The National Green Tribunal has issued a stern directive against unauthorized hotel operations within the Sariska Tiger Reserve, emphasizing that environmental protection cannot be deferred due to procedural delays in notification. The Tribunal’s order underscores the state’s affirmative duty to enforce conservation boundaries even before final Eco-Sensitive Zone notifications are published, setting a critical precedent for protected area governance.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Devidas Khatri, sought the constitution of a joint committee to investigate illegal hotel constructions within one kilometer of the Critical Tiger Habitat (CTH) of Sariska Tiger Reserve. The application arose from concerns that over 60 hotels were operating without statutory clearances, including six located inside the sanctuary boundaries, thereby violating the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and the Environmental Protection Act, 1986.
Procedural History
- 2025: Original Application No.35/2025(CZ) filed before the NGT Central Zone Bench, Bhopal.
- 2026: A Joint Committee comprising representatives from the Rajasthan Forest Department, Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (RSPCB), and District Administration submitted a report.
- 28 January 2026: NGT delivered its order based on the Committee’s findings.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought immediate cessation of illegal hotel operations, enforcement of environmental clearances, and establishment of a monitoring mechanism to prevent future violations in the buffer zone of the tiger reserve.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether unauthorized construction and operation of hotels within a sanctuary area can be permitted merely because the final Eco-Sensitive Zone notification under the Wildlife (Protection) Act has not been issued, and whether the absence of NBWL clearance for structures inside the sanctuary constitutes a standalone violation warranting enforcement action.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The applicant argued that the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 prohibits any activity that disturbs the ecological integrity of a sanctuary, regardless of pending notifications. He cited Section 18 and Section 38V of the Act, which prohibit non-forest activities and require prior approval from the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) for any development within or near protected areas. He emphasized that the six hotels located inside the sanctuary were operating without any NBWL clearance, which is mandatory under the Supreme Court’s ruling in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India.
For the Respondent
The respondents contended that since the final Eco-Sensitive Zone notification had not been issued, the legal boundaries for regulation remained uncertain. They relied on the interim orders in Godavarman and argued that existing structures should be grandfathered until the notification process concluded. They also claimed procedural irregularities in service and alleged that the application was filed for harassment rather than genuine environmental concern.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal rejected the argument that pending notifications excuse violations within sanctuary boundaries. It held that sanctuary status under the Wildlife (Protection) Act is legally operative upon declaration, irrespective of whether an Eco-Sensitive Zone notification has been finalized. The Court noted that Section 38V of the Act mandates NBWL clearance for any activity within a sanctuary, and the absence of such clearance is not remedied by administrative delay.
"The fact that the final notification of the Eco-Sensitive Zone is pending does not absolve the State or the hotel owners from the obligation to comply with the sanctity of the sanctuary area under the Wildlife (Protection) Act."
The Tribunal further emphasized that the Rajasthan Forest Department’s inaction in allowing six hotels to operate inside the sanctuary amounted to a failure of statutory duty. It distinguished the Godavarman interim orders, which dealt with broader land use policies, from the present case, which involved clear, localized violations within a legally protected sanctuary.
The Court also held that the District Collector’s role as Chairman of the Monitoring Committee imposes a non-delegable duty to prevent violations, and that passive oversight is insufficient under environmental jurisprudence.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The NGT held that operation of hotels within a sanctuary without NBWL clearance is illegal, regardless of pending Eco-Sensitive Zone notifications. The Tribunal directed the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests to file an affidavit detailing actions taken against hotel owners and erring officials, and mandated the District Collector to establish a proactive monitoring mechanism.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Unauthorized Structures Inside Sanctuaries Are Per Se Illegal
- Practitioners must now argue that sanctuary boundaries under the Wildlife (Protection) Act are enforceable immediately upon notification of the protected area, irrespective of pending Eco-Sensitive Zone notifications.
- Any construction or commercial activity within a sanctuary without NBWL clearance is void ab initio and subject to immediate closure.
District Authorities Bear Proactive Duty to Prevent Violations
- District Collectors and Monitoring Committees cannot rely on reactive enforcement; they must institute continuous surveillance systems for buffer and sanctuary zones.
- Failure to act may result in contempt proceedings or mandatory affidavits under NGT orders.
NBWL Clearance Is Non-Negotiable for Sanctuary Proximity
- Even if a structure lies just outside the sanctuary boundary but within the Critical Tiger Habitat, NBWL clearance remains mandatory if it impacts wildlife movement or habitat.
- Applications for environmental clearances must now explicitly address proximity to sanctuary boundaries, not just Eco-Sensitive Zone limits.
