged under Condition 10.4, was never fulfilled. Learned
counsel also emphasized that in matters concerning ecology and
environment, where the doctrine of public trust is applicable,
economic considerations or financial investments cannot override
environmental safeguards. It was reiterated that, in terms of
Condition No. 10 of the Environmental Clearance, any construction
undertaken without requisite wildlife clearance was entirely at the
risk and cost of the Petitioner.
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16915] (19 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]
26. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance was
placed upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter
alia, T.N. Godavarman vs. Union of India: (2022) 10 SCC
544, City and Industrial Development Corporation V. Dosu
Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala & Ors.: (2009) 1 SCC 168 and Tata
Housing Development Co. Ltd. vs. Alok Jagga, (2020) 15
SCC 784. In view of the foregoing submissions, learned counsel
for the respondents prayed that the present writ petition, being
devoid of merit and not maintainable, deserves to be dismissed
with exemplary costs.
OBSERVATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS RECORDED AND
THE RESULTANT FINDINGS ARRIVED AT THEREUPON ARE
AD-INFRA:
27. Having afforded a persistent hearing to the learned
counsel for the rival parties, upon a meticulous perusal of the
record and an appraisal of the judgments cited at the Bar, the
legal grounds necessitating deliberation for the purposes of final
adjudication, together with the salient facts germane thereto, are
set forth in the observations and findings ad-seriatim:
28. At the outset, it is deemed just and proper to address
the preliminary objection as raised by the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents with regard to maintainability of the
present writ petition, premised on the contention that this Court
ought not to substitute the opinion of an expert body, does not
commend acceptance in the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the present case. While it is trite that courts ordinarily exercise
restraint in interfering with decisions rendered by expert bodies,
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16915] (20 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]
particularly in matters concerning environmental and ecological
considerations, it is equally well-settled that such restraint is not
absolute. Where the decision-making process is vitiated by
arbitrariness, non-application of mind, violation of statutory
provisions, or breach of principles of natural justice, the
constitutional courts are not only empowered but duty-bound to
exercise judicial review. The doctrine of judicial deference cannot
be extended to the extent of sanctifying illegality. It can further be
noted that there is apparent violation of natural justice and
principle of audi alteram partem, nonetheless the impugned
findings have been passed in an ex parte manner, thus while
placing reliance upon the ratio encapsulated in Whirlpool
Corporation vs Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors.:
AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 22, it can be opined that the
existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to
entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 by a writ court. The
relevant extract from the relied upon ratio is reproduced
hereinbelow:
“15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High
Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a
discretion to entertain or not to entertain a Writ
Petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself
certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective
and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court
would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the
alternative remedy has been consistently held by
this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three
contingencies, namely, where the writ petition
has been filed for the enforcement of any of the
Fundamental Rights or where there has been a(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16915] (21 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]violation of the principle of natural justice or
where the order of proceedings are wholly
without jurisdiction or the virus of an Act is
challenged. There is a plethora of case-law on this
point put to cut down this circle of forensic Whirlpool,
we would rely on some old decisions of an evolutionary
ear of the constitutional law as they still hold the field.”
(Emphasis supplied)
29. In the present case, this Court finds that the impugned
decision of the Standing Committee, as reflected in Para 78.3.23
and communicated vide letter dated 28.02.2024, suffers from
manifest arbitrariness and is ex facie a non-speaking order, as the
said decision neither discloses any cogent reasoning, nor does it
reflect due consideration of the extensive material placed on
record by the petitioner, including prior statutory approvals,
environmental clearance dated 23.06.2017, and other permissions
granted by competent authorities from time to time. The attempt
to retrospectively apply the rigours of the Notification dated
08.03.2019 so as to invalidate an otherwise lawful and duly
sanctioned project cannot be countenanced in law, being violative
of the principle lex prospicit non respicit (meaning thereby that
the law looks forward, not backward). In support of the said
opinion reliance can be placed upon the ratio encapsulated in G.
Veerappa Pillai (supra), the relevant extract from which is
reproduced hereinbelow:
“26. Such writs as are referred to in Article 226 are
obviously intended to enable the High Court to
issue them in grave cases where the subordinate
tribunals or bodies or officers act wholly without
jurisdiction, or in excess of it, or in violation of the(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16915] (22 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]principles of natural justice, or refuse to exercise a
jurisdiction vested in them, or there is an error
apparent on the fact of the record, and such act,
omission, error, or excess has resulted in manifest
injustice.”
(Emphasis supplied)
30. In view of the aforesaid irregularities noted
hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
present case warrants exercise of its extraordinary writ
jurisdiction. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to examine and
adjudicate upon the issues arising in the present lis, and holds
that the instant writ petition is maintainable.
31. The observations noted henceforth, shall have a go at
the issues as to scope of judicial review over expert bodies;
whether and to what extent this court can exercise judicial review
over the decisions of the standing committee of the national board
for wildlife, and under what circumstances such interference is
warranted; nature of the petitioner’s project; whether the
petitioner’s hotel project qualifies as an “existing unit” or is liable
to be treated as a “new/fresh proposal” under the ESZ notification
dated 08.03.2019 and the applicable zonal master plan; whether
the ESZ notification dated 08.03.2019 is applicable retrospectively
to the petitioner’s project, and whether it can affect approvals and
permissions granted prior to its issuance; whether the petitioner
has complied with the conditions stipulated in the environmental
clearance dated 23.06.2017, particularly condition no. 10
requiring prior approval from the standing committee of NBWL;
whether prior approval from the standing committee of NBWL was
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16915] (23 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]
mandatory before commencement of construction, and if so, the
legal consequences of non-compliance by the petitioner; validity of
approvals granted to the petitioner; whether the impugned
decision dated 28.02.2024 suffers from violation of principles of
natural justice, particularly on account of being a non-speaking
order and passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner; whether the decision of the standing committee, as
reflected in para 78.3.23 and communicated vide letter dated
28.02.2024, is arbitrary, illegal, or suffers from non-application of
mind; what is the impact of subsequent developments, including
the order dated 09.01.2017 and any proposed modification of ESZ
boundaries, on the rights and liabilities of the petitioner, etc.
32. In view of the aforementioned, it is observed that the
Petitioner is a juristic entity, being a private limited company,
which was originally incorporated under the name M/s Exclusive
Exports Pvt. Ltd. and subsequently rechristened as Kanha Hotels
and Spa Pvt. Ltd. The Petitioner is presently operating a Five Star
Hotel situated at Village Chimanpura, Tehsil Amer, Jaipur,
Rajasthan. The said establishment is located on the main Jaipur-
Delhi National Highway, approximately 5 kilometres from the
centre of Jaipur, and is spread over a total land area admeasuring
approximately 19,600 square metres, with a constructed area of
about 41,500 square feet. It is further borne out from the record
that the Petitioner is operating the said Five Star Hotel in
collaboration with the Taj (Tata) Group of Hotels, under the Indian
Hotels Company Limited (IHCL). The hotel comprises
approximately 250 rooms, along with three restaurants having a
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16915] (24 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]
seating capacity of around 350 persons, an additional dining
facility accommodating approximately 70 persons, and a banquet
hall measuring about 20,000 square feet, which is utilized for
marriages, social functions, and conferences. The premises also
include ancillary service areas and provide parking facilities for
approximately 180 vehicles.
33. This Court further notes that as per the submissions
advanced and the material placed on record, the Petitioner has
employed approximately 350 individuals, and the annual turnover
of the establishment, as on date, is stated to be around Rs. 125
crores. It is also indicated that the Petitioner has secured bookings
from both national and international clientele extending over the
next two years, including high-profile events such as marriages
and conferences. The Petitioner is stated to be contributing
approximately Rs. 20 to Rs. 25 crores annually towards tax
revenues and is also carrying financial liabilities, both secured and
unsecured, to the extent of approximately Rs. 100 crores. It is
further observed that the petitioner has obtained various statutory
permissions and approvals from different competent authorities
over a considerable period of time. These include permissions
from the Tourism Department dated 31.03.1995 for establishment
of the hotel, conversion of land use from agricultural to industrial
purposes from the concerned Revenue authorities, building plan
approval from the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA), land use
change and allotment permissions, environmental clearance, as
well as consent to establish and operate from the Pollution Control
authorities. In addition, approvals from other departments such as
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16915] (25 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]
the Fire Department and Local Bodies were also obtained on
different dates, including 31.03.1995, 13.01.2017, and
15.06.2020.
34. The record further reflects that vide order dated
24.03.2007 (Annexure-4), the Tourism Department, Jaipur,
granted approval to the Petitioner’s project for establishment of a
Star Category Hotel under the New Hotel Policy, 2006, with the
objective of promoting tourism, encouraging investment, and
generating employment opportunities in the State. It is also noted
that vide allotment letters dated 31.03.1995 (Annexure-3), the
competent authorities accepted the requisite fees and granted
permission for conversion of the subject land from agricultural to
non-agricultural use, thereby enabling the Petitioner to proceed
with the intended project. Further, vide order dated 13.01.2011
(Annexure-6), the building plan submitted by the Petitioner was
duly approved by the Jaipur Development Authority after detailed
consideration of the site plan, maps, and blueprints in the
meetings of the Building Committee held on 22.03.2010,
02.08.2010, and 14.10.2010. The said approval remained valid till
December 2017 and was subsequently extended up to the year
2020. Ultimately, a completion certificate came to be issued by the
competent authority in the year 2023. It is also observed that
Environmental Clearance was granted to the Petitioner on
23.06.2017 (Annexure-8) under the EIA Notification, 2006, after
due appraisal and consideration of the project by the State Level
Expert Appraisal Committee, Rajasthan, in its meetings held on
01.03.2017 and 09.05.2017, along with their recommendations.
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16915] (26 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]
35. It is also observed that the State Level Expert Appraisal
Committee, Rajasthan, vide order dated 23.06.2017 (Annexure-
8), upon due consideration of the location of the project, its
details, estimated cost, water requirements, environmental
management plan, and the project report, and after recording its
observations thereon, proceeded to grant Environmental
Clearance in favour of the Petitioner. It is pertinent to note that,
vide the order dated 23.06.2017, certain terms and conditions
were imposed, including Condition No. 10, which forms a material
stipulation governing the grant of Environmental Clearance, as
reflected in the observations reproduced hereunder:
“The SEAC Rajasthan after due consideration of he
relevant documents submitted by the project proponent
and additional clarifications/documents furnished to it
have recommended for Environmental Clearance with
certain stipulations. The SEIAA Rajasthan after
considering the proposal and recommendations of the
SEAC Rajasthan hereby accord Environmental Clearance
to the project as per the provisions of Environmental
Impact Assessment Notification 2006 and its subsequent
amendments, subject to strict compliance of the terms
and conditions as follows:”
“10. The Environmental Clearance is subject to the
specific condition that PP shall obtain prior clearance
from forestry and wild life angle including clearance from
Standing Committee of the National Board Wild Life if
applicable. It is further categorically stated that grant
of EC does not imply that forestry and wild life clearance
shall be granted to the project and that their proposals
for forestry and wild life clearance will be considered by
the respective authorities on their merits and Decision(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16915] (27 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]taken. The investment made in the project, if any, based
on environment clearance so granted, in anticipation of
the clearance from forestry and wildlife angle shall be
entirely at the cost and risk of the project proponent and
Authority or Ministry of Environment & Forests shall not
be responsible in this regard in any manner.”
36. It is further observed that the Fire Department, under
the aegis and legal authority of the Nagar Nigam, has also issued
the requisite “No Objection Certificate” (NOC). Further, the
Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, vide its orders dated
15.06.2020 and 26.11.2022 (Annexures-13 and 14), granted
Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate, which remained
valid for the periods from 30.07.2018 to 30.06.2023 and from
25.11.2022 to 31.10.2027, respectively, after due consideration
of the applicable environmental laws relating to air, water, and
noise pollution. Further, upon a perusal of Annexure-16 it is
further revealed that a Site Inspection Report was prepared by
the Deputy Conservator of Forests (Wildlife), Zoo, Jaipur, wherein
the project of the Petitioner was duly inspected, and upon
recording observations therein, the same was recommended for
grant of wildlife clearance. The relevant extract of the said report
is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:
“Office of Deputy Conservator of Forest (Wild Life)
Zoo JaipurSite Inspection Report
(Kanha Hotels & Spa Pvt. Ltd. Main Jaipur Delhi Highway
Village Chimanpura, Teh. Amer, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.)On 04.03.2020 I have visited the site mentioned above
on 04.03.2020. This site is 97 mts far from the boundary(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16915] (28 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]of Nahargarh Sanctuary. The project site falls in Eco-
sensitive zone of Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary. This
project have no negative impact on sanctuary and
are do not falls in any corridor.
I recommended this project for wildlife clearance.
(Sudarshan Sharma)
Deputy Conservator of Forests
Wildlife (Zoo) Jaipur
XXXXXXX
Office of Deputy Conservator of Forest (Wild Life)
Zoo JaipurRecommendation
Kanha Hotels & Spa Pvt. Ltd. Main Jaipur Delhi Highway
Village Chimanpura, Teh. Amer, Distt. Jaipur Rajasthan
is 97 mts. far from the boundary of Nahargarh
Sanctuary. This project falls in notified Eco-Sensitive
zone of Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary. This project have
no negative impact on Sanctuary and area do not fall in
any corridor.
I recommend this project for wildlife clearance.
(Sudarshan Sharma)
Deputy Conservator of Forests
Wildlife (Zoo) Jaipur”
37. It is observed that vide approval order dated
28.02.2023, a Completion Certificate was issued in favour of the
Petitioner by the competent authority, certifying that the
construction of the building was in conformity with the applicable
laws and regulations of the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA).
The said certificate was granted without imposition of any penalty
or requirement of further clarification, and upon due compliance
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16915] (29 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]
with the Building Regulations, 2020, as well as all requisite
permissions, as reflected in affidavits dated 21.02.2024
(Annexures-R/7 and R/8). This Court further notes that, as per
Annexure-RR/5, being the Agenda of the 78th Meeting of the
Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife, the
Warden/competent authority of the Standing Committee had duly
taken into consideration the recommendations of the State Board
for Wildlife. It is borne out that in the 14th Meeting of the State
Board for Wildlife held in the year 2023, the case of the petitioner
was specifically examined, and the Chief Wildlife Warden, upon
due consideration, recorded a finding that no violation was made
out. The applicability of the Notifications dated 14.09.2006 and
08.03.2019, as well as the relevant judgments passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, were also duly taken into account while
making such recommendation. Subsequently, a Circular dated
26.09.2023 (Annexure-RR/6) was issued by the Joint Secretary,
Government of Rajasthan, Department of Forest, Environment &
Climate Change, wherein guidelines were laid down for
classification of units as “existing” or “new” in terms of the
Notifications of the years 2006 and 2019. The said Circular further
took into consideration the guidelines issued by the Government
of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change,
particularly with respect to eco-sensitive zones and categorization
of industrial and commercial activities therein, thereby providing
clarity on the regulatory framework governing such projects.
38. This Court further takes note of the Office
Memorandum dated 17.05.2022 (Annexure-19), issued by the
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16915] (30 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]
Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate
Change, concerning the grant of clearances for projects situated in
and around eco-sensitive zones. The said Office Memorandum
elucidates the requirement of obtaining permissions from various
authorities, including environmental, forest, and the National
Board for Wildlife, depending upon the nature, location, and
classification of the project. The same delineates, in a tabulated
form, the categories of projects and the corresponding approvals
required, thereby bringing greater clarity and uniformity in the
application of the statutory framework. The relevant table is
reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:
“Prescribed w.r.t. applicability of EC, FC, and WC in
ESZ/ESA and other ecologically significant areas
outside PA:
Clearance Project/Activity in Project/Activity Project/Activity
Category Notified ESZ outside PA outside PA in area
Around PA or in wherein ESZ is which is part of
notified ESA not notified or Tiger Reserve or
ESZ Notification is linking one PA or
at draft stage Tiger Reserve to
another PA or
Tiger Reserve
Environmental Project/Activity shall For Project/Activity For Project/Activity
Clearance (EC) be regulated and covered under the covered under the
governed by the Schedule of EIA Schedule of EIA
concerned ESZ/ESA Notification, 2006: Notification, 2006:
Notification. prior EC as per the prior EC as per the
Accordingly, prescribed prescribed
activities prohibited procedure is procedure is
under the ESZ/ESA mandatory, mandatory
Notification cannot anywhere outside anywhere outside
be undertaken. the PA. the PA.
Whereas for
regulated and other
activities in
ESZ/ESA
Notification covered
under the Schedule
of EIA Notification
2006: prior EC as
per the prescribed
procedure is
mandatory.
Forest Clearance Projects shall be Forest Clearance will Forest Clearance will
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16915] (31 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]
(FC) regulated and be required be required
governed by the anywhere outside anywhere outside
concerned ESZ/ESA the PA, only if forest the PA, only if forest
Notification. land is involved and land is involved and
Accordingly, proposed activity is proposed activity is
activities prohibited for non-foresty use, for non-foresty use,
under the ESZ as per provisions of as per provisions of
Notification cannot Forest Forest (Coversation)
be undertaken. (Conversation) Act, Act 1980 and Rules
Whereas, for 1980 and Rules and and guidelines made
regulated and other guidelines made there under,
activities; Forest there under, irrespective of the
Clearance will be irrespective of the notified
required, only if notified limits/default limits
forest land is limits/default limits of ESZ/ESA.
involved and of ESZ/ESA.
proposed activity is
for non-foresty use,
as per provisions of
Forest
(Conversation) Act,
1980 and Rules and
guidelines made
there under.
Consideration by Projects/activities Project/Activity Approval of
the National proposed to be covered under the NBWL/SCNBWL is
Board of Wild located within Schedule of EIA mandatory if the
Life/Standing notified ESZ/ESA Notification, 2006 project/activity is
Committee of the shall be regulated and located within proposed to be
National Board for and governed by the 10 km of National located in an area
Wild Life concerned ESZ Park of Sanctuary which forms part of
(NBWL/SCNBWL) Notification. shall require a Tiger Reserve or
Accordingly, consideration by the area linking one PA
activities prohibited NBWL/SCNBWL. or Tiger Reserve as
under the ESZ per section 380(1)
Notification shall not (g) of the Wild
be undertaken. Life(Protection Act,
Whereas, regulated 1972.
and other activites
proposed within
notified ESZ around
National Park or
Sanctuary shall
require
consideration by the
NBWL/SCNBWL, if
such activity is
covered under the
Schedule of EIA
Notification, 2006.
39. It is further observed that the Ministry of Environment,
Forest and Climate Change, vide Notification dated 14.11.2006
issued under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act,
1986, prescribed that any project or activity situated in and
around forest or sanctuary areas is required to be appraised by
the Environmental Impact Assessment Authority with respect to
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16915] (32 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]its environmental impact, in consonance with the National
Environmental Policy. The said Notification, inter alia, provided
that building construction projects having a built-up area
exceeding 20,000 square meters shall be governed by specified
terms and conditions and would mandatorily require
environmental appraisal and clearance. Subsequently, vide
Notification dated 08.03.2019 (Annexure-10), a final notification
was issued whereby, for the first time, the concept of Eco-
Sensitive Zone (ESZ) was delineated in respect of the boundary of
the NWLS, specifying the extent thereof. The said Notification
further mandated preparation of a Zonal Master Plan for the Eco-
Sensitive Zone within a period of two years from the date of its
publication, in consultation with local stakeholders and with the
involvement of as many as thirteen different departments of the
State Government. However, a plain reading of the said
Notification makes it abundantly clear that “existing units” were
specifically excluded from the rigours of the Notification, inasmuch
as the restrictions and regulatory measures introduced therein
were not intended to operate retrospectively so as to affect
already approved and existing land use and activities. The
relevant provisions of the said Notification are reproduced
hereinbelow for ready reference:
“MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST AND
CLIMATE CHANGE
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 8th March, 2019NOW THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred
by sub-section (1) and clauses (v) and (xiv) of sub-
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16915] (33 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]section (2) and sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986)
(hereafter in this modification referred to as the
Environment Act) read with sub-rule (3) of rule 5 of the
Environment(Protection) Rules, 1986 the Central
Government hereby notifies an area to an extent of
0( zero) to 13 kilometers around the boundary of
Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary, in Jaipur district of
Rajasthan as Eco-Sensitive Zone (hereafter in this
notification referred to as the Eco-Sensitive Zone) detail
of which are as under namely:
1. Extent and boundaries of Eco-Sensitive Zone. –
(1) The Eco-Sensitive Zone shall be to an extent of
0(zero) to 13 kilometers around the boundary of
Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary and the area of Eco-
Sensitive Zone is 79.356 square kilometers. Zero
extent is towards the sides with heavy urbanization.
(2) xxxxx
(3) xxxxx
(4) xxxxx
(5) xxxxx
2. Zonal Master Plan for Eco-Sensitive Zone.-(1)
The State Government shall, for the purpose of the Eco-
Sensitive Zone prepare a Zonal Master Plan within a
period of two years from the date of publication of this
notification in the Official Gazette, in consultation with
local people and adhering to the stipulations given in this
notification for approval of the Competent authority of
State.
(2) The Zonal Master Plan for the Eco-Sensitive Zone
shall be prepared by the State Government in such
manner as is specified in this notification and also in
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16915] (34 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]
consonance with the relevant Central and State laws and
the guidelines issued by the Central Government, if any.
(3) The Zonal Master Plan shall be prepared in
consultation with the following Departments of the State
Government, for integrating the ecological and
environmental considerations into the said plan:-
(i) Environment,
(ii) Forest,
(iii) Urban Development,
(iv) Tourism,
(v) Revenue,
(vi) Agriculture,
(vii) Rural Development,
(viii) Irrigation and Flood Control,
(ix) Municipal,
(x) Panchayati Raj,
(xi) Public Works Department, and
(xii) Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board.
(4) The Zonal Master Plan shall not impose any
restriction on the approved existing land use,
infrastructure and activities unless so specified in
this notification and the Zonal Master Plan shall
factor in improvement of all infrastructure and
activities to be more efficient and eco-friendly.
(5) xxxxx
(6) xxxxx
(7) xxxxx(8) The Zonal Master Plan shall be co-terminus
with the Regional Development Plan.
E. Tourism or Eco-Tourism- (a) All new eco-tourism
activities or expansion of existing tourism activities
within the Zone shall be as per the Tourism Master Plan
for the Eco-Sensitive Zone.
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16915] (35 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]
(b) The Eco-Tourism Master Plan shall be prepared by
the State Department of Tourism in the consultation with
State Departments of Environment and Forests.
(c) The Tourism Master Plan shall form a
component of the Zonal Master Plan.
(d) The activities of eco-tourism shall be regulated as
under namely :-
(i) new construction of hotels and resorts shall not be
allowed within one kilometer from the boundary of the
Wildlife Sancturary or upto the extent of the Eco-
Sensitive Zone whichever is nearer :
Provided that beyond the distance of one kilometer from
the boundary of the Wildlife Sanctuary till the extent of
the Eco-Sensitive Zone, the establishment of new hotels
and resorts shall be allowed only in pre-defined and
designated areas for eco-tourism facilities as per
Tourism Master Plan;
(ii) all new tourism activities or expansion of
existing tourism activities within the Eco-Sensitive
Zone shall be in accordance with the guidelines
issued by the Central Government in the Ministry
of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and
the eco-tourism guidelines issued by National
Tiger Conversation Authority(as amended from
time to time) with emphasis on eco-Tourism;
(iii) until the Zonal Master Plan is approved,
development for tourism and expansion of existing
tourism activities shall be permitted by the concerned
regulatory authorities based on the actual site specific
scrutiny and recommendation of the Monitoring
Committee and no new hotel, resort or commercial(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16915] (36 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]establishment construction shall be permitted within
Eco-Sensitive Zone area”
4. List of activities prohibited or to be regulated within
Eco-Sensitive Zone.- All activities in the Eco-Sensitive
Zone shall be governed by the provisions of the
Environment Act and the rules made there under
including the Coastal Regulation Zone, 2011 and the
Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006
and other applicable laws including the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980 (69 of 1980), the Indian Forest
Act, 1972, (53 of 1972), and amendments made thereto
and be regulated in the manner specified in the Table
below, namely:-
TABLE
S.No. Activity Description
(1) (2) (3)A. xxxxx
B. Regulated Activities
12. Commercial No new commercial hotels and
establishment of resorts shall be permitted within
hotels and resorts one kilometer of the boundary of
the protected area or upto the
extent of Eco-Sensitive Zone,
whichever is nearer, except for
small temporary structures for
eco-tourism activities:
Provided that, beyond one
kilometer from the boundary of
the protected area or upto the
extent of Eco-Sensitive Zone
which is nearer, all new tourist
activities or expansion of existing
activities shall be in conformity
with the Tourism Master Plan and(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16915] (37 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]guidelines as applicable.
13. Construction (a) New commercial construction
activities. of any kind shall not be permitted
within one kilometer from the
boundary of the protected area or
up to extent of the Eco-sensitive
Zone, whichever is nearer:
Provided that, local people shall
be permitted to undertake
construction in their land for their
use including the activities
mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) of
paragraph 3 as per building bye-
laws to meet the residential needs
of the local residents.
40. In pursuance of the Notification dated 08.03.2019, the
Zonal Master Plan for the Eco-Sensitive Zone of Nahargarh was
duly prepared and issued by the Respondent-JDA in coordination
and consultation with the Forest Department and in consultation
with other concerned departments. The said Zonal Master Plan, in
consonance with the aforesaid Notification, specifically delineates,
under Para 10.4, the classification and treatment of “existing
activities/uses” and “new hotel” projects, by providing distinct
definitions aligned with tourism-related activities, thereby
adopting a balanced and regulated approach. The relevant extract
thereof is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:
“10.4 Existing Activity/Use
ESZ Notification dated 08-03-2019 prescribed
regulations regarding new hotel, resort, commercial(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16915] (38 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]establishments, etc. This leads to the requirement of
defining what is “existing”.
For purpose of ZMP for the ESZ, hotels, resorts,
commercial establishments, etc. shall be
considered as existing if they have any of the
following issued prior to 08-03-2019 ESZ
Notification of Nahargarh :
1. Electricity connection for non-agricultural use.
2. Approval by Tourism Department as tourism unit.
3. Conversation order/Patta for non-agricultural use.
4. Building Plan approval.
5. Order regarding change in landuse.
6. Proof of deposition of tax as hotel, resort, commercial
establishments, etc.
7. CTE/CTO /Environment Clearance.
Additionally, all the duly approved uses existing
prior to issue of Nahargarh ESZ Notification shall
be honored. Further process will be done in
conformity with the development controls &
zoning regulation as per Zonal Master Plan of
ESZ.”
41. This Court further observed that in terms of the Office
Memorandum dated 08.08.2019 (Annexure-RR/2) issued by the
Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate
Change (IA Division), a detailed procedure was prescribed for
consideration of developmental projects situated within a radius of
10 kms. from National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries, while
seeking Environmental Clearance under the provisions of the
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006. It is
also discerned therefrom that prior approval of the Standing
Committee of the National Board for Wildlife is required in respect
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16915] (39 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]
of developmental projects falling within the aforesaid 10 Kms
radius of the Eco-Sensitive Zone. The relevant extract of the said
Office Memorandum dated 08.08.2019 is reproduced hereinbelow
for ready reference:
“4. In light of the aforesaid Orders passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, the issues related to the prior
clearance from SCNBWL for the notified ESZs and the
remaining areas have been examined in detail, in this
regard, it has been decided by the Competent Authority
in the Ministry to adopt a following procedure for
consideration of developmental projects located within
10 km of National Park/Wildlife Sanctuary seeking
environmental clearance under the provisions of the EIA
Notification in supersession of the ealier O.M. s dated
27.2.2007 and 2.12.2009:
i. Proposals involving developmental activity/project
located within by the notified Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZ)
shall be regulated and governed by the concerned ESZ
notification. However, for the developmental Schedule of
the EIA notification. However, for the developmental
project/activity located within the notified ESZ and
covered under the schedule of the EIA Notification 2006,
prior clearance from Standing Committee of the National
Board for Wildlife (SCNBWL) is mandatory. In such
cases, the project proponent shall submit the application
simultaneously for grant of Terms of Reference as wells
as wildlife clearance.
ii. Proposals involving developmental activity/
project located outside the stipulated boundary
limit of notified ESZ and located within 10 km of
National Park/Wildlife Sanctuary, prior clearance
from Standing Committee of the National Board for(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16915] (40 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]Wildlife (SCNBWL) may not be applicable.
However, such proposals from environmental
angle including impact of developmental
activity/project on the wildlife habitat, if any,
would be examined by the sector specific Expert
Appraisal Committee and appropriate conversation
measures in the form of recommendations shall be
made. These recommendations shall be explicity
mentioned in the environmental clearance letter
and shall be ensured by the member secretary
concerned.
iii. Proposals involving developmental activity/project
located within 10 km of National Park/Wildlife Sanctuary
wherein final ESZ notification is not notified (or) ESZ
notification is in draft stage, prior clearance from
Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife
(SCBNWL) is mandatory. In such cases, the project
proponent shall submit the application simultaneously
for grant of Terms, of Reference/ environmental
clearance as well as wildlife clearance.
iv. Proposals involving mining of minerals within the
ESZ (or) one kilometer from the boundaries of National
Parks and Sanctuaries whichever is higher is prohibited
in accordance with the order of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court dated 4.08.2006 in the matter of T.N.
Godavarman Thirmulpad Vs. UOI in W.P. (C) No. 202 of
1995 and dated 21.4.2014 in the matter of Goa
Foundation Vs. UOI in W.P. (C) No. 435 of 2012.”
42. Thus upon a bare perusal of the aforesaid Office
Memorandum, it is opined that the projects situated within the
Eco-Sensitive Zones are made subject to regulatory control and
mandatorily require prior clearance from the Standing Committee
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16915] (41 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]
of the National Board for Wildlife (SCNBWL). However, it is equally
evident from Clause (ii) thereof that in cases where a project is
located outside the demarcated boundaries of the notified Eco-
Sensitive Zone, though within a radial distance of 10 Kms. from a
National Park or Wildlife Sanctuary, the requirement of obtaining
prior clearance from the Standing Committee of the National
Board for Wildlife shall not be applicable.
42. Upon a comprehensive consideration of the aforesaid
facts, the material placed on record, and in light of the issues
enumerated in paragraph no. 31 of this judgment for adjudication,
this Court records its findings as under:
42.1 That it is an admitted and undisputed position that the
Petitioner commenced the process of obtaining requisite statutory
permissions for establishment of a Star Category Hotel as early as
the year 1995, and has since acted in furtherance thereof in a
continuous and bona fide manner. In terms of the Notification
dated 14.11.2006, read conjointly with the Office Memorandum
dated 08.08.2019, it is manifest that developmental projects
situated outside the demarcated boundaries of a notified Eco-
Sensitive Zone, albeit within a radius of 10 kilometers from a
National Park or Wildlife Sanctuary, do not attract the requirement
of prior clearance from the SCNBWL. Consequently, the said
stipulation is not applicable to the case of the present Petitioner.
42.2 That the Notification dated 08.03.2019 distinctly
classifies activities into “prohibited”, “regulated”, and
“promotional” categories. The hotel project of the petitioner, by its
very nature and in view of the approvals granted, falls within the
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16915] (42 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]
ambit of “regulated activity”. The said Notification further
mandates preparation of a Zonal Master Plan for Eco-Sensitive
Zones, to be formulated with the approval of the competent State
authority in consultation with as many as thirteen concerned
departments, including but not limited to the Environment, Forest,
Tourism, and Local Bodies Departments. The object of such a
coordinated framework is to ensure infrastructural development
and ecological balance, without disturbing or imposing restrictions
upon already approved and existing land-use and infrastructural
developments. The Zonal Master Plan is further intended to
operate in harmony with the Regional/Tourism Development Plans,
thereby ensuring a balanced approach towards eco-tourism and
sustainable development.
42.3 That as per the Notification dated 08.03.2019, only new
constructions of hotels and resorts located within a distance of 1
Km from the boundary of a Wildlife Sanctuary are expressly
prohibited. The Zonal Master Plan, issued subsequently in the year
2023, in terms of Para 10.4, provides a categorical definition of
“existing units”. As per the said provision, any hotel or resort
which had obtained requisite approvals prior to the issuance of the
Notification dated 08.03.2019 is to be treated as an “existing
unit”. In the present case, the Petitioner had already secured
multiple statutory approvals, including those relating to electricity,
tourism, land use conversion, building plan sanction, and
environmental clearance, prior to the cut-off date. Therefore, the
Petitioner squarely falls within the definition of an “existing unit”,
and its vested rights cannot be divested or impaired, in
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16915] (43 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]
consonance with the settled principles of certainty, legitimate
expectation, and continuity in administrative action.
43.4 That qua the contention advanced by the learned
Additional Solicitor General, Mr. Bharat Vyas, with respect to the
Environmental Clearance dated 23.06.2007 being subject to prior
approval of the Standing Committee of the National Board for
Wildlife, is concerned, this Court finds that a holistic reading of the
said clearance, particularly Para 10 thereof, makes it evident that
such requirement is conditional and would arise only where “the
same is otherwise applicable in law”. In view of Para 10.4 of the
Notification dated 08.03.2019, read with the Office Memorandum
dated 08.08.2019, the Petitioner qualifies as an “existing unit”,
situated outside the Eco-Sensitive Zone, though within 10 Kms of
the sanctuary boundary. Hence, the requirement of obtaining prior
clearance from the SCNBWL does not arise in the facts of the
present case. Consequently, the permissions and approvals
granted by the competent authorities in favour of the Petitioner
cannot be held to be void or without jurisdiction, but rather stand
validly issued in accordance with law.
43.5 That from the record it is noted that the State Forest
Authority, upon due inspection and verification of the project site,
recommended the case of the Petitioner to the competent
Screening Committee. In light of the Notification dated
08.03.2019 and the provisions of the Zonal Master Plan, such
recommendation, having been made upon due application of mind
and in accordance with the prescribed procedure, ought to have
been duly considered and approved by the concerned authorities.
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16915] (44 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]
43.6 This Court further observes that, upon a bare perusal of
Para 78.3.23 of the impugned findings recorded by the Standing
Committee, it becomes evident that the Standing Committee,
while dealing with more than 33 fresh proposals across four
different agenda items, failed to undertake a proper and case-
specific analysis of the material facts pertaining to the Petitioner’s
project. It is discernible that the proposal placed before the
Standing Committee was in relation to the construction of a hotel
in proximity to the Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary. However, the
record unequivocally reflects that the competent State Wildlife
Authority had after due consideration and inspection, positively
recommended the Petitioner’s proposal. Despite the same, the
Standing Committee appears to have proceeded without
adequately appreciating the factual matrix and the favourable
recommendation of the State authorities, thereby rendering its
consideration perfunctory and lacking in due application of mind.
The relevant extract from the impugned findings made by the
Standing Committee is reproduced hereinbelow:
“78.3.23. Proposal for construction of Kanha
Hotels and Spa Pvt. Ltd. Over an area of 0.0845 ha at
Khasra No. 54,55 village Chimanpura Tehsil Amer Dist
Jaipur, Rajasthan 95 mts from the boundary of
Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary.
FP/RJ/Others/4553/2019
The Standing Committee was informed that the
proposal is for construction of Kanha Hotels and
Spa Pvt. Ltd. Over an area of 0.0845 ha at Khasra No.
54,55 and 56 village Chimanpura Tehsil Amer Dist(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16915] (45 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]Jaipur, Rajasthan 95 mts from the boundary of
Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary.
The proposal has been recommended by Chief
Wild Life Warden, the State Board for Wild Life
and the State Government.
The ESZ of the Nahargarh Sanctuary has been finally
notified and as per the notification, no new
commercial hotels and resorts shall be
permitted within one kilometer of the boundary
of the protected area upto the extent of Eco-
sensitive zone, whichever is nearer, except for
small temporary structures for Eco- tourism activities
and new commercial construction of any kind shall not
be permitted within one kilometer from the boundary
of the protected area or upto extent of the Eco-
sensitive Zone whichever is nearer.
Decision Taken: After discussion, the Standing
Committee decided not to recommend the project
proposal.”
43.7 In light of the above, this Court is of the opinion that
the Standing Committee has committed a manifest error in
considering the proposal, as stated above, in an ex-parte manner
because the petitioner’s case was of an “existing unit”, which was
already operational. The specific words used by the Standing
Committee, like, “proposal for construction”, “new hotel”, “shall be
permitted in eco-sensitive zone” signifies the facts that they were
under the impression that proposal was for setting-up of a new
hotel; howsoever, as per the records and after attaining different
permissions, inter alia, the JDA Completion Certificate, zonal
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16915] (46 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]
master plan and the fact that the construction of the petitioner’s
unit was already completed, way back, the said unit qualifies as an
“existing unit” and is therefore, not required to have any
permission from the Standing Committee or Wild Life Board. The
fact could have been otherwise if opportunity of hearing would
have been granted to the petitioner. The Standing Committee has
committed a manifest error in law as well as on facts by
erroneously classifying the Petitioner’s project as a “new
commercial hotel”, instead of recognizing it as an “existing unit”. It
has further drawn an incorrect inference that, as on 22.12.2024,
the Petitioner was required to obtain permission for construction
as a “new unit”. Such a conclusion is ex facie contrary to the
statutory framework, inasmuch as, in terms of Para 10.4 of the
Notification dated 08.03.2019 read with the Zonal Master Plan, the
Petitioner squarely qualifies as an “existing unit”, and therefore,
no prior approval of the Standing Committee was required.
44. Having addressed the issues in light of the detailed
factual matrix and the attendant intricacies of the matter at hand,
this Court now deems it apposite to draw guidance from the
authoritative pronouncements rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India as follows:
44.1 It is a settled proposition of law that any administrative
decision, particularly one which departs from or rejects a
recommendation duly accorded by competent State Authorities,
must adhere to the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and due
process, which are the foundational tenets of the rule of law. Any
decision rendered in contravention of such principles cannot be
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16915] (47 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]said to be immune from judicial review. In the present case, this
Court finds that there is an apparent failure of due application of
mind on the part of the Standing Committee while recording the
impugned findings, thereby rendering the decision vulnerable to
interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. In support of the said
stance, reliance can be placed upon the ratio encapsulated in
Syed Yakoob (supra) the relevant extract of which is
reproduced hereinbelow:
“8. It is, of course, not easy to define or adequately
describe what an error of law apparent on the face of
the record means. What can be corrected by a writ has
to be an error of law; hut it must be such an error of
law as can be regarded as one which is apparent on the
face of the record. Where it is manifest or clear that
the conclusion of law recorded by an inferior
Court or Tribunal is based on an obvious
misinterpretation of the relevant statutory
provision, or sometimes in ignorance of it, or may
be, even in disregard of it, or is expressly
founded on reasons which are wrong in law, the
said conclusion can be corrected by a writ of
certiorari. In all these cases, the impugned
conclusion should be so plainly inconsistent with
the relevant statutory provision that no difficulty
is experienced by the High Court in holding that
the said error of law is apparent on the face of
the record. It may also be that in some cases, the
impugned error of law may not be obvious or patent on
the face of the record as such as the Court may need
an argument to discover the said error; but there can
be no doubt that what can be corrected by a writ of
certiorari is an error of law and the said error must, on
the whole, be of such a character as would satisfy the(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16915] (48 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]test that it is an error of law apparent on the face of
the record. If a statutory provision is reasonably
capable of two constructions and one construction has
been adopted by the inferior Court or Tribunal, its
conclusion may not necessarily or always be open to
correction by a writ of certiorari. In our opinion, it is
neither possible nor desirable to attempt either to
define or to describe adequately all cases of errors
which can be appropriately described as errors of law
apparent on the face of the record. Whether or not an
impugned error is an error of law and an error of law
which is apparent on the face of the record, must
always depend upon the facts and circumstances of
each case and upon the nature and scope of the legal
provision which is alleged to have been misconstrued
or contravened.”
(Emphasis supplied)
44.2 Further, reliance can be placed upon the ratio
enunciated in CCT (supra), relevant extract from which is
reproduced hereinbelow:
“14. The principle of natural justice has twin
ingredients; firstly, the person who is likely to be
adversely affected by the action of the authorities
should be given notice to show cause thereof and
granted an opportunity of hearing and secondly,
the orders so passed by the authorities should
give reason for arriving at any conclusion
showing proper application of mind. Violation of
either of them could in the given facts and
circumstances of the case, vitiate the order itself. Such
rule being applicable to the administrative authorities
certainty requires that the judgment of the Court
should meet with this requirement with higher degree
of satisfaction. The order of an administrative(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16915] (49 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]authority may not provide reasons like a
judgment but the order must be supported by the
reasons of rationality. The distinction between
passing of an order by an administrative or quasi-
judicial authority has practically extinguished and both
are required to pass reasoned orders.”
(Emphasis supplied)
PARTING OBSERVATIONS, FINAL DETERMINATION, AND
OPERATIVE DIRECTIVES:
45. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is
persuaded to allow the present writ petition for the following,
amongst other, compelling reasons emerging from the record, as
that the Petitioner has, since the year 1995, acted bona fide and
in a continuous manner, obtaining all requisite statutory approvals
from the competent authorities for establishment and operation of
the hotel project, including land conversion, tourism approvals,
building plan sanction, environmental clearance, and consents
from pollution control and fire authorities; that the project in
question stands duly completed, with construction having been
finalized, followed by issuance of completion certificate and all
operational permissions, thereby conferring upon the Petitioner a
vested and crystallized right in respect of the project; that in
terms of the Notification dated 08.03.2019 read with the Zonal
Master Plan (Para 10.4), the Petitioner’s project unequivocally
qualifies as an “existing unit”, having secured requisite approvals
prior to the cut-off date, and therefore is not subject to the rigours
applicable to new constructions; that the Memorandum dated
08.08.2019 clearly stipulates that projects situated outside the
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16915] (50 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]
notified Eco-Sensitive Zone, though within a radius of 10 Kms, do
not require prior approval of the Standing Committee of the
National Board for Wildlife, thereby rendering the objection raised
in the impugned findings unsustainable; that the competent State
Wildlife Authorities, after due inspection and verification, have
positively recommended the Petitioner’s project, which
recommendation has not been accorded due consideration by the
Standing Committee; that the Standing Committee has proceeded
on an erroneous factual and legal premise by misclassifying the
Petitioner’s project as a “new unit”, and has failed to appreciate
the applicable statutory framework, thereby vitiating its decision
on account of non-application of mind; that the impugned findings
have been rendered in violation of the principles of natural justice,
particularly audi alteram partem, as no effective opportunity of
hearing was afforded to the Petitioner; that the decision-making
process adopted by the Standing Committee is arbitrary, suffers
from procedural impropriety, and is contrary to the settled
principles of administrative law, thereby attracting the writ
jurisdiction of this Court.
46. Thence, upon due analysis of facts, and the settled
position of law, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
impugned findings/decision dated 28.02.2024, as contained in
Para 78.3.23 under Agenda Item No. 03 of the minutes of the
78th meeting dated 22.02.2024, cannot be sustained in the eyes
of law, being arbitrary, legally untenable, and violative of the
principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the present writ petition
deserves to be and is hereby allowed, with the following direction
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16915] (51 of 51) [CW-5863/2024]
that the impugned findings/decision dated 28.02.2024, to the
extent and as reflected in Para 78.3.23 of the minutes of the 78th
meeting dated 22.02.2024, are hereby quashed and set aside, in
terms of the prayer, asked for by the petitioner in the writ petition
in toto.
48. No orders are passed as to costs. Pending applications,
if any, stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
Preeti Asopa
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:13:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:37:36 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)