Supreme Court Upholds Environmental Protection: Odisha Stone Quarries Must Comply with Wildlife Conservation Plan

The case of Binay Kumar Dalei & Ors. vs. State of Odisha & Ors. is a significant ruling regarding environmental conservation and industrial operations near protected wildlife zones. The Supreme Court’s verdict highlights the importance of balancing economic activities with ecological protection.

The appeal was filed by leaseholders of stone quarries against the National Green Tribunal (NGT) order restricting mining operations near the Similipal-Hadgarh-Kuldiha Elephant Corridor. The Supreme Court upheld the NGT’s directive, mandating strict compliance with environmental regulations before permitting further mining activities.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose when the NGO Rural Organisation for Social Empowerment filed an application before the NGT, seeking cancellation of stone quarry leases near the Kuldiha Wildlife Sanctuary. The applicants argued that the quarries were located in an eco-sensitive zone and posed a serious threat to the elephant corridor.

The key legal issues included:

The impact of stone quarrying on wildlife movement.
The requirement for environmental clearance under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
The validity of leases granted after the notification of the Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ).
The necessity of implementing a Comprehensive Wildlife Management Plan before commencing mining operations.

Arguments Presented by the Petitioners

The petitioners, who were leaseholders of stone quarries, contended:

They had legally obtained quarry leases and environmental clearances.
Their quarries were outside the officially notified eco-sensitive zone.
The NGT order was passed without granting them an opportunity to present their case.
The State of Odisha had already submitted a proposal to regulate mining while ensuring wildlife protection.
The stone quarries provided employment and economic benefits to local communities.

Arguments Presented by the Respondents

The State of Odisha and environmental activists opposed the mining operations, arguing that:

The quarrying activities posed a direct threat to the movement of elephants.
Several quarries were found to have encroached upon the eco-sensitive zone.
The Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) had mandated a mitigation plan before permitting mining operations.
Unregulated mining had caused land degradation, deforestation, and disturbances to the local ecosystem.
The State was in the process of declaring the Similipal-Hadgarh-Kuldiha Elephant Corridor as a conservation reserve.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Verdict

The Supreme Court carefully examined the legality of the NGT’s order and the environmental concerns raised. The Court made the following key observations:

The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 mandates conservation of natural habitats and prohibits activities that endanger wildlife corridors.
The State had an obligation under Section 36A of the Act to declare areas adjoining national parks and sanctuaries as conservation reserves.
Mining operations cannot take place within or near an eco-sensitive zone unless strict environmental safeguards are implemented.
The petitioners had not presented sufficient evidence to prove that their quarries were fully compliant with environmental regulations.

In light of these findings, the Supreme Court ruled:

The appeals filed by the quarry leaseholders were dismissed.
The NGT’s order to restrict mining in the eco-sensitive zone was upheld.
The State of Odisha was directed to implement the Comprehensive Wildlife Management Plan before allowing further mining operations.
The declaration of the Similipal-Hadgarh-Kuldiha Elephant Corridor as a conservation reserve must be expedited.

Legal Precedents Considered

The Supreme Court referred to multiple cases that emphasized the importance of wildlife conservation:

Hospitality Association of Mudumalai v. In Defence of Environment and Animals (2020): Upheld the restriction of commercial activities in elephant corridors.
Goa Foundation v. Union of India (2014): Reinforced the need to regulate mining near ecologically sensitive areas.
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1996): Defined the judicial role in ensuring environmental protection.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for environmental governance and industrial operations:

It reinforces the State’s responsibility to regulate commercial activities near protected wildlife zones.
It establishes a precedent for stricter environmental compliance in granting mining leases.
It ensures that industrial activities do not endanger elephant corridors and other critical habitats.
It mandates that environmental safeguards must be implemented before granting mining approvals.

By upholding the NGT’s ruling, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the need for sustainable development while ensuring the protection of India’s rich biodiversity.

Petitioner Name: Binay Kumar Dalei & Ors..
Respondent Name: State of Odisha & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice B.R. Gavai.
Place Of Incident: Odisha.
Judgment Date: 02-03-2022.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: binay-kumar-dalei-&-vs-state-of-odisha-&-or-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-02-03-2022.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Environmental Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by L. Nageswara Rao
See all petitions in Judgment by B R Gavai
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in Stayed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments March 2022
See all petitions in 2022 judgments

See all posts in Environmental Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Environmental Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Environmental Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Environmental Cases Category