ORDER : 1. Heard the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. FACTUAL ASPECTS: 2. For the purpose of deciding the controversy involved in the petition, a brief reference to the factual aspects will be necessary. 3. The petitioner is claiming to be the owner of a patta land more particularly described in the petition. He applied under sub-rule (1) of Rule 32 of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short “the said Rules of 1994”) for grant of a permission for quarrying granite stone. On 14th January 2016, a work order was issued to the petitioner for recommencing the stone quarrying operation on the patta land in accordance with sub-rule (1) of Rule 32 of the said Rules of 1994. The work order was in respect of a land in Herandyapanahalli Village, Kanakapura Taluk, District Ramanagara. As noted in the said work order, permissions and clearances were granted to the petitioner including Environment Clearance Certificate. On 27th May 2016, the Commissioner and Director of the Department of Mines and Geology addressed a letter to the Deputy Director of the Department of Mines and Geology with a direction to take action of cancellation of the permission granted to the petitioner. On 22nd June 2016, an order was made by the Deputy Director, the Department of Mines and Geology recording that the land subject matter of the petition was situated within a distance of one kilometer from the boundary of Bannerghatta National Park (for short “the said National Park”). It appears that the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 37789/2016 for challenging the said order. Initially, by the order dated 22nd March 2017, subject to the outcome of the said writ petition, this Court permitted the petitioner to continue the mining operations for a period of six weeks. On 7th June 2017, the said interim order was extended till further orders. 4. In the meanwhile, a draft notification was published on 15th June 2016 for the purpose of declaring the Eco Sensitive Zone of the said National Park. Another draft notification was published for the same purpose on 30th October 2018. 5. On 7th June 2017, the said interim order was extended till further orders. 4. In the meanwhile, a draft notification was published on 15th June 2016 for the purpose of declaring the Eco Sensitive Zone of the said National Park. Another draft notification was published for the same purpose on 30th October 2018. 5. A show cause notice was issued by the Deputy Director calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the work order issued on 14th January, 2016 for carrying out the quarrying operations should not be cancelled. Written submissions were filed by the petitioner before the Deputy Director. An order was made on 2nd January 2019 by the Deputy Director canceling the work order dated 14th January 2016 issued to the petitioner on the ground that the site was within one kilometer from the boundary of the said National Park. The present petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 37789/2016 in which there was a challenge to the aforesaid endorsements/orders dated 22nd June 2016 and 2nd January 2019. The said writ petition, along with two other similar petitions, were heard and disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by the judgment and order dated 31st May 2019. The Division Bench has noted the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel that as per the notification dated 27th February, 2007 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests and keeping in mind the directions issued by the Apex Court, environmental clearance is required for non-forest activities within a radius of 10 kilometers from a Wild Life Sanctuary or a National Park. The contention raised by the present petitioner which is noted in paragraph 15 of the said judgment is that the final notification relating to Eco Sensitive Zone of the said National Park is ready and it is not yet issued. In paragraphs 18 to 20 of the said judgment (Pages 239 and 240), the Division Bench has observed that the petitioners shall be governed by the notification issued pursuant to 33rd ESZ Expert Committee Meeting declaring Eco Sensitive Zone. 6. In the meanwhile, the second respondent, by a communication dated 15th March 2019, proceeded to withdraw and revoke the environmental clearance granted to the petitioner vide letter dated 12th January 2016. 6. In the meanwhile, the second respondent, by a communication dated 15th March 2019, proceeded to withdraw and revoke the environmental clearance granted to the petitioner vide letter dated 12th January 2016. One of the allegations made therein was that a false and misleading information was provided by the petitioner and after verification, it was noticed that the site in question was at a distance of less than one kilometer from the boundary of the said National Park. It is this communication dated 15th March 2019 which was subjected to a challenge by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No. 31898/2019. The petition was disposed of by the judgment and order dated 22nd January 2020. The said communication dated 15th March 2019 was set aside by this Court only on the ground of breach of the principles of natural justice and that the said communication was ordered to be treated as a show cause notice. Accordingly, a reply was submitted by the petitioner on 31st January 2020. We may note here that the final notification declaring the Eco Sensitive Zone of the said National Park was issued on 11th March 2020. As per the said notification, Eco Sensitive Zone was fixed to an extent of 100 meters to 1.0 kilometer around the boundary of the said National Park. As far as the village Herandyapannalli is concerned, Eco sensitive Zone was declared as 100 meters from the boundary of the said National Park. On 15th March 2019, the second respondent passed an order of revocation of the environmental clearance granted to the petitioner on 12th January 2016 on the ground that in the online application dated 13th November 2015 made by the petitioner for grant of environmental clearance, there was concealment of facts and information with regard to distance of the site from the boundary of the said National Park and the presence of the said site within one kilometer from the boundary of the said National Park. The second ground stated in the said letter is that in view of the order dated 4th August 2006 passed by the Apex Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India and Others, (2010) 13 SCC 740 in Writ Petition No. 202/1995 and the Judgment dated 21st April 2014 in the case of Goa Foundation vs. Union of India and Others, (2014) 6 SCC 590 as the site was within one kilometer of the boundary of the said National Park, the petitioner was not entitled to carry on the quarrying activity. It is noted in the same communication that the quarrying place is located between 516 meters and 682 meters from the boundary of National Pak. It is also noted that this position was not disputed. 7. During the pendency of the petition, the 2nd respondent, along with the statement of objections, produced the Office Memorandum dated 8th August 2019 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Government of India. The subject of the said Office Memorandum is the procedure for consideration of development projects located within 10 kilometers of a National Park/Wild Life Sanctuary seeking environmental clearance under the provisions of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006. Clause (4) thereof was relied upon by the second respondent which provided that mining of minerals within the Eco Sensitive Zone or one kilometer from the boundaries of National Parks and Sanctuaries, whichever is higher, is prohibited in accordance with the aforesaid orders of the Apex Court dated 4th August 2006 and 21st April 2014. For challenging the said office memorandum, the Court permitted the petitioner to amend the petition. In the amended petition, there are two challenges. First is to the letter/order dated 20th March 2020 (Annexure-A) of the cancellation of Environmental Clearance issued by the second respondent and the second is to the office memorandum dated 8th August 2019 (Annexure-R1). SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES: 8. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has taken us through the aforesaid orders of the Apex Court dated 4th August 2006 in the case T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India (supra) and the Judgment dated 21st April 2014 in the case of Goa Foundation vs. Union of India (supra). SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES: 8. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has taken us through the aforesaid orders of the Apex Court dated 4th August 2006 in the case T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India (supra) and the Judgment dated 21st April 2014 in the case of Goa Foundation vs. Union of India (supra). He submitted that after considering the orders dated 4th August 2006, the Apex Court came to the conclusion that the prohibition has been imposed on the mining activities within an area of one kilometer of the boundaries of National Parks and Wild Life Sanctuaries only in the State of Goa. He has also invited our attention to paragraphs 52 and 53 of the said decision in the case of Goa Foundation vs. Union of India (supra) and submitted that now, in terms of the decision of the Apex Court, the Central Government has on 11th March 2020 exercised the power under sub-section (1) and clauses (v) and (xiv) of sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) of Act, 1986 (for short “the said Act of 1986”) and sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Environmental (Protection) Rules, 1986 (for short “the said Rules of 1986”) by which, the Eco Sensitive Zone of the said National Park has been declared and therefore, prohibition of mining activities will apply only in the areas falling within the notified Eco-Sensitive Zone of the said National Park. He submitted that admittedly, the site subject matter of this petition falls within the boundary of Herandyapanahalli Village, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District, which is located outside the Eco Sensitive Zone. He pointed out that in the said village, Eco Sensitive Zone extends only to an area falling within 100 meters from the boundary of the said National Park. He stated that admittedly, the land subject matter of this petition falls outside the distance of 100 meters from the boundary of the said National Park. He would, therefore, submit that now there is no prohibition on carrying on the quarrying activity on the land subject matter of this petition. He also pointed out the documents on record and contended that the finding recorded in the communication dated 27th March 2013 (Annexure-E) regarding concealment of facts and furnishing misleading information is without any basis and in fact, there was no such misrepresentation or concealment at all. He also pointed out the documents on record and contended that the finding recorded in the communication dated 27th March 2013 (Annexure-E) regarding concealment of facts and furnishing misleading information is without any basis and in fact, there was no such misrepresentation or concealment at all. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent firstly relied upon the impugned Office Memorandum dated 8th August 2019 and submitted that the said Office Memorandum is issued in terms of the aforesaid orders of the Apex Court dated 4th August 2006 and 21st April 2014. He also invited our attention to EIA notification which describes the boundaries of Eco-Sensitive Zone around the said National Park and in particular, the boundary on the west side of the said National Park. He would, therefore, submit that notwithstanding the said notification declaring the Eco Sensitive Zone of the said National Park, there cannot be any mining activity within a distance of one kilometer from the boundary of the said National Park. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent relied upon the same aforesaid orders of the Apex Court and submitted that there has to be one kilometer safety zone from the boundary of the National Parks. He also submitted that if the entire judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Goa Foundation vs. Union of India (supra) is seen, the direction which is mentioned as regards the National Parks in Goa will also apply to the National Parks in other States, as well. He would, therefore, submit that the order of revocation of the environmental clearance cannot be faulted with. The learned counsel stated that the said order is an appealable order. CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS: 11. Firstly, we will deal with the legal position which emerges from various orders passed by the Apex Court in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India and Others (supra) and Goa Foundation vs. Union of India and Others (supra). The final judgment in Goa Foundation dated 21st April 2014 (supra) refers to all earlier orders as well as orders passed in the case of T.N. Godavarman (supra). A perusal of the final judgment shows that the issue involved in the case before the Apex Court was in relation to the mining in the State of Goa. The decision refers to the report of a Commission headed by Justice Shah. A perusal of the final judgment shows that the issue involved in the case before the Apex Court was in relation to the mining in the State of Goa. The decision refers to the report of a Commission headed by Justice Shah. In paragraph 49, it refers to the order dated 4th August, 2006 in the case of T.N. Godavarman as well as order dated 4th December, 2006 in the case of Goa Foundation on which reliance is placed by the respondents. It is necessary to quote paragraph 49 of the said decision which reads thus: “49. We may now examine whether this Court has by the orders passed on 4.8.2006 and 4.12.2006, prohibited mining activities around national Parks or Wildlife sanctuaries. When we read the order of this Court passed on 4.8.2006 in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India, we find that the Court while considering the question of grant of temporary working permits for mining activities in national parks, sanctuaries and forest areas, directed that temporary working permits shall be granted only where the conditions stipulated in the said order are satisfied. Conditions (ii) and (iii) stipulated in the order dated 4.8.2006 are extracted herein-below: “19........(ii) The mine is not located inside any national park/sanctuary notified under Sections 18, 26-A or 35 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. (iii) The grant of the TWP would not result in any mining activity within the safety zone around such areas referred to in (ii) above, (as an interim measure, one kilometre safety zone shall be maintained subject to the orders that may be made in IA No. 1000 regarding Jamua Ramgarh Sanctuary).” It would, thus, be clear that this Court was of the opinion that grant of temporary working permits should not result in any mining activities within the safety zones around a national park or wildlife sanctuary and as an interim measure, one kilometre safety zone was to be maintained subject to the orders that may be made in IA No. 1000 in Jamua Ramgarh Sanctuary. This order dated 4.8.2006 has not been varied subsequently nor any orders made in IA No. 1000 regarding Jamua Ramgarh Sanctuary saying that temporary working permits can be granted within one kilometre safety zone beyond the boundaries of a national park or wildlife sanctuary. This order dated 4.8.2006 has not been varied subsequently nor any orders made in IA No. 1000 regarding Jamua Ramgarh Sanctuary saying that temporary working permits can be granted within one kilometre safety zone beyond the boundaries of a national park or wildlife sanctuary. The result is that the order passed by this Court saying that there will be no mining activity within one kilometre safety zone around national park or wildlife sanctuary has to be enforced and there can be no mining activities within this area of one kilometre from the boundaries of national parks and wildlife sanctuaries in the State of Goa.” (Underline supplied) Hence, after considering both the aforesaid orders, the Court in its final judgment in the case of Goa Foundation held that there can be no mining activities within the area of one kilometre from the boundaries of the national parks and wildlife sanctuaries in the State of Goa. Paragraph 49 quoted above cannot be read in isolation. The Apex Court also considered the provisions of the said Rules of 1986. Paragraph 52 of the said decision is material which reads thus: “52. Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 5 lists the number of factors, which the Central Government has to take into consideration while prohibiting or restricting the carrying on of processes and operations in different areas. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 5 provides that before prohibiting the processes and operations in the area the Central Government has to follow the procedure laid down in sub-rule (3). The procedure in sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 includes giving notice of the intention of the Central Government to prohibit the carrying on of processes and operations in the reserved area, giving brief description of the area, the operations and processes in that area relating to which the notification pertains and also specifying the reasons for the imposition of the prohibition on carrying on of the processes or operations in that area and an opportunity to persons interested in filing an objection against the imposition of such prohibition on carrying on of processes or operations by the Central Government. These procedural checks have been made in Rule 5 because a notification issued by the Central Government prohibiting an operation or a process will have serious consequences on the rights of different persons. These procedural checks have been made in Rule 5 because a notification issued by the Central Government prohibiting an operation or a process will have serious consequences on the rights of different persons. For example, persons who are carrying on the process or operation and those who are directly or indirectly employed in the process or the operation may be affected by the proposed prohibition of the process or the operation in the entire area. Therefore until the Central Government takes into account various factors mentioned in sub-rule (1), follows the procedure laid down in sub-rule (3) and issues a notification under Rule 5 prohibiting mining operations in a certain area, there can be no prohibition under law to carry on mining activity beyond 1 km of the boundaries of national parks or wildlife sanctuaries.” (Underline supplied) Even the above observation is in the context of the State of Goa. Moreover, the restriction was imposed only till a notification under Rule 5 of the said Rules of 1986 was issued by the Central Government. That is very clear on a conjoint reading of paragraphs 49 and 52. The view which we are taking is reinforced by what is observed in paragraph 53, which reads thus: “53. In fact, we find that the process of issuing a notification under Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 prohibiting mining activities in eco-sensitive zones around the national parks or wildlife sanctuaries in the State of Goa has now been initiated. The Government of Goa vide Letter dated 2-5-2013 submitted the following six proposals for declaration of eco-sensitive zones around protected areas in the State of Goa to the Ministry: (i) Cotigao Wildlife Sanctuary; (ii) Netravali Wildlife Sanctuary; (iii) Bhagwan Mahaveer Wildlife Sanctuary and Bhagwan Mahaveer National Park; (iv) Madei Wildlife Sanctuary; (v) Bondla Wildlife Sanctuary and (vi) Dr. Salim Ali Bird Sanctuary. These six proposals were referred to a committee constituted under the chairmanship of Dr Rajesh Gopal, Additional Director General of Forests and Member-Secretary of National Tiger Conservation Authority, with specified terms of reference and the Committee gave its findings and the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India by the Office Memorandum dated 24-10-2013 have accepted the findings of the Committee and rejected the proposals of the Government of Goa. It is also stated in the Office Memorandum dated 24-10-2013 of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India that a draft notification defining eco-sensitive zones around each protected area is being issued for stakeholder consultations. This notification will have to be issued under sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, and after objections are received, the Central Government will have to consider the same and thereafter take the decision regarding imposition of prohibition of mining activities in the eco-sensitive areas within the period stipulated in sub-rule 3(b) of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986. At this stage, we can only direct the Ministry of Environment and Forests to follow the procedure and issue the notification of eco-sensitive zones under Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 within six months.” (Underlines supplied) 12. Paragraphs 87 and 88 of the operative portion are also material. In paragraph 87.3, it is directed till the order dated 4th December 2006 is not modified, there can be no mining activities within one kilometre from the boundaries of the national parks and sanctuaries in the State of Goa. 13. Now, we come to the provision of Rule 5 of the said Rules of 1986. For the sake of convenience, we are quoting Rule 5 which reads thus: “5. Prohibition and restriction on the location of industries and the carrying on processes and operations in different areas: (1) The Central government may take into consideration the following factors while prohibiting or restricting the location of industries and carrying on of processes and operations in different areas:- (i) Standards for quality of environment in its various aspects laid down for an area. (ii) The maximum allowable limits of concentration of various environmental pollutants (including noise) for an area. (iii) The likely emission or discharge of environmental pollutants from an industry, process or operation proposed to be prohibited or restricted. (iv) The topographic and climatic features of an area. (v) The biological diversity of the area which, in the opinion of the Central Government needs to be preserved. (vi) Environmentally compatible land use. (vii) Net adverse environmental impact likely to be caused by an industry, process or operation proposed to be prohibited or restricted. (iv) The topographic and climatic features of an area. (v) The biological diversity of the area which, in the opinion of the Central Government needs to be preserved. (vi) Environmentally compatible land use. (vii) Net adverse environmental impact likely to be caused by an industry, process or operation proposed to be prohibited or restricted. (viii) Proximity to a protected area under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 or a sanctuary, National Park, game reserve or closed area notified as such under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 or places protected under any treaty, agreement or convention with any other country or countries or in pursuance of any decision made in any international conference, association or other body. (ix) Proximity to human settlements. (x) Any other factors as may be considered by the Central Government to be relevant to the protection of the environment in an area. (2) While prohibiting or restricting the location of industries and carrying on of processes and operations in an area, the Central Government shall follow the procedure hereinafter laid down. (3) (a) Whenever it appears to the Central Government that it is expedient to impose prohibition or restrictions on the location of an industry or the carrying on of processes and operations in an area, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette and in such other manner as the Central Government may deem necessary from time to time, give notice of its intention to do so. (b) Every notification under clause (a) shall give a brief description of the area, the industries, operations, processes in that area about which such notification pertains and also specify the reasons for the imposition of prohibition or restrictions on the locations of the industries and carrying on of processes or operations in that area. (c) Any person interested in filing an objection against the imposition of prohibition or restrictions on carrying on of processes or operations as notified under clause (a) may do so in writing to the Central Government within sixty days from the date of publication of the notification in the Official Gazette. (c) Any person interested in filing an objection against the imposition of prohibition or restrictions on carrying on of processes or operations as notified under clause (a) may do so in writing to the Central Government within sixty days from the date of publication of the notification in the Official Gazette. (d) The Central Government shall, within a period of one hundred and twenty days from the date of publication of the notification in the Official Gazette, consider all the objections received against such notification and may [within (seven hundred and twenty five days) {and in respect of the States of Assam, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Manipur, Nagaland, Tripura, Sikkim and Jammu and Kashmir in exceptional circumstance and for sufficient reasons within a further period of tone hundred and eighty days} from such day of publication] impose prohibition or restrictions on location of such industries and the carrying on of any process or operation in an area: Provided that for the purpose of this clause, the validity of notification or rule or order expiring in the Financial Year 2020-2021 shall stand extended upto 30th June, 2021 on account of COVID-19 pandemic. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (3), whenever it appears to the Central Government that it is in public interest to do so, it may dispense with the requirement of notice under clause (a) of sub-rule (3).” (Underlines supplied) Hence under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 there are exhaustive provisions empowering the Central Government to prohibit or restrict the location of industries and carrying on of processes and operations in different areas after taking into consideration the factors in sub-rule (1) of Rule 5. For imposing such prohibition or restrictions, the procedure provided in sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 has to be followed. This is how the Central Government got the power to lay down Eco-sensitive Zones of a National Park and prohibit activities in Eco-sensitive zones. We may note here that the orders which are relied on by the respondents in the case of T.N. Godavarman (supra) and Goa Foundation (supra) were issued by the Apex Court when the exercise of powers under Rule 5 of the said Rules of imposing restriction was not made. 14. We may note here that the orders which are relied on by the respondents in the case of T.N. Godavarman (supra) and Goa Foundation (supra) were issued by the Apex Court when the exercise of powers under Rule 5 of the said Rules of imposing restriction was not made. 14. Now as far as the said national park, which is the subject matter of this petition is concerned, a notification has been issued on 11th March 2020 by the Central Government in accordance with clause (b) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 imposing prohibition or restrictions on location of industries and carrying of the processes and operations in its Eco-sensitive Zone. We may note here that a PIL incorporating a challenge to the notification dated 11th March, 2020 is pending before this Court. However, there is no restraint order in the said PIL prohibiting the implementation of the said notification. Clause (1) of the notification dated 11th March, 2020 reads thus: “1. Extent and boundaries of Eco-sensitive Zone: (1) The Eco-sensitive Zone shall be to an extent of 100 meters to 1.0 kilometer around the boundary of the Bannerghatta National Park and the area of the Eco-sensitive Zone is 168.84 square kilometres. (2) The boundary description of Bannerghatta National Park and its Eco-sensitive Zone is appended as Annexure-I. (3) The maps of the Bannerghatta National Park demarcating Eco-sensitive Zone along with boundary details and latitudes and longitudes are appended as Annexure-IIA, Annexure-IIB, Annexure-IIC, Annexure-IID and Annexure-IIE. (4) List of geo-coordinates of the boundary of Bannerghatta National Park and Eco-sensitive Zone are given in Table A and Table B of Annexure-III. (5) The list of villages falling in the Eco-sensitive Zone along with their geo co-ordinates at prominent points is appended as Annexure-IV.” (Underlines supplied) We may note here that Annexure-IV contains list of villages falling in the Eco-sensitive Zones along with their geo coordinates at prominent points. Table-A of Annexure-IV gives the list of villages located within the outer boundary of Bannerghatta National Park. Under Table-B of Annexure-IV, there is a list of villages coming under the Eco-sensitive Zone of the said National Park along with geo co-ordinates. Under Table-B, there are eight columns. Table-A of Annexure-IV gives the list of villages located within the outer boundary of Bannerghatta National Park. Under Table-B of Annexure-IV, there is a list of villages coming under the Eco-sensitive Zone of the said National Park along with geo co-ordinates. Under Table-B, there are eight columns. The first column is of map id; the 2nd column is of village name; the 3rd is of Eco-sensitive Zone width from Bannerghatta National Park boundary; the 4th and 5th are of names of Taluks and Districts; the 6th is of extent in terms of hectares and last two columns are of latitude and longitude. Item no. 61 is in respect of the village Herandyappanahalli with which we are concerned. In case of this village, in column 3, the width of Eco-sensitive Zone from the said boundary of the said National Park is stated to be 100 metres. There are many villages under column 3 wherein the width of Eco-sensitive Zone is of one kilometre. 15. As stated in sub-clause (ii) of Clause (1) of the said notification, the boundary description of Bannerghatta National Park and its Eco-sensitive Zone is appended as Annexure-I. The learned counsel appearing for this respondent has drawn our attention to the boundary description of the Eco-sensitive zone around the said National Park against the direction West: “From the above pointline runs northwards maintaining a parallel distance of 100 meters from the extreme points along the Bannerghatta National Park boundary through Guddeveranahosahalli and Salbanni villages. Further, the line runs maintaining a parallel distance of 1.0 Kilometer from the extreme points along the Bannerghatta National Park boundary through Anekadaburu village and then the line runs maintaining a parallel distance of 100 meters from the extreme points along the Bannerghatta National Park boundary through Hosadurga, Bommasandra, Bijahalli, Tippuru and Herandyappanahalli villages. Then the line proceeds maintaining a parallel distance of 1.0 Kilometer from the extreme points along the Bannerghatta National Park boundary through Kengalanatta Gollahalli, Kebbre, Hanchaguli, and Kalasuru villages. Further, the line runs maintaining a parallel distance of 100 meters from the extreme points along the Bannerghatta National Park boundary though Doddaguli village. From this point the line runs maintaining a parallel distance of 1.0 Kilometre from the extreme points along the Bannerghatta National Park boundary through Arkere and Dodkaballi villages. Further, the line runs maintaining a parallel distance of 100 meters from the extreme points along the Bannerghatta National Park boundary though Doddaguli village. From this point the line runs maintaining a parallel distance of 1.0 Kilometre from the extreme points along the Bannerghatta National Park boundary through Arkere and Dodkaballi villages. Then the line runs maintaining a parallel distance of 100 meters from the extreme points along the Bannerghatta National Park boundary through Garalapura village. Then the line runs maintaining a parallel distance of 1.0 Kilometer from the extreme points along the Bannerghatta National Park boundary through Kebbehalli, Narayanapura, Bekuppe, Kerelalusandra, Chakanhalli, Mavathur, Bacholhallidoddi, Maniyambal, Devarahalli, Linganapura, Bhimasandra, Doddamaralavadi, Elachavadi, Katharinatha, Kallanakuppe, Kolalagundi, Tattekere, Bilaganaguppe, Goduru, Attiguppe, GullahattiKaval, Jakkasandra, Gottigehalli, Vaddarapalya, Tatguppe, Taralu, Gulakamale villages. Then the line runs maintaining a parallel distance of 100 meters from the extreme points along the Bannerghatta National Park boundary through Buthanahalli and Bilwaradahalli villages and reaches the starting point.” (Underline supplied) If the said description is read with the width of the Eco-sensitive Zone mentioned at item no. 61 in Table-B of Annexure-IV, it is apparent that as far as the said village is concerned, the parallel distance mentioned is 100 metres from the Bannerghatta National Park boundary. In case of some other villages, it is one kilometre. The width of Eco-sensitive Zone of Bannerghatta National Park differs from village to village as is clear from Table-B of Annexure-IV. 16. Emphasis was laid by the third respondent on clause (4) of the said notification and in particular the entries against S. No. 1 in the table. We reproduce the said part for ready reference: “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, 1927 (16 of 1927), the Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972 (53 of 1972), and amendments made thereto and be regulated in the manner specified in the Table below, namely: S. No. Activity Description (1) (2) (3) A. Prohibited Activities 1. Commercial mining, stone quarrying and crushing units. Commercial mining, stone quarrying and crushing units. (a) All new and existing mining (minor and major minerals), stone quarrying and crushing units shall be prohibited with immediate effect except for meeting the domestic needs of bona fide local residents including digging of earth for construction or repair of houses and for manufacture of country tiles or bricks for housing and for personal consumption. (b) The mining operations shall be carried out in accordance with the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated the 4th August, 2006 in the matter of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India in W.P. (C) No. 202 of 1995 and dated the 21st April, 2014 in the matter of Goa Foundation vs. Union of India in W.P. (C) No. 435 of 2012. (Underlines supplied) Therefore item no. 1 under clause (4) lays down that commercial mining, stone quarrying and crushing units is a prohibited activity in the Eco-sensitive Zone. Clause (a) incorporates an exception by providing that stone quarrying and crushing units can be permitted for meeting the domestic needs of bona fide local residents including digging of earth for construction or repair of houses and for manufacture of country tiles or bricks for housing and for personal consumption. However, the said exception in clause (a) is again subject to clause (b) which imposes a condition that the excepted activity as provided in clause (a) will be subject to the orders of the Apex Court mentioned therein of imposing prohibition on mining activities within the distance of one kilometre from the boundary of a National Park. In a given case, the width of Eco-sensitive Zone may exceed even one kilometre. In such a case, the activities such as stone quarrying for meeting the domestic needs of bona fide local residents, etc. which are permissible by way of exception carved out by clause (a) will have to be restricted in terms of what is provided under clause (b). In a given case, if the width of the Eco-sensitive Zone exceeds one kilometre, the bona-fide activities which are permitted under clause (b) can be carried out not within one kilometre but beyond one kilometre from the boundary of the concerned National Park. The ban on commercial mining and crushing units is in areas falling in the Eco-sensitive Zone. For example, in the case of the said village, the width of Eco-sensitive Zone is of 100 metres. The ban on commercial mining and crushing units is in areas falling in the Eco-sensitive Zone. For example, in the case of the said village, the width of Eco-sensitive Zone is of 100 metres. Therefore, within the width of 100 metres, the ban of mining, quarrying and crushing will apply absolutely as the exception carved out by clause (a) will not apply in view of clause (b). If the entire notification is read, it does not purport to impose any restriction or prohibition on an area which is not falling in the Eco-sensitive Zone of the said National Park. Therefore, if an area falling in the said village at S. No. 61 in Annexure-IV is not within the width of Eco-sensitive Zone of 100 metres from the boundary of Bannerghatta National Park, the notification dated 11th March, 2020 does not prohibit or restrict the quarrying operations in the area falling outside 100 metres of Eco-sensitive Zone of the said village. 17. Now we come to the Office Memorandum dated 8th August, 2019. Clause (4) of the said Memorandum reads thus: “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, 2006, in super-session of the earlier O.Ms. dated 27.2.2007 and 2.12.2009: (i) Proposals involving developmental activity/project located within the notified Eco-Sensitive Zones (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 of 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 10km of National Park/Wildlife Sanctuary, prior clearance from Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (SCNBWL) may not be applicable. 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 10km 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. 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 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 Thirumulpad vs. Union of India in W.P. (C) No. 202 of 1995 and dated 21.4.2014 in the matter of Goa Foundation vs. Union of India in W.P. (C) No. 435 of 2012.” Reliance is placed on sub-clause (iv) of clause (4) which in turn refers to the orders of the Apex Court dated 4th August, 2006 in the case of T.N. Godavarman and the order dated 21st April, 2014 in the matter of Goa Foundation. However, the office memorandum completely ignores the provision of Rule 5 of the said Rules of 1986 enables the Central Government to lay down the width of Eco-sensitive Zone around the national parks and sanctuaries and prohibit activity of quarrying or mining as well as other activities such as stone crushing within the Eco-sensitive Zones. The decision of Goa Foundation (supra) dated 21st April, 2014 itself records that the restriction or prohibition of mining within one kilometre from the boundary of national parks will apply to the State of Goa. The decision of Goa Foundation (supra) dated 21st April, 2014 itself records that the restriction or prohibition of mining within one kilometre from the boundary of national parks will apply to the State of Goa. In any case, in case of Bannerghatta National Park, what will prevail is the notification dated 11th March 2020 issued in exercise of power under Rule 5 of the said Rules of 1986 by the Government of India. Therefore sub-clause (iv) of clause (4) of Office Memorandum dated 8th August 2019 cannot be read to mean that even if in a particular village, the notified Eco-sensitive Zone is having width of less than one kilometre, the prohibition on quarrying operations will continue even in that area forming a part of one kilometre distance from the boundary of a national park even though the area is outside the notified Eco-sensitive Zone. To that extent, sub-clause (iv) of clause (4) of the Office Memorandum dated 8th August, 2019 will have no application to the facts of the case. 18. An argument was canvassed across the Bar regarding availability of an efficacious remedy against the Communication dated 20th March, 2020 (Annexure A). We must note here that after the petition was amended, there is a challenge incorporated to the Office Memorandum dated 8th August, 2019 and therefore, the challenge has not remained confined to the Order/Communication dated 20th March, 2020. Therefore statutory remedy provided for challenging the communication dated 20th March, 2020, cannot be said to be an efficacious remedy. 19. The Order/Communication dated 20th March, 2020 completely ignores the legal effect of the Notification dated 11th March, 2020 declaring Eco-sensitive Zone of Bannerghatta National Park. There is one more ground on which Environmental Clearance was revoked. The said ground is of suppression of material facts. We may note here that the Environmental Clearance was granted on 12th January, 2016. In the proceedings of 155th meeting of State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) held on 10th December, 2015, it is specifically noted that the site of proposed quarrying by the petitioner is within the distance of one kilometre from Bannerghatta National Park. In fact, its specific distance of the site from the boundary of the said National Park has been noted in the proceedings. In fact, its specific distance of the site from the boundary of the said National Park has been noted in the proceedings. Therefore, we do not find that the ground of concealment of facts and giving misleading information was available to the 2nd respondent for revoking the Environmental Clearance. Hence, the challenge to the Order/Communication dated 20th March, 2020 will have to be upheld. 20. The petitioner is claiming a right of quarrying under Rule 32 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994. Under sub-rule (1) of Rule 32, it is provided no person in possession of patta lands in Karnataka State shall undertake quarrying operations in his land for minor minerals except with a quarrying license granted under Chapter V of the said Rules. Therefore the petitioner will have to make an application under sub-rule (1) of Rule 32 of the said Rules for grant of a quarrying license. If the Environmental Clearance granted on 12th January, 2016 is still valid, obviously it will not be necessary for the petitioner to obtain the clearance. If it has already expired, the petitioner will have to apply for its renewal. If an application is made under sub-rule (1) of Rule 32, the same will have to be decided by the concerned authority in accordance with law. 21. We make it clear that we have examined a limited question whether there is any prohibition on carrying on quarrying operations on the land subject matter of this petition in the context of the fact that the same is not covered by Eco-sensitive Zone notified under the aforesaid Notification dated 11th March, 2020. We also make it clear that, we have made no adjudication on the question whether the petitioner will be entitled to a quarrying license under sub-rule (1) of Rule 32 of the said Rules of 1994. 22. Hence we dispose of the petition by passing the following order: (i) The impugned Order/Communication dated 20th March, 2020 (Annexure-A) is hereby set aside. We hold that considering the location of the land subject matter of this petition, sub-clause (iv) of clause (4) of Office Memorandum dated 8th August, 2019 (Annexure- AG) will have no application. (ii) It will be always open for the petitioner to make an application for grant of a quarrying license under sub-rule (1) of Rule 32 of the said Rules of 1994. (ii) It will be always open for the petitioner to make an application for grant of a quarrying license under sub-rule (1) of Rule 32 of the said Rules of 1994. If such an application is made, the concerned authority which is competent to decide the application shall decide the same as expeditiously as possible in the light of what we have held in this judgment and order. (iii) The petition is allowed on the above grounds.