ORDER : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 1. The instant writ petitions was heard yesterday and on the request by Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the wit petitioners, it has been listed today. 2. The writ petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, since, common issues have been involved in all the writ petitions, for the sake of convenience, relief(s) prayed in W.P.(C) No.4944 of 2019 is quoted hereunder :- (i) For an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to immediately and forthwith send to this Hon’ble Court all records appertaining to the notification dated 24 th May, 1976 published in the Bihar Gazette (Annexure-1), wherein the lands situated within 72 villages of different blocks within the district of Hazaribagh had been earmarked for the declaration of the wildlife Sanctuary, Hazaribagh. (ii) Thereafter for a further writ commanding the respondents to send to this Hon’ble Court all the records appertaining to the notification dated 1 st August, 2019 published in the Extra Ordinary Section of the Gazette of India, wherein the notification has further notified in Clause-I that within the area of 900 Meters to 5 K.M. appertaining to an area of 573.86 K.M. is now being declared as Eco Sensitive Zone with effect from 1 st August, 2019 wherein at Clause-IV at page-7 of the same it has been categorically described in a table as to which trade and business shall be regulatory in nature regulated by the State Government, which trade and business shall completely be stopped and which trade and business shall be allowed to continue but after being granted permission by the competent authorities of the State Government and in page 12 of the Extra Ordinary Gazette of India a map has been shown describing the Eco Sensitive Zone of Hazaribagh Wildlife Sanctuary, wherein by two colours i.e. green and red; firstly the area falling the green zone, according to the notification itself, was earlier earmarked as being the area of Wildlife Sanctuary in the notification of 1976 and now the red zone increasing the same to 900 Meters to 5 K.M. is the newly added area to be for all purposes now considered as the Eco Sensitive area. (iii) Thereafter a humble prayer is being made to quash/ set aside that part of the notification wherein in the green land area marked as green the entire 72 villages have been descry bed to be the lands which were already earmarked for the wildlife Sanctuary in the year 1976 and further in the red area which has now been increased and the area has been marked as 900 Meters to 5 K.M. without there being any rational or any direction as to under what authorities of law 900 Meters to 5 K.M. have been earmarked for being declared as the Eco Sensitive Zone and a humble prayer is being made before this Hon’ble Court to quash the notification to that part wherein it has been stated that earlier notification of the year 1976 all the area falling within these 72 villages were already earmarked. (iv) Further a humble prayer is being made to allow the petitioners to continue the trade and business which they had been doing prior to the coming into existence of the notification dated 1 st August 2019 and which were already being done even after notification of the year 1976. (v) For issuance of any other writ(s)/ order(s) direction(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case for doing equitable and conscionable justice to the petitioners. 3. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing for all the writ petitioners has submitted that he is conscious about the order passed by this Court in W.P.( PIL) No. 5978 of 2019, pertaining to the issue of notification dated 1 st August, 2019 declaring the land of the Eco-Sensitive Zone of wildlife sanctuary , Hazaribagh from 0 km to 1km instead of 900 m to 5 km which has been reduced, since, he was the counsel for the petitioner in the said W.P.( PIL) No. 5978 of 2019. 4. The argument has been advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the writ petitioners that the said writ petition has been disposed of, since the similar issue pertaining to declaration of the Eco-Sensitive Zone was lying pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202/1995, by way of Interlocutory Application being I.A. Nos. 227104, 227108, 237508 of 2023. 227104, 227108, 237508 of 2023. All the interlocutory applications have been rejected by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 26.05.2025. 5. It has further been submitted that very purpose of filing the present writ petitions were the issue of rehabilitation and the livelihood of the local 72 villages who have been affected from the aforesaid notification as the issue has been raised with respect to their plights. 6. While on the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the present writ petitions are fit to be dismissed on the basis of the order dated 09.08.2023 passed by this Court in W.P. (PIL) No. 5978 of 2019, wherein the notification issued on 1st August, 2019 declaring the land as the Eco-Sensitive Zone of the Wildlife Sanctuary, Hazaribagh from 0 km to 1km instead of 900 m to 5 km has been reduced which was interfered and was dismissed. The copy of the said order has been produced. Since, the similar issue has already been considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the subject matter of these writ petitions have been rejected by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202/1995 vide order dated 26.05.2025 and, as such, whatever grievance has been raised on behalf of the writ petitioners, no relief can be granted by this Court after the order dated 26.05.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. It has been submitted that better course available to the writ petitioners is to approach to the Hon’ble Apex Court in accordance with law. 7. He has also submitted that in stretch of the said declaration, by citing the instance of different States declaring the area of land by the Eco-Sensitive Zone. In the State of Madhya Pradesh, the security area of 20 protected areas, wildlife sanctuaries etc. has been kept up to 250 meters only. All these come in A-B category as per CEC instructions and have been placed in C-D category. In the State of Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, Gujarat, Sultanpur in Uttar Pradesh, Palikar Sanctuary in Andhra Pradesh, Bandipur National Park in Karnataka and other States having wildlife Sanctuary comes in Group A and B of CEC category have also been made Eco-Sensitive Zone from 100 meters to 01 Km. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the State of Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, Gujarat, Sultanpur in Uttar Pradesh, Palikar Sanctuary in Andhra Pradesh, Bandipur National Park in Karnataka and other States having wildlife Sanctuary comes in Group A and B of CEC category have also been made Eco-Sensitive Zone from 100 meters to 01 Km. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The issue which falls for consideration before this Court with respect of these writ petitions which have already been considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court as it would appear from the order dated 26.05.2025 passed in Interlocutory Application Nos. 227104, 227108, 237508 of 2023 arising out of the WP.(C) No. 202 of 1995 in RE : T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. U.O.I. & Ors. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is being referred herein:- [21] I.A. Nos. 227104, 227108, 237508 of 2023: 1. These applications have been filed seeking the following prayers:- “(a) Quash the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate change Gazette Notification dated 01.08.2019, whereby an Eco- Sensitive Zone of 900 meter to 5 K.M. was notified for the Hazaribagh Wildlife Sanctuary. (b) Modify this Hon’ble Court order dated 03.06.2022 passed in I.A. No. 1000/2023 in W.P.(C) No. 202/1995 whereby a direction of minimum one K.M. of Eco-Sensitive Zone for each National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuary was issued by this Hon’ble court. (c) Direct that the Hazaribagh Wildlife Sanctuary be treated as special case and an area of 100 meters to 500 meters be declared as Eco-Sensitive Zone in respect of the Hazaribagh Wildlife Sanctuary, Jharkhand.” 2. In so far as prayer clause ‘a’ is concerned, it seeks quashing of the notification dated 01.08.2019 thereby notifying the ESZ area for Hazaribagh Wildlife Sanctuary. The said relief cannot be granted in such an application. 3. In so far as the prayer clause ‘b’ is concerned, again the order dated 03.06.2022 passed by this Court specifying the one km of ESZ area as a non-mining area for each of the National Park and Wildlife Sanctuary was issued by this Court after consideration of all the aspects and hearing the stakeholders, as such the said relief also cannot be granted. 4. 4. In so far as the clause ‘c’ with regard to treating the Hazaribagh area as a special case and directing only an area of 100 meters to 500 meters be declared as Eco-Sensitive Zone, such a relief also cannot be granted, in as much as any alteration in the boundaries of a National Park or Wildlife Sanctuary or the ESZ can be done only by the Standing Committee of the National Board for the Wildlife. The applications are, therefore, rejected.” 9. This Court considering the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court is of considered view that since the order has been passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202/1995 regarding the notification dated 1st August, 2019 declaring Eco-Sensitive Zone where the issues raised by way of interlocutory application has been rejected which is the subject matter of the instant writ petitions. 10. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of opinion that these writ petitions having similar issues which has already been rejected by Hon’ble Apex Court, does not require interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, we are of the view that these writ petitions lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. W.P.(C) No. 225 of 2020 12. The Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:- (i) In the nature of certiorari for quashing the letter no. 1120 dated 25.11.2019 and letter No. 1131 dated 25.11.2019 issued by respondent No.4, whereby and whereunder the mining operation of the petitioner with respect to stone crushing lease for the area 4.10 acres and 5.00 acres of Mouza Fasia has been stopped. (ii) A direction has been given for termination of the lease for the rest of the period and also for quashing letter No. 21 dated 4.01.2020 and letter No. 55 dated 10.01.2020 whereby, the lease granted to the petitioner for Plot No. 1135 (Part) area 4.10 acres and Plot No. 1135, 1079 (part) of area 5.00 acres respectively has been terminated by the respondent authorities for the rest of the period, which is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. (iii) Such other relief/reliefs as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper to do conscionable justice to the petitioner. 13. (iii) Such other relief/reliefs as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper to do conscionable justice to the petitioner. 13. The factual aspect of the petitioner in brief reads as under :- The lease deed dated 13.02.2015 has been granted to the petitioner for the valid period from 11.02.2015 to 10.02.2025 for Mouza Fasia Thana No. 60, Khata No. 118, Plot No. 1135 (part) total area 5.00 acres and the second lease has also been granted to the petitioner vide dated 22.12.2017 for Mouza Fasia, Thana No. 60, Khata No. 118, Plot No. 1135 (part) total area 4.10 acres for the valid period from 22.12.2017 to 21.12.2027. The petitioner was granted Environmental Clearance by State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority vide letter No. 556 dated 20.11.2014. The Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, vide letter No. 5323 dated 11.12.2015 has granted consent to establish under Section 25 /26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and under Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Further, the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board vide letter No. 253 dated 13.12.2017 has also given consent to operate with respect to 2.025 hectares of the land to the petitioner under Section 25 /26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and under Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Thereafter, District Mining Officer, Gumla has issued letter No. 1120 dated 25.11.2019 with respect to land of 4.10 acres of Plot No. 1135 (part) of Mouza Phasia observing that the said land falls under the notified area palkot Eco-Sensitive Zone and accordingly, it has been directed that the mining operation of the mining lease area to be closed and the mining lease shall be cancelled for the rest of the period. Further, District Mining Officer, Gumla has also issued letter No. 1131 dated 25.11.2019 with respect to land of 5.00 acres of Plot No. 1135, 1079 (part) of Mouza Phasia observing that the said land also falls under the notified area Palkot Eco-Sensitive Zone and accordingly, it has been directed that the mining operation of the mining lease area to be closed and the mining lease shall be cancelled for the rest of the period. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court under writ jurisdiction. 14. The sole grievance of the writ petitioner is that while issuing the impugned Letter Nos. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court under writ jurisdiction. 14. The sole grievance of the writ petitioner is that while issuing the impugned Letter Nos. 1120 and 1131 dated 25.11.2019, no notice has been issued before cancelling the aforesaid lease. 15. The argument, therefore, has been advanced that the impugned Letters dated 25.11.2019 have been issued without following the Cardinal Principle of the Natural Justice. Hence, the impugned Letter Nos. 1120 and 1131 dated 25.11.2019 is fit to be set aside. 16. While on the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the State and the ground inter alia has been taken that in view of the notification issued by the State declaring the said division to be Eco- Sensitive Zone and in view of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. U.O.I. in W.P.(C) No. 202/1995, such decision has been taken into consideration and, as such, the impugned order has been issued. 17. It has further been submitted on behalf of the State that the ground taken regarding violation of cardinal principle of natural justice is concerned, the same will also not be applicable in the present case since it has not been disputed that area under which the lease has been granted to carry out the mining operation is not carrying activities following the norms and conditions under the Eco-Sensitive Zone. 18. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleading made in the writ petition as also the counter affidavit. 19. It is evident from the impugned Letter Nos. 1120 and 1131 dated 25.11.2019 that the mining lease granted in favour of the writ petitioner has been found to be within the Eco-Sensitive Zone as per the Gazette notification issued by the Government of India vide Gazette Notification dated 09.08.2019. 20. The writ petition has been filed on the ground that the District Mining Officer, Gumla had no jurisdiction and as also the cardinal principle of natural justice had not been followed by serving the notice upon the petitioner. 21. 20. The writ petition has been filed on the ground that the District Mining Officer, Gumla had no jurisdiction and as also the cardinal principle of natural justice had not been followed by serving the notice upon the petitioner. 21. So far as the question of violation of the cardinal principle of natural justice is concerned, there is no doubt that nobody can dispute it and if any decision is being taken, the cardinal principle of natural justice is to be followed. The same could be referred from the judgment rendered by Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi Vs. U.O.I. reported in (1978) SCC 248 , but the question herein is whether the cardinal principle of natural justice is to be exercised irrespective of the facts that there is no chance of changing the decision taken by the concerned authority, rather if there is no chance of changing the final decision which is to be taken even after issuance of the show cause notice to the parties concerned otherwise, the same will lead to the futile exercise and empty formality. 22. We are conscious of the fact that the principles of natural justice are to be followed in cases involving civil consequences. However, it is also well settled that the principles of natural justice are having no straitjacket formula, and merely because a show-cause notice has not been issued, the decision taken by the authority cannot be said to suffer from an error warranting interference. 23. It needs to refer herein that the principle of natural justice is having no straight jacket formula and that there is no requirement to follow the principle of natural justice when the fact is not in dispute, otherwise it will lead to futile exercise and empty formality as has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in Escorts Farms Ltd. v. Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, U.P. & others reported in (2004) 4 SCC 281 wherein Hon'ble the Apex Court has held at paragraph-64 as under:- "64. Right of hearing to a necessary party is a valuable right. Denial of such right is serious breach of statutory procedure prescribed and violation of rules of natural justice. Right of hearing to a necessary party is a valuable right. Denial of such right is serious breach of statutory procedure prescribed and violation of rules of natural justice. In these appeals preferred by the holder of lands and some other transferees, we have found that the terms of government grant did not permit transfers of land without permission of the State as grantor. Remand of cases of a group of transferees who were not heard, would, therefore, be of no legal consequence, more so, when on this legal question all affected parties have got full opportunity of hearing before the High Court and in this appeal before this Court. Rules of natural justice are to be followed for doing substantial justice and not for completing a mere ritual of hearing without possibility of any change in the decision of the case on merits. In view of the legal position explained by us above, we therefore, refrain from remanding these cases in exercise of our discretionary powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India." 24. Further principle of natural justice is having no straight jacket formula as has been held Hon’ble Apex Court in Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and others reported in (2015) 8 SCC 519 wherein their Lordships have held at paragraph- 39 as under:- "39.We are not concerned with these aspects in the present case as the issue relates to giving of notice before taking action. While emphasizing that the principle of natural justice cannot be applied in straitjacket formula, the aforesaid instances are given. We have highlighted the jurisprudential basis of adhering to the principle of natural justice which are grounded on the doctrine of procedural fairness, accuracy of outcome leading to general social goals, etc. Nevertheless, there may be situations wherein for some reason perhaps because the evidence against the individual is thought to be utterly compelling- it is felt that a fair hearing "would make no difference"- meaning that a hearing would not change the ultimate conclusion reached by the decision-maker." 25. Nevertheless, there may be situations wherein for some reason perhaps because the evidence against the individual is thought to be utterly compelling- it is felt that a fair hearing "would make no difference"- meaning that a hearing would not change the ultimate conclusion reached by the decision-maker." 25. This Court, therefore, is of the view that even if direction is to be passed to issue the show cause notice after quashing the impugned Letters dated 25.11.2019, then also there is no possibility of change of the ultimate decision even after receiving the reply in the present matter if show cause notice would have been issued after passing of the order, even then the fact about the area falling under Eco-Sensitive Zone where the mining operation is not to be changed. 26. We are conscious of the facts to be admitted to the extent that the area where the mining lease has been granted has been notified to be Eco-Sensitive Zone vide Gazette notification issued by the Central Government dated 09.08.2019. The aforesaid fact, in any circumstances, cannot be disputed and it is not in dispute. 27. It further appears from the impugned letters dated 25.11.2019 that there is reference of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. U.O.I. in W.P.(C) No. 202/1995. 28. We have the occasion to perused the aforesaid judgment in another case which has been heard today and found that vide judgment dated 26.05.2025 passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in W.P.(C) No. 202/1995 pertaining to the declaration of the area falling under the District of Hazaribagh, the Hon’ble Apex Court has refused to interfere with the said decision taken by the State. 29. This Court applying the same principle and considering the Gazette notification so far as it relates to the subject matter of the impugned Letters dated 25.11.2019, which is the land in question, meaning thereby the said notification dated 09.08.2019 has been admitted by the petitioner and once it has been admitted, it is not available for the writ petitioner to claim by allowing to carry out the mining operation contrary to the decision taken by the competent authority of the Central Government which has been notified by virtue of the Gazette notification. 30. 30. So far as the issue of jurisdiction is concerned, even the same is not applicable in view of the aforesaid discussion made herein above that the District Mining Officer, Gumla has acted upon on the basis of the Gazette notification issued by the Government of India in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (supra). 31. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of opinion that the impugned Letters dated 25.11.2019, does not require any interference on the ground of non-issuance of a show-cause notice. 32. Accordingly, we are of the view that the present writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.