JUDGMENT : In these matters, the validity of an Office Memorandum dated 08.08.2019, issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change has been called into question. The petitioners, who are all persons/entities engaged in quarrying activities on the strength of Mining Leases and Environmental Clearances, allege that the impugned Office Memorandum dated 08.08.2019 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Office Memorandum') has been issued without competence and in excess of jurisdiction and therefore, that the same is illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional. 2. The proximate reason for the petitioners to have approached this Court in this fashion is because, based on the Office Memorandum, the concerned Geologists appear to have issued proceedings stopping their quarrying activities solely for the reason that they have not obtained prior clearances from the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife ('the Standing Committee' for short), constituted under the provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. The petitioners say that the proceedings issued by the concerned Geologist stopping their activities are grossly improper and egregiously without basis and therefore, that they be allowed to operate the quarries de hors such illegal interdiction. 3. I have heard Sri.T.A.Shaji, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri.Athul Shaji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. (C)No.37907/2019, Sri.Bechu Kurian Thomas, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri.Enoch David Simon Joel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C)Nos.26611/2019, 29622/2019, 29654/2019 and 29971/2019, Sri.James Koshy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.27914/2019, Sri.George Mecheril, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.26341/2019, Sri.Jobi Jose Kondody, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. (C)Nos.27299/2019 and 27320/2019, Sri.Santhosh Mathew, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.28014/2019, 28036/2019 and 28938/2019, Sri.Philip J.Vettikkattu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C)Nos.28877/2019 and 28913/2019, Sri.Baby Kuriakose and Sri.M.K.Dileepan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.29336/2019, Sri.Sandeep Gopalakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.30450/2019, Sri.Renjith Thampan, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Sri.Sandesh Raja, learned Special Government Pleader for Forests, Sri.P.Vijayakumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, assisted by Sri.K.Rajkumar, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the Union of India and its functionaries and Sri.M.P.Srekrishnan, learned Standing Counsel for the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA). 4. 4. As I have mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, the challenge of the petitioners is essentially against the Official Memorandum dated 08.08.2019, wherein the procedure for consideration of Environmental Clearances for developmental projects, located within ten kilometres of National Parks/Wildlife Sanctuaries, under the provisions of the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 (EIA Notification) has been stipulated. The said Memorandum begins by saying that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in its order dated 04.12.2006 in W.P.(C)No.460/2004 -in the matter of Goa Foundation v. Union of India ((2011) 15 SCC 791) has, inter alia, directed that 'the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) would refer to the Standing Committee the cases where Environmental Clearances have already been granted, where activities are within ten kilometre zone of the boundaries of the various Sanctuaries and National Parks'. The Memorandum further goes to say that the Ministry has notified the Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZs) around the Protected Areas (PAs) and that many of the developmental activities are prohibited/regulated within these ESZs, inter alia, the mining operations carried out in accordance with the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of T.N.Godavarman Thirumulapad v. Union of India in W.P. (C)No.202/1995. The notification thereafter goes to say that, in the light of these orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the procedure for consideration of developmental projects are to adhere the following procedure and manner: “i). Proposals involving developmental activity/project located within the notified Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) shall be regulated and governed by the concerned ESZ 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 well 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 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 conservation measures in the form of recommendations shall be made. 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 conservation measures in the form of recommendations shall be made. These recommendations shall be explicitly 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 (SCNBWL) 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 kilomtre 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 04.08.2006 in the matter of T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. UOI in W.P.(C)No.202 of 1995 and dated 21.04.2014 in the matter of Goa Foundation Vs. UOI in W.P. (C)No.435 of 2012.” 5. The petitioners in these cases appear to be more concerned about stipulation No.3 above, which provides that developmental activities/projects located within ten kilometres of National Parks/Wildlife Sanctuaries -where the ESZ Notification is not notified or is in its draft stage -will require prior clearance from the Standing Committee. 6. The petitioners have broadly launched a two prone attack to the afore stipulation: first, by asserting that the Office Memorandum is not applicable to any of these cases, since the petitioners have already obtained Environmental Clearances and therefore, that the stipulation of a prior permission from the Standing Committee is no longer necessary and for the second, which is more or less an alternative argument, that the Office Memorandum is incompetent, since it is contrary to law, particularly because the Hon'ble Supreme Court has delivered a final judgment in Goa Foundation, wherein the requirement of obtaining a prior clearance from the Standing Committee has no longer been mandated. 7. 7. Sri.Bechu Kurian Thomas, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in some of these cases, began his submissions by saying that the Office Memorandum has been issued by the first respondent on a misunderstanding of the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that the Hon'ble Court has never stipulated, even in the final judgment in Goa Foundation, that the quarrying activities within a radius of ten kilometres be stopped. He vehemently says that Government of Kerala has already forwarded a draft of the ESZ to the MoEF as per the requirements under the Environment (Protection) Act and that they are still pending before the Central Government for final notification and that in such scenario, the stipulation of 'ten kilometres radius' from the National Parks/Wildlife Sanctuaries is no longer relevant and in substantiation, points out the interim order dated 11.12.2019 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (W.P.(C) No.202/1995), which has been produced as Exhibit P9 in W.P.(C)No. 26611/2019, to assert that it is only where no draft proposals for ESZs have been made or are pending before the MoEF, can this stipulation be relevant. He says that this is manifest from the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the aforementioned order, has spoken as under: “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 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 146 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:- ASSAM 1. Pobitora Sanctuary JAMMU AND KASHMIR 2. Hemis High Altitude National Park 3. 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:- ASSAM 1. Pobitora Sanctuary JAMMU AND KASHMIR 2. Hemis High Altitude National Park 3. Kishtewar National Park 4. Changthang Sanctuary 5. Hokersar Sanctuary 6. Trikuta Sanctuary KARNATAKA 7. Jogimatti Sanctuary 8. Thimlapura Sanctuary 9. Yadahalli Chinkara Sanctuary MAHARASHTRA 10. Deolgaon Rehekuri Sanctuary 11. Thane Creek Flamingo Sanctuary 12. Malvan Marine Sanctuary MANIPUR 13. Siroi National Park 14. Khongjaingamba Ching Sanctuary MEGHALAYA 15. Baghmara Pitcher Plant Sanctuary NAGALAND 16. Fakim Sanctuary 17. Puliebadze Sanctuary 18. Rangapahar Sanctuary UTTAR PRADESH 19. Dr.Bhimrao Ambedkar Bird Sanctuary 20. Pilibhit Sanctuary WEST BENGAL 21. Jorepokhri Sanctuary 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 modification of this order along with proposal only two weeks after submission of the proposals to the MoEF.” The learned Senior Counsel thus says that the restrictions imposed through the Office Memorandum is contrary even to the views of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, that same cannot obtain any legal sanction, consequently that the interim interdiction now ordered by the concerned Geologist against the quarrying operations will require to be set aside by this Court. 8. Sri.Bechu Kurian Thomas, learned Senior Counsel, concluded his submissions by saying that whatever be the justification of the authority in having issued the Office Memorandum, insistence for a prior clearance from the Standing Committee may be approved by this Court, since it virtually bestows competence not available to an authority and which is not permitted by the applicable Statutes, Rules and Regulations. 9. Sri.Santhosh Mathew, learned counsel appearing for the some of the other petitioners in these cases, then commenced his submissions by taking me through the various orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goa Foundation. 9. Sri.Santhosh Mathew, learned counsel appearing for the some of the other petitioners in these cases, then commenced his submissions by taking me through the various orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goa Foundation. He submitted that the Hon'ble Court, through a series of orders, has only tried to regulate the manner in which quarrying operations are being conducted within a ten kilometres radius of National Parks/Wildlife Sanctuaries, but that there is no order therein that they should be closed down merely because they are operating within the said zone. He says that the interim order referred to in the Office Memorandum, namely Goa Foundation v. Union of India ((2011) 15 SCC 791) was at a time when there were no proposals made by the State Government for the purpose of establishing ESZs and that, consequently, directions were given therein to the MoEF to offer a final opportunity to all the States/Union Territories to do so within a time frame. He says that it is in that factual context that the Hon'ble Supreme Court ordered that the MoEF should also refer to the Standing Committee -under Sections 5B and 5C(2) of the Wildlife Protection Act -the cases where Environmental Clearances have already been granted where the activities are within the ten kilometres zone. He submitted that this position becomes clear when one reads the final judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, namely Goa Foundation v. Union of India and Others ( (2014) 6 SCC 590 ), wherein the directions are available in paragraph 87 thereof. He contends that, nowhere in the said judgment, has the Hon'ble Court ordered a reference to the Standing Committee for such purpose and therefore, that it will have to be construed that the Hon'ble Court has no longer felt it necessary for this condition to be imposed, particularly because with respect to all the National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries in Kerala, the proposals for ESZs are already pending before the MoEF, the drafts of the same having already been published under the provisions of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986. He then cited the Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of Kerala and Others v. J & J. Minerals Private Limited and Others ( 2015 (5) KHC 854 ) in support of the above submissions, asserting that the learned Bench has concluded that once the final judgment in Goa Foundation (supra) had been delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the earlier interim orders will merge with the same and cannot be operated independently. He took this argument forward by relying on the judgment of this Court in Raji Mathew v. Director of Mining and Geology, Tvm. And Others ( 2018 (1) KHC 906 ) to contend that once draft notifications for ESZs have has been issued, then the MoEF can only confine the limits of the same to the area proposed and can perhaps reduce it, but cannot enhance the same, going by the specific provisions in Rule 5(3) of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986. He says that this has been specifically so concluded in Raji Mathew (supra) and therefore, that as matters now stand, the ESZs around the various National Parks/Wildlife Sanctuaries in Kerala are specified and delimited and consequently, that the Office Memorandum will not apply to any part of the State of Kerala. 10. After making the afore submissions, Sri.Santhosh Mathew attempted to impress upon this Court that the stipulation in the Office Memorandum, to obtain a prior clearance from the Standing Committee, is not statutorily permissible by taking me through the provisions of the EIA Notification, 2006 and in particular, clause 8(v) thereof, wherein clearances from other Regulatory Bodies are shown to be not required prior to the receipt of applications -for Environmental Clearances of projects or activities or screening or scoping or appraisal or decision by the Regulatory Authority concerned -unless any of those are sequentially dependent on such clearance, either due to requirement of law or technical reasons. He says that since none of the applicable Statutes and Rules provide for any such requirement, which is even clear from Note 2 to the Format of the application for Environmental Clearance, the prescriptions in the Office Memorandum are clearly beyond law and beyond the competence of the authority which issued the same. He thus prayed that the Office Memorandum be set aside and the interim interdiction now placed by the Geologists be vacated. 11. He thus prayed that the Office Memorandum be set aside and the interim interdiction now placed by the Geologists be vacated. 11. Sri.James Koshy, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (C)No.27914/2019, adopted most of the submissions made by Sri.Bechu Kurian Thomas and that of Sri.Santhosh Mathew, however, adding that in the case of his client, the area of operation is near the Chullannur Peafowl Sanctuary, wherein, the draft notification provides the ESZ as 990 metres and that, as is evident from the counter pleadings of the Union of India, its competent authority has approved this, which makes publication of the final notification only a formality. He also relies on the judgment in Raji Mathew (supra) to say that once the draft has been approved by the Government of India, there cannot be any modification to the same and therefore, that as far as the said Sanctuary is concerned, the rigor of the Office Memorandum cannot apply since the ESZ has already been now approved by the MoEF. 12. Sri.Philip J.Vettickattu, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C)Nos.28877/2019 and 28913/2019, said that he is also adopting all the afore submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, but asserted that the third stipulation in the impugned Office Memorandum clearly goes contrary to Section 3(5) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Rule of 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, since there is no such stipulation therein that a prior clearance of the Standing Committee is required to be obtained. He expatiated this contention by saying that the stipulation in an Office Memorandum can, at the best, be only a procedural requirement and cannot modify the statutory prescriptions, but that what is being attempted to be done through the impugned Office Memorandum is to virtually expand and add provisions which are not available in the Statute or the Rules or sanctioned by it. He, therefore, prayed that the impugned Memorandum and the orders of interdiction by the Geologists be set aside. 13. He, therefore, prayed that the impugned Memorandum and the orders of interdiction by the Geologists be set aside. 13. Sri.George Mecheril, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.26431/2019, added to the above submissions by saying that, going by the final judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goa Foundation (supra), there is no direction therein that a quarry being operated beyond one kilometre radius of the ESZ should be closed down or that a clearance from the Standing Committee is required to be obtained and that the only restriction therein is that no quarry shall be operated within one kilometre radius of a National Park/Wildlife Sanctuary. He says that this is implicit from the manner in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued the mandatory directions in the said judgment and therefore, that the concerned Geologist do not obtain any jurisdiction to issue stop memos to the various petitioners in these cases, even if the Office Memorandum had been followed, particularly because it does not insist on stoppage of quarrying activities, which are continuing on valid Environmental Clearances and other germane permissions and consents. 14. Sri.Jobi Jose Kondody, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C)Nos.27299/2019 and 27320/2019, while affirming the afore submissions made by various learned counsel, made his submissions with a slight twist because, he says that his clients are not challenging the Office Memorandum per se but that they only want their Environmental Clearances to be forwarded by the Government of Kerala to the MoEF and then to be transmitted to the Standing Committee, as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the interim order in Goa Foundation ((2011) 15 SCC 791). He further submits that his clients are only against the stop memos issued by the Geologists since these have been given even contrary to the directions of the Hon'ble Court in the judgment in Goa Foundation ( (2014) 6 SCC 590 ). 15. He further submits that his clients are only against the stop memos issued by the Geologists since these have been given even contrary to the directions of the Hon'ble Court in the judgment in Goa Foundation ( (2014) 6 SCC 590 ). 15. Once the learned counsel for the petitioners had completed their submissions as afore, the learned Additional Advocate General began by saying that it has now been well recognised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goa Foundation, that it is the responsibility of the State to ensure that the wildlife and nature are protected as per the constitutional imperatives, particularly because expanding human demands on land, water and air, along with the impact of climate change, have made such consideration unexpendable and to be given top priority. He says that the concerned Geologist has issued the stop memos because the various quarries being operated by the petitioners in these cases are within ten kilometre radius of National Parks/Wildlife Sancturies and since the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in the order in Goa Foundation ((2011) 15 SCC 791), made it mandatory that the Standing Committee be consulted. He thus asserts that the Geologists, who are the competent statutory functionaries, have acted implicitly in compliance with the Office Memorandum and the constitutional requirements and therefore, that this Court may not set aside the interdiction now ordered, especially because, with respect to none of the National Parks/Wildlife Sanctuaries in Kerala, has the Government of India made final notification as regards the limits of the ESZs around it. The learned Additional Advocate General further went on say that the petitioners cannot obtain any locus to challenge the present Office Memorandum because it has been issued superseding the earlier Office Memorandum of 2009 wherein, it was ordered in the following manner: “…........ The Environmental Clearance is subject to their obtaining prior clearance from Forestry and Wildlife angle including clearance from the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife as applicable”. He then cited the interim order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India dated 25.10.2018 with respect to the quarrying of Bauxite being carried on by M/s. HINDALCO, wherein the Hon'ble Court found that such activities being carried on without the clearance from the Standing Committee is an affront on law and therefore, that they were directed not to continue with the same unless they obtain such clearance. The learned Additional Advocate General, therefore, contends that the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has given up the requirement for reference to the Standing Committee, while delivering the final judgment in Goa Foundation (supra), cannot be found to be correct, particularly when the aforementioned order was issued as late as on 25.10.2018. He adds to the above by saying that that this Court also has to follow the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, requiring a reference to the Standing Committee, as is evident from the interim order of a learned Judge of this Court in W.P.(C)No.40525/2018 dated 13.06.2018 and the Bench judgment of this Court confirming the said order in W.A.No. 1201/2018, copies of which have been placed on record as Exhibits P5 and P5(a) in W.P.(C)No.26611/2019. He, therefore, prays that these writ petitions be dismissed. 16. The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India Sri.P.Vijayakumar, appearing for Union of India, submitted that a statement dated 12.11.2019 has been filed on record in W.P.(C)No. 26611/2019, wherein the following have been stated: “1. It is humbly submitted that this statement is prepared on the basis of the instructions received from Shri.Pankaj Verma, Addl. Director/Scientist 'E', Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, (Govt. of India), Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Room No.209, Prithvi Tower, 2nd Floor, Jor Bagh Road, New Delhi -110 003 through e-mail. This Statement is being filed without prejudice to the right of the respondents to file a detailed counter affidavit in the matter. This statement is filed based on preliminary facts of the case only. 2. It is humbly prayed that 24th Expert Committee meeting for the declaration of Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) around Wild Life Sanctuaries/National parks held during 27th and 28th February, 2017 in the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change at Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. It is humbly submitted that on 28-02-2017, proposals related to 50 Protected areas of Assam, Manipur, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Telengana, Kerala and Karnataka were considered for finalisation of the draft Eco-Sensitive Zone notification. 4. It is submitted that officials comprising Principal CCF(WL) & CWW, ACF(PE) and EDF(WL) of Kerala Forest Department attended the meeting as State representatives. 3. It is humbly submitted that on 28-02-2017, proposals related to 50 Protected areas of Assam, Manipur, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Telengana, Kerala and Karnataka were considered for finalisation of the draft Eco-Sensitive Zone notification. 4. It is submitted that officials comprising Principal CCF(WL) & CWW, ACF(PE) and EDF(WL) of Kerala Forest Department attended the meeting as State representatives. A true copy of the relevant pages of the minutes of the 24th Expert Committee meeting for the declaration of Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) around Wild Life Sanctuaries/National Parks held during 27th and 28th February, 2017 in the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change at Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, New Delhi held on 27-02-2017 and 28-02-2017 is produced herewith as Annexure R1(a). 5. It is humbly submitted that consequent to the expert committee meeting, after sending several communications, a specific reminder with regard to 20 Eco-Sensitive Zones, was sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala on 19-12-2017. a true copy of the letter by the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change dated 19-12-2017 is produced herewith as Annexure R1(b). 6. It is humbly submitted that the details as sought in Annexure R1(b) and earlier communications are still awaited from the State of Kerala. Process of publication of de-novo draft notifications/final notifications with respect to the ESZs mentioned in the Annexure R1(b). 7. It is humbly submitted that no proposals are received for Vazhani Wild Life Sanctuary in the ESZ division of the Ministry. 8. The basic concept of Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) is to conserve biodiversity and endangered wildlife and protect environment around the protected areas such as National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries, as a 'safety zone' without impeding legitimate socio-economic development of the area and also providing adequate opportunities for livelihood security of the local people. 9. It is humbly submitted that while demarcating the ESZ Area, a small committee comprising the concerned Wildlife Warden, an Ecologist, an official from the Local Self Government and an official of the Revenue Department of the concerned area, to suggest the: (a) extent of eco-sensitive zones for the Protected Area being considered. (b) requirement of such a zone to act as a shock absorber (c) best methods for management of the eco-sensitive zones, so suggested. (d) broad based thematic activities to be included in the Master Plan for the region. 10. (b) requirement of such a zone to act as a shock absorber (c) best methods for management of the eco-sensitive zones, so suggested. (d) broad based thematic activities to be included in the Master Plan for the region. 10. It is humbly submitted that based on the demarcation of the ESZ Area and extent, with the approval of the State Government it is communicated to this Ministry. The Wildlife Division of the Ministry receives the proposal from the State Government and send it to the Wildlife Institute of India (WII), Dehradun for technical evaluation/examination of the proposal. Based on the observations of WII, the Wildlife Division examine it further and send the proposal to the ESZ Division. 11. It is humbly submitted ESZ Division with further assessment of the proposal issue the draft Notification following due procedure and placed the Notification in public domain for seeking stakeholders views for 60 days. The stakeholders views received in the Ministry are sent to the State Government for their consideration/redressal. The proposal then considered in the Expert Committee on ESZ in the presence of the State Government and based on the recommendation of the Expert Committee proposal is finalised. 12. It is humbly submitted that the final notification is therefore issued only after due consultations & on boarding of the State Govt. The objections/comments if any, received from the public or any stakeholder is duly forwarded to the State Govt. The same is considered by respective Govts. 13. It is humbly submitted where there is error in calculating the ESZ Area or error arising due to demarcation of ESZ boundary in such cases based on suitable justification and supporting documents, the matter is considered by the Expert Committee comprising of experts from Wildlife Institute of India, Town and Country Planning Organisation, Indian Institute of Remote Sensing, Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education, Forest Survey of India, Zoological Survey of India, Botanical Survey of India, National Tiger Conservation Authority, G.B.Pant National Institute of Himalayan Environment and Sustainable, Department of Land Resources, Central pollution Control Board, WWF India and State Govt. 14. It is humbly submitted that if there are drastic changes proposed in the final notification with regard to draft Notification, usually, states are asked to submit fresh proposal for publishing re-draft Notification. 15. 14. It is humbly submitted that if there are drastic changes proposed in the final notification with regard to draft Notification, usually, states are asked to submit fresh proposal for publishing re-draft Notification. 15. It is humbly submitted that further, in few occasion, State Government propose to increase area in some portion of the ESZ after publishing the draft Notification due to various reasons. In such cases, State Government is asked to arrange public consultation involving stakeholders and submit the proposal along with the minutes of the stakeholder consultation for further consideration of the Expert Committee. In addition, there is provision of public interest clause in the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 under which proposal could be published for final Notification without draft Notification.” He says that, thereafter, as directed by this Court an additional statement has been placed on record clarifying certain issues mentioned in the first statement, carrying the following averments: “Regarding the issue with regard to the Ministry's OM dated 08.08.2019 (Exhibit P10 in WP(C) 26611/2019 and Exhibit P25 in WP(C) 28014/2019), related to exercise of powers and procedure for consideration of developmental projects located within 10 km of National Park/Wildlife Sanctuary seeking environmental clearance under the provisions of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006 issued by the Ministry it is further submitted as follows: (i). The earlier O.M. Of the Ministry No. J-11013/41/2006 dated 2nd December 2009, stated that “The proposal from environmental angle will be appraised by the respective Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) and recommendations made on the same which will be processed by the Impact Assessment (IA) Division of the Ministry and approval obtained from the competent Authority (Hon'ble Minister). (ii). While granting environmental clearance to projects involving forest land wildlife habitat (core zone of elephant/tiger etc.) and or located within 10 km of the National Park/Wildlife Sanctuary (at present the distance of 10 km has been taken in conformity with the order dated 4.12.2006 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition No.460 of 2004 in the matter of Goa Foundation Vs. Union of India), a specific condition shall be stipulated that the environmental clearance is subject to their obtaining prior clearance from forestry and wildlife as applicable. (iii). Union of India), a specific condition shall be stipulated that the environmental clearance is subject to their obtaining prior clearance from forestry and wildlife as applicable. (iii). Further, it will also be categorically stated in the environmental clearance that grant of environmental clearance does not necessarily imply that forestry and wildlife clearance shall be granted to the project and that their proposals for forestry and wildlife clearance will be considered by the respective authorities on their merits and decision taken. The investment made in the project, if any, based on environmental 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 Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate shall not be responsible in this regard in any manner. (iv). Para 4(iii) of the OM dated 08.08.2019 states that “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 (SCNBWL) 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.” (v). Accordingly, it is submitted that para 4(iii) of the OM dated 08.08.2019 was incorporated to provide clarity that the distance may be considered as 10 km taken in conformity with the order dated 4.12.2006 in Writ Petition No.460 of 2004 in the matter of Goa Foundation Vs Union of India in cases where ESZ Notification has not been finalised.” 17. The learned Assistant Solicitor General thus vehemently asserts that the requirement of reference to the Standing Committee is still mandatory and therefore, that the petitioners cannot impugn the Office Memorandum, which merely reflects the concerns of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and nothing more. The learned Assistant Solicitor General, however, submits that the final notification with respect to the draft proposals forwarded to the MoEF by the Government of Kerala and published as such, have not been made and that they are awaiting certain additional information to be given by them. The learned Assistant Solicitor General, however, submits that the final notification with respect to the draft proposals forwarded to the MoEF by the Government of Kerala and published as such, have not been made and that they are awaiting certain additional information to be given by them. He says that Government of Kerala has not yet responded to the request of the MoEF for this information and therefore, that they are now incapacitated from publishing the final notification under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, adding that as soon as such information is received by them, they will complete the processes without any avoidable delay. He, therefore, prays that these writ petitions be dismissed. 18. The submissions of the learned counsel for the parties having been recorded as afore, I now proceed to analyse the various issues impelled in these matters. 19. It is without doubt that the Office Memorandum impugned in these writ petitions has derived its soul from the interim order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goa Foundation ((2011) 15 SCC 791). The Hon'ble Court was dealing with the establishment of ESZs around all the National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuaries and Bird Sanctuaries in India and in such context found that an opportunity is required to be given to various State Governments and Union Territories to respond to the letter of the Union Ministry dated 27.05.2005, wherein they have been asked to give draft of the notifications specifying the area found suitable to be prescribed as an Eco Sensitive Zone. In that background, the Hon'ble Supreme Court ineluctably mandated in paragraph 5 of the said interim order that 'the MoEF would also refer to the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife under Sections 5B and 5C(2) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, the cases where environmental clearance has already been granted where activities are within ten kilometre zone'. Going by the afore direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is indubitable that the MoEF was obligated to refer all the Environmental Clearances to the Standing Committee and the only axiomatic question being whether this order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court can be construed to have been either given up or diluted thereafter. 20. Going by the afore direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is indubitable that the MoEF was obligated to refer all the Environmental Clearances to the Standing Committee and the only axiomatic question being whether this order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court can be construed to have been either given up or diluted thereafter. 20. The learned counsel for the petitioners, of course, argued that when the Goa Foundation matters were concluded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the judgment in Goa Foundation v. Union of India ( (2014) 6 SCC 590 ), there was no mention regarding the afore order and that in the said judgment, through the directions in paragraph 87 thereof, it has only been declared that the quarrying activities within a zone of one kilometre around the National Parks/Wildlife Sanctuaries are prohibited, while it has been reiteratingly clarified that there is no such prohibition within ten kilometres. There is no doubt that in the said judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court does not speak either way about the earlier directions in the interim order, though there is a mention in the said judgment, in paragraphs 39 and 40 that the Shah Commission report has accused the States for not complying with the said directions of referring the Environmental Clearances to the Standing Committee. The axiomatic question, thus, is whether the final judgment in Goa Foundation ( (2014) 6 SCC 590 ) would take away the requirement earlier imposed by the Hon'ble Court for reference of the Environmental Clearances to the Standing Committee and though the petitioners say, relying on the judgment in J & J Minerals Private Limited (supra), that these stipulations are no longer necessary to be complied with, it having been merged with the final judgment in the Goa Foundation matter, I cannot help but notice the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued much later in the matter of M/s.HINDALCO, wherein these very directions were found not to have been complied with and therefore, the interdiction ordered against M/s.HINDALCO in carrying out the quarrying activities. It is pertinent that this order was issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court more than three years after the final judgment in Goa Foundation had been delivered and if, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the directions of the Hon'ble Court in the interim order of the year 2006 had been either whittled down or removed, the very same conditions would not have imposed against M/s.HINDALCO. I cannot, therefore, find the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard to be worthy of this Court's favour and I am certain that the requirement in the Office Memorandum which is, however, with respect to the pending applications for Environmental Clearances, would also apply in the case of an Environmental Clearance that has already been issued, particularly because the said Office Memorandum merely follows the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the interim order in Goa Foundation ((2011) 15 SCC 791). 21. Once I conclude as above, the next germane question is whether the interdiction now ordered by the concerned Geologist to the quarrying operations should be allowed to continue or would it require to be vacated. I am fully aware that the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, since the drafts of the ESZs have already been forwarded by the Government of Kerala to the MoEF, such a restriction is unnecessary because once those drafts have been published in terms of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, the area of such zones cannot be expanded and therefore, that all quarries that fall outside the zone must certainly be allowed to operate. I am also cognizant of the specific contention of Sri.Bechu Kurian Thomas and Sri.Jobi Jose Kondody that this is more so in the case of Chullannur Peafowl Sanctuary, since the materials on record would indicate that Government of India has virtually accepted the draft proposal of the Government of Kerala and therefore, that it should be presumed that the zone has come into effect. 22. 22. However, when one goes through the interim order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goa Foundation ((2011) 15 SCC 791), the stipulation for reference to the Standing Committee with respect to those quarries which have already obtained Environmental Clearances and are located within the ten kilometre zone is seen to be intended to operate as an independent direction, as long as the final notification of the ESZs has not been made by the MoEF. This is singularly because, even though I find some force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that once a draft has been published by the MoEF under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, it cannot be modified, except through a fresh notification, the chances of such a draft being notified cannot be ruled out. I am not, for a moment, saying that the MoEF has indicated its intention to do so but that, theoretically and technically, it is available to the MoEF to issue a fresh notification containing the draft proposals, thus taking the process forward culminating in a final notification. Therefore, as long as the final notification has not been published by the MoEF, the stipulation of the ten kilometre zone, as fixed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, still continues to be relevant though there is no doubt that going by the final judgment in Goa Foundation, the Hon'ble Court has only found that a quarry within one kilometre is prohibited and that such activities can be allowed beyond the said limit. 23. On a conjoint reading of all these orders and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and particularly in the background of the interim order issued by the Hon'ble Court in M/s.HINDALCO matter, it is ineluctable that while a quarry can be permitted to operate beyond a kilometre of the Wildlife Sanctuary/National Park, its requirement to obtain a clearance from the Standing Committee, operates independently as long as the final notification under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 has not been issued. 24. I am, consequently, firm in my mind, being guided by the various orders that I have already discussed above, that the prescription for obtaining the clearance from the Standing Committee still continues to be imperative and that it would not be justified for this Court to read down such requirements in any manner whatsoever. 25. 24. I am, consequently, firm in my mind, being guided by the various orders that I have already discussed above, that the prescription for obtaining the clearance from the Standing Committee still continues to be imperative and that it would not be justified for this Court to read down such requirements in any manner whatsoever. 25. The above being so concluded, the sole surviving question is whether the quarry should be allowed to operate during the period which the process as ordered in the Office Memorandum is to be completed. I have given this a great amount of thought and I have also heard the learned counsel for the petitioners extensively on this issue. While they assert that there is no justification for continuing the interdiction for their quarrying activities pending the afore process, I am of the view that time bound directions would be better suited in the circumstances involved in these matters, rather than vacating the interdiction at this stage. I am persuaded to this course because the petitioners were operating their quarries on the basis of valid mining leases and Environmental Clearances, but were stopped from doing so by the concerned Geologist solely on account of the Office Memorandum which, in its strictest interpretation, would apply only to the case of a person who is applying for an Environmental Clearance to start a project. However, since I have already held that notwithstanding the Office Memorandum, the requirement of obtaining a clearance from the Standing Committee even by the persons who are already operating the quarries on the strength of the clearances obtained is implicit from the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the view that the present status has to be continued for a period that I propose herein within which time consultation with the Standing Committee can be then completed. 26. This now brings me to the stage of final directions in these cases and I am aware that in three writ petitions, the petitioners claim that they are not obligated to apply for Environmental Clearances or to obtain the same in view of the judgment of this Court in All Kerala River Protection Council v. State of Kerala ( 2015 (2) KLT 78 ), since their leases are prior to 18.05.2012. I, therefore, asked the learned Additional Advocate General as to how these matters will be referred to the MoEF and he answered that a suitable file will be opened, containing all the details, including the copies of the mining leases and that same can be then forwarded to the MoEF. He further submitted that such files and that of the other petitioners, which will contain their Environmental Clearances and all other relevant documents, can be forwarded to the MoEF within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Resultantly, these writ petitions are ordered in the following manner: a) The Government of Kerala will forthwith and within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment forward the Environmental Clearances, along with all other necessary papers, to the MoEF. If, for any reason, the necessary papers are found wanting, the Government will be at liberty to seek such from the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), who will make the same available without any delay. I also leave liberty to the petitioners to make available their papers before the competent authority of the Government, which is stated to be the Secretary, Environment Department, for such purpose. I make it clear that the intent of this Court is that there shall be no delay in forwarding the papers and that the Government will be obligated to do so within the period granted herein, without seeking any further extension of time. (b) In the case of W.P.(C)Nos.28014/2019, 28913/2019, 29336/2019 and 29654/2019, since the petitioners therein assert that they are operating their quarries on the basis of a mining lease prior to 18.05.2012, the Government will forward a file of theirs -recording that they have not obtained Environmental Clearances for this reason -but containing all other relevant documents, including the Mining Lease and Plan, as the case may be and if this is done, it will be construed by the MoEF to be in compliance with the directions in this judgment. (c) On the files as ordered above reaching the MoEF, they will be obligated to place it before the Standing Committee within a period of one week from the date on which it is received, so as to enable the said authority to take a decision in terms of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. (c) On the files as ordered above reaching the MoEF, they will be obligated to place it before the Standing Committee within a period of one week from the date on which it is received, so as to enable the said authority to take a decision in terms of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. (d) The Standing Committee, on receiving the files as per the afore directions, will immediately process the files and make their recommendations, as per the interim order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goa Foundation ((2011) 15 SCC 791) and this shall be done not later than two months from the date on which they receive the files from the MoEF. (e) The afore directions having been issued, I must also clarify that the stop memos issued by the Geologists will remain in force only during the period that I have fixed above and if there is any delay by any authority, be that the Government of Kerala or the MoEF or the Standing Committee, in complying with the afore directions, on the expiry of the cumulative period mentioned above, the said memos issued by the Geologists will become inoperative and the petitioners will, thereupon, be entitled to commence their activities as per the Environmental Clearances and the Mining Leases obtained by them. Needless to say, if, during the aforementioned period, the final notification is issued by the MoEF under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 with respect to the Eco Sensitive Zones in Kerala, the interdiction as ordered above will stand vacated from that date and the petitioners will be entitled to operate their quarries depending upon the said notification and as per the stipulations therein. By way of a further clarification, I order that the afore directions and the operation of the stop memos, as against the petitioners, will be only with respect to their quarrying activities and that the operation of the stone crusher units, if any, as long as they are done in compliance with all necessary imperative and statutory conditions and as long as the raw material for the same is from other sources and not from the quarries in question, will not be covered by them, thereby to mean that they can continue to operate them, notwithstanding the stop memos issued by the Geologists, subject to further orders to be issued by the Standing Committee. As far as W.P.(C)No.28036/2019 is concerned, though the afore directions will apply to it, since the petitioner therein submits that his application for mining lease has also been kept pending by the Government of Kerala on account of the Office Memorandum, I direct the competent authority to process the said application but clarifying that they will not grant the Mining Lease, until the proceedings as afore is completed or the period fixed as above expires.