ABHISHEK vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
WP No. 2481 of 2025


TH
RESERVED ON 10 JULY 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 7 DAY OF AUGUST, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

WRIT PETITION NO. 2481 OF 2025 (GM-MM-S)

BETWEEN:

1. ABHISHEK
S/O SHUBASH KANKONKAR
AGE: 25 YEARS
OCC: BUSINESS
R/O: HP NO.17, RAMNAGAR
TAL: JOIDA, DIST: KARWAR (U.K.) - 581 453
…PETITIONER







(BY SRI ABHIJEET S. KANKONKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHAN SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001

2. THE SECRETARY OF GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND
INDUSTRIES
VIKAS SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001

3. THE DIRECTOR AND COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY


Digitally
signed by
SRIDEVI S
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka

- 2 -
WP No. 2481 of 2025


KHANIJ BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001

4. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
KARNATAKA FOREST DEPARTMENT
ARANYABHAVAN
TH
18 CROSS, MALLESHWARAM
BANGALORE - 560 003

5. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST
ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
VIDHAN SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001

6.
DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
HALLIYAL DIVISION
HALLIYAL - 581 329

7. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST
DEPT. OF MINES GEOLOGY
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA - 581 301

8. MOEF&CC
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT FOREST AND
CLIMATE CHANGE
KORMANGALA BANGALORE

9. THE DIRECTOR
KALI TIGER RESERVE
DANDELLI - 590 001
…RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-9)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH OR
SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 05/01/2023

- 3 -
WP No. 2481 of 2025


BEARING NO.D1/GFL/CR-10/2022-23/3993, PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.6 WHICH IS
BASED ON THE NON EXISTING CONCEPT OF 10.KM DEFAULT ESZ
AROUND KTR WHICH IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE LIST NOTIFIED BY
THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN ORDER DATED 11/12/2018 IN I.A.
NO.1000 IN W.P. NO.(CIVIL) 202/1995. ESPECIALLY IN LIGHTS OF
SETTLED POSITION OF LAW AND LAND MARK DECISION
DELIVERED BY HON'BLE APEX COURT IN GOA FOUNDATION
CASE REPORTED IN 2014 (6) SXX 590 AND CONSEQUENT ORDER
DATED 13/01/2021 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN BUSHAN
ENTERPRISE CASE AT W.P.NO.15654/2020 AND CONTRARY TO
GUIDELINES OF T.N. GODAVARMAN JUDGEMENT IN W.P.
NO.202/1995 DATED 03/06/2022 AND 26/03/2023 PRODUCED
RESPECTIVELY AT ANNEXURE-F,G,H,J AND K & ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

C.A.V. JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an
endorsement dated 05.01.2023 [ impugned endorsement ] issued
by respondent No.6 - the Deputy Conservator of Forest [ DCF ],
declining to issue a ‘No Objection Certificate [ NOC ] for grant of

- 4 -
WP No. 2481 of 2025


quarrying lease for clay over an area measuring one acre, out of
the lands falling in Sy.No.243/122, Plot No. 485 of Ramnagar
(Akrali) Village, Joida Taluk, Uttara Kannada District. The
petitioner’s request for the quarrying lease was rejected on the
ground that the subject land is at a distance of 9.5 kms. from the
Kali Protected Area and therefore quarrying was not permissible.
The impugned endorsement also states that the ecosystem for the
Kali Protected Area is to be recognised as an Eco Sensitive Zone
[ ESZ ] and therefore permission for commercial mining cannot be
granted.
2. The impugned endorsement was issued on the premise that
the area within 10 kms. of the boundary of the Kali Tiger Reserve
[ the KTR ] constitutes its ESZ, and, therefore, commercial mining
within that zone is impermissible. The petitioner challenges the
premise that an area of width 10 kms. surrounding the boundary of
the KTR is an ESZ, where mining is proscribed.
3. The respondents filed a statement of objections supporting
the stand that no commercial mining is permissible within the zone
of 10 kms. from the boundaries of KTR, pending final declaration
of the ESZ of the said Reserve.

- 5 -
WP No. 2481 of 2025


4. In view of the above, the only question to be addressed is
whether the ESZ of KTR extends to a distance of 10 kms. from the
boundaries of KTR and whether commercial mining is prohibited
within the said zone.
5. Ms. Akbar, the learned Additional Government Advocate,
referred to the guidelines dated 09.02.2011 issued by the Ministry
of Environment and, Forests (now the Ministry of Environment,
Forest and Climate Change), Government of India [ MoEF ]. The
said guidelines, inter alia , provide that “The width of the Eco-
sensitive Zone and type of regulations will differ from Protected
Area to Protected Area. However, as a general principle the width
of the Eco-sensitive Zone could go up to 10 kms. around a
Protected Area as provided in the Wildlife Conservation Strategy
2002”.
6. The respondents also referred to the judgment dated
03.06.2022 passed by the Supreme Court in I.A. 1000/2003 and
other connected applications in WP.No.(C) 202 of 1995. titled In
1
Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v Union of India & Ors ,
[Godavarman-I] , wherein the Supreme Court, inter alia , directed
as under:

1
(2022) 10 SCC 544

- 6 -
WP No. 2481 of 2025


"56.8 In respect of sanctuaries or national parks
for which the proposal of a State or Union Territory
has not been given, the 10 kilo-meters buffer zone
as ESZ, as indicated in the order passed by this
Court on 4th December 2006 in the case of Goa
Foundation (supra) and also contained in the
Guidelines of 9th February 2011 shall be
implemented. Within that area, the entire set of
restrictions concerning an ESZ shall operate till a
2
final decision in that regard is arrived at."

7. In addition to the aforesaid directions, the respondents also
relied on the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the
subsequent judgment dated 26.04.2023 passed in various interim
applications in the same proceedings - In Re: T.N. Godavarman
3
Thirumulpad v Union of India [Godavarman-II] - whereby it
was directed as under:.
" 61. We are therefore inclined to allow the present
I.A. The direction in paragraph 56.1 of the order
dated 3rd June 2022 (supra) is modified and
clarified that the directions contained therein would
not be applicable to the ESZs in respect of which a
draft and final notification has been issued by the
MoEF & CC and in respect of the proposals which
have been received by the Ministry.
*
"66. We also modify the directions contained in
paragraph 56.5 of the order dated 3rd June 2022
(supra) and replace the same as under:
"(i) The MoEF & CC and all the State/Union
Territory Governments shall strictly follow the
provisions in the said Guidelines dated 9th

2
Numbered as sub-paragraph (h) of paragraph 44 of the order dated 03.06.2022 as uploaded
on the Supreme Court’s website.
3
2023 SCC OnLine SC 504

- 7 -
WP No. 2481 of 2025


February 2011 and so also the provisions
contained in the ESZs notifications pertaining to
the respective Protected Areas with regard to
prohibited activities, regulated activities and
permissible activities;
(ii) We further direct that while granting
Environmental and Forest Clearances for project
activities in ESZ and other areas outside the
Protected Areas, the Union of India as well as
various State/Union Territory Governments shall
strictly follow the provisions contained in the Office
Memorandum dated 17th May 2022 issued by
MoEF & CC."

8. It is also relevant to note that pursuant to the
recommendations made by the Deputy Conservator Forests (Kali
Tiger Reserve), the State Government had forwarded a proposal
for establishment of ESZ for KTR to the Central Government.
Pursuant thereto, the Central Government published a draft
notification [S.O. 3369(E)] on 02.11.2016, inviting objections and
suggestions from the public to the proposal of notifying an area of
7 kms. around the boundary of the Dandeli -Anshi Tiger Reserve
as “the Dandeli-Anshi Tiger Reserve Eco-Sensitive Zone”. It is
stated that the said notification has not been approved as yet and,
therefore, till its approval, a zone of 10 kms. from the boundaries
of KTR is required to be considered as ESZ of KTR.
9. The issue whether there is a ‘default Eco-Sensitive Zone’ of
10 kms. fell for consideration before a Co-ordinate Bench of this

- 8 -
WP No. 2481 of 2025


4
Court in M/s. Bhushan Enterprises v. State of Karnataka . In
the said case, the petitioner had sought for a declaration of
deemed extension of the lease in terms of Rule 8A(4) of the
Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 [ KMMC Rules ].
The lease lands were located at a distance of 7.4 kms. from
Kamasandra Wildlife Sanctuary. The respondents did not process
the extension of the lease on the ground that the lease was within
the ‘default Eco-Sensitive Zone’ of the width of 10 kms. of the
Kamasandra Wildlife Sanctuary. The respondents relied upon the
guidelines dated 09.02.2011 issued by MoEF and the order dated
4.12.2006 passed by the Supreme Court in Goa Foundation v
5
Union of India and Others [Goa Foundation-I] , which reads as
under:
“3. The order earlier passed on 30-1-2006
[Goa Foundation v. Union of India, (2011) 15
SCC 793] refers to the decision which was
taken on 21-1-2002 to notify the areas within
10 km of the boundaries of national parks and
sanctuaries as eco-sensitive areas. The Letter
dated 27-5-2005 is a departure from the
decision of 21-1-2002. For the present, in this
case, we are not considering the correctness
of this departure. That is being examined in
another case separately. Be that as it may, it is
evident that the States/Union Territories have

4
W.P.No.15654/2020 decided on 13.01.2021
5

(2011) 15 SCC 791: 2006 SCC OnLine SC 1330 at page 793

- 9 -
WP No. 2481 of 2025


not given the importance that is required to be
given to most of the laws to protect
environment made after Rio Declaration, 1992.
*
5. The MoEF would also refer to the Standing
Committee of the National Board for Wildlife,
under Sections 5-B and 5-C(2) of the Wildlife
(Protection) Act, the cases where environment
clearance has already been granted where
activities are within 10 km zone".

10. In Bhushan Enterprises (supra), this Court noted that the
aforesaid order was clarified by the Supreme Court by its
subsequent order dated 21.04.2014 in Goa Foundation v. Union of
6
India [Goa Foundation-II]. In regard to the Guidelines, this Court
held as under:
“9. The learned Additional Government
Advocate also relied upon the guidelines for
declaration of Eco-Sensitive Zones around
National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries. The
Guidelines note that in response, some of the
State Governments had raised concerns over
the applicability of radius of 10 Km. wide Eco-
Sensitive Zone from the Protected Area
Boundary. Thereafter, the Guidelines refer to
National Wildlife Action Plan and the decision
of National Board for Wildlife etc. Guideline
No.4 is in respect of the extent of Eco-
Sensitive Zones. Clause (1) thereof clearly
indicates that defining of the extent of Eco-
Sensitive Zones around the Protected Areas
will have to be kept flexible and Protected
Area specific. The width of the Eco-Sensitive

6
(2014) 6 SCC 590

- 10 -
WP No. 2481 of 2025


Zone and the type of Regulations will differ
from Protected Area to Protected Area. It is
observed that as a general principle, the width
of the Eco-Sensitive Zone could go up to 10
Kms. around a Protected Area. Sub-clause 2
of clause 4 refers to cases where Eco-
Sensitive Zone can be extended beyond 10
Kms. Thus, the guidelines relied upon by the
learned Additional Government Advocate itself
makes it clear that the same does not provide
for a straight jacket formula that in case of
every Wildlife Sanctuary, the radius of 10 Kms.
around it should be construed as Eco-
Sensitive Zone. Thus, the said Guidelines
would not help the learned Additional
Government Advocate to support the concept
of "Default Eco-Sensitive Zone" of 10 Kms.”

11. This Court rejected the contention that there was any
'default Eco-sensitive Zone’ and concluded as under:
“11. Thus, the impugned endorsements/orders
at Annexures-A and C are based on a non-
existing concept of "Default Eco-Sensitive
Zone" of radius of 10 Kms. around every
Wildlife Sanctuary. Therefore, only on the
basis of the concept of "Default Eco-Sensitive
Zone", the prayer for grant of deemed
extension made by the petitioner could not
have been rejected and the said prayer ought
to have been considered within the four
corners of law.”

12. The aforesaid decision covers the issues raised in the
present petition.

- 11 -
WP No. 2481 of 2025


13. As noted above, the order dated 04.12.2006 in Goa
Foundation-I (supra) was clarified by the Supreme Court in Goa
Foundation-II ( supra ), wherein it was held as under:
“50. When, however, we read the order dated
4-12-2006 of this Court in Goa
Foundation v. Union of India [ Goa
Foundation v. Union of India , (2011) 15 SCC
791], we find that the Court has not prohibited
any mining activity within 10 kilometre distance
from the boundaries of the national parks or
wildlife sanctuaries. The relevant portion of the
order dated 4-12-2006 [ Goa Foundation
v. Union of India , (2011) 15 SCC 791] is
quoted hereinbelow: (SCC pp. 792-93, paras
4-5)
“4. The Ministry is directed to give a final
opportunity to all States/Union
Territories to respond to its Letter dated
27-5-2005. The State of Goa also is
permitted to give appropriate proposal in
addition to what is said to have already
been sent to the Central Government.
The communication sent to the
States/Union Territories shall make it
clear that if the proposals are not sent
even now within a period of four weeks
of receipt of the communication from the
Ministry, this Court may have to
consider passing orders for
implementation of the decision that was
taken on 21-1-2002, namely, notification
of the areas within 10 km of the
boundaries of the sanctuaries and
national parks as eco-sensitive areas
with a view to conserve the forest,
wildlife and environment and having
regard to the precautionary principles. If
the States/Union Territories now fail to

- 12 -
WP No. 2481 of 2025


respond, they would do so at their own
risk and peril.
5. MoEF would also refer to the
Standing Committee of the National
Board for Wildlife, under Sections 5-B
and 5-C(2) of the Wild Life (Protection)
Act, the cases where environment
clearance has already been granted
where activities are within 10 km zone.”

It will be clear from the order dated 4-12-2006
[ Goa Foundation v. Union of India , (2011) 15
SCC 791] of this Court that this Court has not
passed any orders for implementation of the
decision taken on 21-1-2002 to notify areas
within 10 km of the boundaries of national
parks or wildlife sanctuaries as eco-sensitive
areas with a view to conserve the forest,
wildlife and environment. By the order dated 4-
12-2006 [ Goa Foundation v. Union of India ,
(2011) 15 SCC 791] of this Court, however,
the Ministry of Environment and Forests,
Government of India, was directed to give a
final opportunity to all States/Union Territories
to respond to the proposal and also to refer to
the Standing Committee of the National Board
for Wildlife the cases in which environment
clearance has already been granted in respect
of activities within the 10 km zone from the
boundaries of the wildlife sanctuaries and
national parks. There is, therefore, no
direction, interim or final, of this Court
prohibiting mining activities within 10 km of the
boundaries of national parks or wildlife
sanctuaries.”

14. The said clarification was also noted by the Supreme Court
in a later decision in Godavarman-II (supra), wherein the Court
observed as under:

- 13 -
WP No. 2481 of 2025


“24. It could thus be seen that the Court has
specifically observed that this Court had not
passed any orders for implementation of the
decision taken on 21st January 2002 to notify
areas within 10 kilometres of the boundaries of
National Parks or Wildlife Sanctuaries as ESZs
with a view to conserve the forest, wildlife and
environment. The Court therefore clarified that
there is no direction, interim or final, prohibiting
mining activities within 10 kilometres of the
boundaries of National Parks or Wildlife
Sanctuaries.”

15. It is also necessary to refer to the order dated 11.12.2018,
whereby the direction to maintain an ESZ of 10 kms., pending a
proposal and declaration, was issued only in respect of 21
National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries or which no proposals had
been furnished. Paragraphs 27 and 28 of the decision in
Godavarman-II (Supra), which refer to the said order dated
11.12.2018, are reproduced below:
th
27. The next relevant order would be dated 11
December 2018. It will be relevant to refer to the
following part of the said order:
"The learned ASG has informed us
that there are 104 National Parks and 558
Wildlife Sanctuaries making a total of 662
National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries in
the country.
The proposals for declaring areas
around these National Parks and Wildlife
Sanctuaries as Eco Sensitive Zone have
been received from State Governments/UT
Administrations for 641 National Parks and
Wildlife Sanctuaries. No proposals have

- 14 -
WP No. 2481 of 2025


been received in respect of 21 National
Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries.
The proposals have been accepted
and Notification has been issued in respect
of 289 National Parks and Wildlife
Sanctuaries as on 26.11.2018 and draft
Notification has been prepared in respect of
206 National Parks and Wildlife
Sanctuaries.
The declaration with regard to Eco
Sensitive Zone is under process with the
Ministry of Environment, Forests and
Climate Change (MoEF) as well as with the
State Governments in respect of 4146
National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries.
We expect the Ministry of
Environment, Forests and Climate Change
to actively pursue the preparation of the
draft Notification and to issue a final
Notification at the earliest.
The proposals for 21 National Parks
and Wildlife Sanctuaries in respect of which
proposals have not yet been received by
the MOEF are as follows:-
............
It is submitted by the learned Amicus
that this issue has been pending since
sometime in December, 2006. 12 years
have gone-by but no effective steps have
been taken by the State Governments in
respect of the National Parks and Wildlife
Sanctuaries mentioned above.
Under the circumstances, we direct
that an area of 10 Kms around these 21
National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries be
declared as Eco Sensitive Zone by the
MoEF. The declaration be made by the
MoEF at the earliest.
Liberty is granted to the State
Governments to move an application for

- 15 -
WP No. 2481 of 2025


modification of this order along with
proposal only two weeks after submission of
the proposals to the MoEF."

28. It can be seen that this Court has recorded the
submissions of the learned ASG that there were
104 National Parks and 558 Wildlife Sanctuaries
making a total of 662 National Parks and Wildlife
Sanctuaries in the country. It was further recorded
that the proposals for declaring areas around
these National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries as
ESZs had been received from the State
Governments/Union Territories. It can further be
seen that no proposals have been received in
respect of 21 National Parks and Wildlife
Sanctuaries. It further recorded that the proposals
had been accepted and notification had been
issued in respect of 289 National Parks and
Wildlife Sanctuaries as on 26th November 2018
and draft notification had been prepared in respect
of 206 National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries.
The Court therefore expected the MoEF & CC to
actively pursue the preparation of the draft
Notification and to issue a final Notification at the
earliest. The Court then recorded 21 National
Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries in respect of which
proposals have not yet been received by the
MoEF & CC alongside its anguish that though 12
years had been passed, no effective steps have
been taken by the State Governments in respect
of the National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries
named in the said order. Therefore, the Court
directed that an area of 10 kilometres around
these 21 National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries
be declared as ESZs by the MoEF & CC. Liberty
was granted to the State Governments to move an
application for modification of the said order.
However, it further directed that the application
should be along with the proposal for declaration
of ESZs."

16. It is apparent from the above that there is no direction issued
by the Supreme Court providing for an ESZ of 10 kms. in respect

- 16 -
WP No. 2481 of 2025


of sanctuaries or national parks where proposals delineating the
ESZ have been submitted or notifications have been issued.
17. It is also relevant to refer to the following directions issued
by the Supreme Court in Godavarman-I (supra):
"56.1. Each protected forest, that is, national
park or wildlife sanctuary must have an ESZ of
minimum one kilometre measured from the
demarcated boundary of such protected forest in
which the activities proscribed and prescribed in
the Guidelines of 9-2-2011 shall be strictly
adhered to. For Jamua Ramgarh Wildlife
Sanctuary, it shall be 500 m so far as subsisting
activities are concerned.

*
56.4. Mining within the national parks and
wildlife sanctuaries shall not be permitted.

56.5. In the event any activity is already being
undertaken within the one kilometre 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 legitimate manner. No new permanent structure
shall be permitted to come up for whatsoever
purpose within the ESZ.

*

- 17 -
WP No. 2481 of 2025


56.8. In respect of sanctuaries or national parks
for which the proposal of a State or Union Territory
has not been given, the 10 km buffer zone as ESZ,
as indicated in the order passed by this Court on 4-
12-2006 in Goa Foundation [ Goa Foundation
v. Union of India , (2011) 15 SCC 791] and also
contained in the Guidelines of 9-2-2011 shall be
implemented. Within that area, the entire set of
restrictions concerning an ESZ shall operate till a
final decision in that regard is arrived at.”


18. A plain reading of Para 56.8 of Godavarman-I (supra)
(which is numbered as paragraph 44 (h) of the judgment as
available on the website of the Supreme Court) indicates that the
direction for a 10 kms. buffer zone as ESZ, was premised on the
order dated 04.12.2006 in Goa Foundation-I (supra). However,
as noted above, the said order was clarified in Goa Foundation-II
(supra), and the Court explained that no such directions had in fact
been issued. This position was amply re-iterated by the Supreme
Court in Godavarman-II (supra). The directions for a 10 kms. ESZ
was, essentially, confined to 21 National Parks and Wildlife
Sanctuaries, in respect of which no proposal for an ESZ had been
submitted.
19. In the present case, the draft notification dated 02.11.2016
has been issued delineating the proposal for an ESZ for KTR. The
th
said proposal was considered in the 26 Meeting of the Expert

- 18 -
WP No. 2481 of 2025


Committee on Eco-Sensitive Zones held on 07.07.2017. The
relevant extract of the said minutes of the said meeting is set out
below:
"C. KARNATAKA
5. Eco-sensitive Zone around Dandeli Anshi
Tiger Reserve, Karnataka:
Shri P Ravi, Addl. Chief Secretary, Govt. of
Karnataka and Shri C. Jayaram, APCCF (WL),
Govt. of Karnataka apprised the Committee about
the proposal. The draft Notification was published
on 03.11.2016. The salient features of the draft
Eco-sensitive Zone (ESZ) are as follows:

Area of PA : 814.88 Sq. Km
Proposed ESZ area : 1201.94 Sq. Km
Proposed Extent : 7 Km.
Comments received for removing the Joida Taluka
from the ESZ were discussed by the Committee. It
was informed that Anshi National Park and
Dandeli Wildlife Sanctuary were together granted
the status of Project Tiger Reserve, and declared
as 'Anshi Dandeli Tiger Reserve' in January, 2007.
In December 2015, Dandeli Anshi Tiger Reserve
was renamed as Kali Tiger Reserve. The Kali
Tiger Reserve (KTR) is a part of 8,800 Sq Km of
tiger conservation landscape comprising Protected
Areas and reserved forests of Dandeli Wildlife
Sanctuary towards north of KTR abutting
Bhimghad Wildlife Sanctuary and further connects
Radhanagari and Koyna Wildlife Sanctuaries in
Maharashtra. To the west, five Protected Areas in
Goa State abuts KTR. Similarly reserve forests on
the northeast of KTR forms permeable landscapes
for tigers. The reserved forests in the south,
connects KTR with Bedthi and Aghanashini
Conservation Reserves and further down to
Mookambika and Sharavathi Valley Wildlife
Sanctuaries.

- 19 -
WP No. 2481 of 2025


Shri C. Jayaram informed that the State Govt. has
reduced the ESZ area from 1201.94 square kilo
meter to 312.52 square kilo-meters due to public
demand and the Cabinet Sub Committee (State
Government.) meeting held on 10-02-2017. No
Eco-sensitive Zone is proposed on the western
side due to interstate boundary with Goa and on
the northern side also no Eco-sensitive Zone is
proposed as it borders Bhimgad Wildlife
Sanctuary. The extent of Eco-sensitive Zone
varies between zero to 4.5 kilo-meters. The
Committee suggested that the Wildlife Division of
the Ministry may examine the proposal of State
Govt. to reduce the ESZ and take a view and
suggest the revised extent/boundary of Eco-
sensitive Zone. Committee also suggested to
include Community Nature Conservancy as a
promoted activity. The Committee after detailed
deliberation recommended for finalization of draft
Notification with above said changes."

20. As can be seen from the above, the State Government had
proposed a further reduction of the ESZ from that delineated under
the draft notification dated 02.11.2016, and the Expert Committee
had recommended finalisation of the draft notification after
examination of the said proposal.
21. In view of the above, the default Eco-Sensitive Zone of 10
kms. is not applicable for KTR. Thus, the impugned endorsement
has been issued on an ex- facie erroneous premise that there is a
default ESZ of 10 kms. from the boundaries of KTR.

- 20 -
WP No. 2481 of 2025


22. The impugned endorsement is accordingly set aside, and
the respondents are directed to examine the petitioner's
application afresh.

Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE


Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE



sd