ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. P.K. Goswami, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. D.P. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. U. Das, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 3, 5 & 14; Mr. D. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department for the respondent no. 4; Mr. S. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, Pollution Control Board Assam for the respondent nos. 6 & 7 and Mr. J. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council [KAAC] for the respondent nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13. There was no representation on behalf of the respondent no. 1, 15 & 16 on call. 2. The prayer for interim relief has been renewed on behalf of the petitioner in deference to the Order dated 14.11.2025. The petitioner has sought interim relief for allowing it to remove the quantities of already extracted stone from the petitioner’s mining contract area, that is, Naupani Kaiphoi Anlong P.P. Land Stone Quarry [‘the Stone Quarry’, for short]. In support of such interim relief, the petitioner has referred to interim orders passed by a coordinate bench of this Court on 05.09.2025 in two other writ petitions, W.P.[C] no. 5200/2025 & W.P.[C] no. 5203/2025. 3. The learned counsel for the parties have urged a number of points during the course of their submissions, which would be adverted to in the later parts of the order. 4. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he owns a plot of land in the district of Karbi Anglong, Assam, which is a periodic patta land, covered by Dag no. 285 and Patta no. 54. In order to set up the Stone Quarry in the said periodic patta land situate at Naupani Kaiphoi Anglong, Parku Pahar, he applied for a mining permit in the name of Naupani Kaiphoi Anlong P.P. Land Stone Quarry. On 16.11.2021, the Chief Conservator of Forests-cum-Council Head of the Forest Department, Karbi Anglong wrote to the respondent no. 13 stating that the operation of the Stone Quarry in the petitioner’s periodic patta land would be allowed only after observance of all the formalities and fulfillment of necessary requirements and clearances, as required, under existing rules in force for a period of two years to extract a quantity of 30,000 cubic metres of stone. The same was issued in deference to an Office Letter of the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council dated 28.10.2021. 4.1. The same was issued in deference to an Office Letter of the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council dated 28.10.2021. 4.1. Thereafter, the petitioner sought for approval to a mining plan. By an Office Letter dated 30.12.2021, the respondent no. 13 wrote to the respondent no. 5 informing that Naupani Kaiphoi Anlong P.P. Land Stone Quarry [‘the Stone Quarry’] had been settled with the petitioner for collection of 30,000 cubic metres of stones/sand with the issuance of a Letter of Intent [LoI] at a reserved price of Rs. 90,00,000/- along with 15% monopoly fees for a period of two years. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 21,75,000/- towards 10% of the bid security and towards advance contract money. By the said Letter dated 30.12.2021 [Annexure-2], the respondent no. 5 was requested to prepare a mining plan in connection with the Stone Quarry. 4.2. The respondent no. 13 on 30.12.2021 vide another Office Letter of even date [Annexure-3] asked the petitioner to start preparation for obtaining Environmental Clearance/Environmental Impact Assessment and mining plan as per the provisions of the Assam Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2013, as amended. On 17.06.2023, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India issued Environmental Clearance [EC] for the Stone Quarry under reference in terms of EIA Notification, 2006 for a period of two years from the date of issuance of the EC. 4.3. Thereafter on 18.08.2023, the respondent no. 13 submitted a Report to the respondent no. 14 for issuance of No Objection Certificate [NOC] for blasting operation at the Stone Quarry with his comments why the Stone Quarry can be allowed to operate. The respondent no. 14 issued a No Objection Certificate [NOC] to carry out blasting operation at the Stone Quarry situate at periodic patta land of the petitioner on the basis of the approved mining plan. 4.4. On receipt of the above permission, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 22,50,000/- towards second installment for extraction of 7,500 cubic metres of stone on 07.06.2024. 5. It is the further case of the petitioner that after obtaining/being granted the permits, NOC, Environmental Clearance [EC], approved mining plan, blasting permission, etc. the petitioner started to operate the Stone Quarry for extraction of stones. In the course of operation, a quantity of extracted stones was kept stored inside the premises of the Stone Quarry. 5. It is the further case of the petitioner that after obtaining/being granted the permits, NOC, Environmental Clearance [EC], approved mining plan, blasting permission, etc. the petitioner started to operate the Stone Quarry for extraction of stones. In the course of operation, a quantity of extracted stones was kept stored inside the premises of the Stone Quarry. It is for removal of the said quantity of extracted stone for which the petitioner has sought leave, as an interim prayer. 6. In the course of submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, a number of Orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs. Union of India and others, have been referred to. The learned counsel for the parties have referred to two Orders, dated 03.06.2022 reported in [2022] 10 SCC 544 and dated 26.04.2023, reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 504. The learned counsel for the parties have also referred to two other Orders, dated 12.04.2019, annexed at Page 68 – 73, and dated 20.11.2024 annexed at Page 74 – 79, to the writ petition. 7. The proceedings of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad [supra] originated from a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India registered as W.P.[Civil] no. 202/1995. The Orders referred above were passed in course of the said proceedings. The issues involved therein are related to mining activities in and around wildlife sanctuaries/national parks and in relation to Eco-Sensitive Zones [ESZ] surrounding the wildlife sanctuaries/national parks across the country. 8. The present writ petition has been instituted subsequent to a direction dated 29.01.2025 issued by the respondent no. 13 in an Office Letter dated 29.01.2025 addressed to the respondent no. 11. By the Office letter dated 29.01.2025, the respondent no. 13 has asked the respondent no. 11 to suspend the mining operations of the stone quarries which were being operated within the jurisdiction of Parkup Pahar Range. The reason mentioned for suspending the operations, as disclosed, was that the stone quarries would fall under the proposed Eco-Sensitive Zone [ESZ] of Kaziranga National Park [KNP] & Tiger Reserve and within the default Eco-Sensitive Zone. Such direction was stated to be in compliance of the Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in this regard. Along with the Office Letter dated 29.01.2025, the respondent no. 13 had also enclosed a list of 10 nos. Such direction was stated to be in compliance of the Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in this regard. Along with the Office Letter dated 29.01.2025, the respondent no. 13 had also enclosed a list of 10 nos. of stone quarries which would come within the purview of the said direction. The name of the petitioner’s Stone Quarry figured at Serial no. 8 in the list of ten stone quarries. 9. It is in the above backdrop, the petitioner assailing such Order of suspension, has instituted the writ petition. For the extracted quantity of stone which are kept within the Stone Quarry premises, the interim relief, as above, has been sought for. 10. In the year 2019, a Report was submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with respect of illegal mining in Kaziranga National Park [‘KNP’, for short] in Assam. On receipt of the Report, the Hon’ble Supreme Court asked for responses from the State of Assam and Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council [KAAC]. Awaiting the response, the Supreme Court on 12.04.2019 ordered that all kinds of mining and related activities along the KNP area and in the entire catchment area of rivers/streams and rivulets originating in Karbi Anglong Hill ranges and flowing into Kaziranga National Park including Tiger Reserve were to be restrained. It was further ordered that no new construction shall be permitted on private lands which form part of the nine identified animal corridors. 11. Responses were filed subsequently by the State of Assam and Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council [KAAC]. The issue was again taken up by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 20.11.2024. It was represented by the State of Assam that there would be an elevated corridor of 34.5 Kms [approx. as a wildlife friendly measure and it had received approval form the National Board of Wildlife for diversion of 20.241 hectares of forest land. On the basis of the affidavit received from the KAAC on 05.11.2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court recorded that in the said affidavit, it was mentioned that all the mining activities inside the Karbi Anglong District bordering the southern parts of Kaziranga National Park [KNP] had already been closed pursuant to a Meeting with the Central Empowered Committee [CEC]. On the basis of the affidavit received from the KAAC on 05.11.2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court recorded that in the said affidavit, it was mentioned that all the mining activities inside the Karbi Anglong District bordering the southern parts of Kaziranga National Park [KNP] had already been closed pursuant to a Meeting with the Central Empowered Committee [CEC]. It was reported in the affidavit that notices to close 51 stone quarries and 18 stone crushing units were issued and the mining activities along the southern boundary and catchment area of the rivers/streams originating in Karbi Anglong Hills had been prohibited vide an Order dated 04.05.2019 issued by the respondent no. 14. It was reported that another Order dated 07.05.2024 was issued by the respondent no. 13 stating that no new order for lifting the closure order of the quarries had been issued. Recording that the KAAC had also taken necessary steps to stop the illegal mining in the areas bordering Kaziranga National Park [KNP] the Honb’ble Supreme Court vide Order dated 20.11.2024 closed the proceedings in so far as the two issues were involved therein. 12. From the said two Orders, dated 12.04.2019 & dated 20.11.2024, it transpires that the issues involved were stoppage of mining and related activities in the Kaziranga National Park [KNP] area bordering the southern parts and in the entire catchment area of rivers/streams and rivulets originating in Karbi Anglong Hill ranges and stoppage of new construction on private lands forming part of the nine identified animal corridors. 13. The process of issuance of permissions for setting up the Stone Quarry, by approval of the mining plan, issuance of Environmental Clearance [EC], NOC for blasting permission, etc. was in progress during the interregnum. After all the requisite procedural formalities were completed, the petitioner started to operate the Stone Quarry. It is in the said process, stones were extracted and stored inside the Stone Quarry premises. 14. Reverting back to the decision in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad [supra] reported in [2022] 10 SCC 544, it is noticed that after deliberation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court recorded certain directions in Paragraph 56 [56.1, 56.2, 56.3, 56.4, 56.5, 56.6, 56.7, 56.8, 56.9, 56.10, 56.11, 56.12, 56.13, 56.14, 56.15, 56.16 & 56.17]. For the purpose of the case in hand, the following directions are of relevance, as referred to by the learned counsel for the parties:- 56. We accordingly direct : 56.1. For the purpose of the case in hand, the following directions are of relevance, as referred to by the learned counsel for the parties:- 56. We accordingly direct : 56.1. Each protected forest, that is, national park or wildlife sanctuary must have an ESZ of minimum one kilometre measured from the demarcated boundary of such protected forest in which the activities proscribed and prescribed in the Guidelines of 9.2.2011 shall be strictly adhered to. …... 56.2. In the event, however, the ESZ is already prescribed as per law that goes beyond one kilometre buffer zone, the wider margin as ESZ shall prevail. If such wider buffer zone beyond one kilometre is proposed under any statutory instrument for a particular national park or wildlife sanctuary awaiting final decision in that regard, then till such final decision is taken, the ESZ covering the area beyond one kilometre as proposed shall be maintained. * * * 56.4. Mining within the national parks and wildlife sanctuaries shall not be permitted. 56.5. In the event any activity is already being undertaken within the one kilometre or extended buffer zone (ESZ), as the case may be, of any wildlife sanctuary or national park which does not come within the ambit of prohibited activities as per the 9.2.2011 Guidelines, such activities may continue with permission of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests of each State or Union Territory and the person responsible for such activities in such a situation shall obtain necessary permission within a period of six months. Such permission shall be given once the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests is satisfied that the activities concerned do not come within the prohibited list and were continuing prior to passing of this order in a legitimate manner. No new permanent structure shall be permitted to come up for whatsoever purpose within the ESZ. * * * * * * * * 56.8. In respect of sanctuaries or national parks for which the proposal of a State or Union Territory has not been given, the 10 km buffer zone as ESZ, as indicated in the order passed by this Court on 4.12.2006 in Goa Foundation [Goa Foundation v. Union of India, (2011) 15 SCC 791] and also contained in the Guidelines of 9.2.2011 shall be implemented. Within that area, the entire set of restrictions concerning an ESZ shall operate till a final decision in that regard is arrived at. 15. In the subsequent Order in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India and others , 2023 SCC OnLine 504, directions inter alia were sought for modification of the directions contained in Paragraph 56.1, Paragraph 56.4 and Paragraph 56.5 given in the Order dated 03.06.2022. The following observations made therein are of relevance:- 60. Insofar as the restriction on mining is concerned, we are of the considered view that it has been the consistent view of this Court that the mining activities within an area of one kilometre of the boundary of the Protected Areas will be hazardous for the wildlife. Though in the case of Goa Foundation (supra), the said directions were issued in respect of State of Goa, we find that such directions need to be issued on Pan-India basis. 61. We are therefore inclined to allow the present I.A. The direction In Paragraph 56.1 of the Order dated 3rd June 2022 (supra) is modified and clarified that the directions contained therein would not be applicable to the ESZs in respect of which a draft and final notification has been issued by the MoEF & CC and in respect of the proposals. * * * 65. We also modify the direction contained in Paragraph 56.4 of the Order dated 3rd June 2022 (supra) and direct that mining within the National Park and Wildlife Sanctuary and within an area of one kilometre from the boundary of such National Park and Wildlife Sanctuary shall not be permissible. 66. We also modify the directions contained in Paragraph 56.5 of the Order dated 3rd June 2022 (supra) and replace the same as under: (i) The MoEF & CC and all the State/Union Territory Governments shall strictly follow the provisions in the said Guidelines dated 9th February 2011 and so also the provisions contained in the ESZ notifications pertaining to the respective Protected Areas with regard to prohibited activities, regulated activities and permissible activities. (ii) We further direct that while granting Environmental and Forest Clearances for project activities In ESZ and other areas outside the Protected Areas, the Union of India as well as various State/Union Territory Governments shall strictly follow the provisions contained in the Office Memorandum dated 17th May 2022 issued by MoEF & CC. 16. (ii) We further direct that while granting Environmental and Forest Clearances for project activities In ESZ and other areas outside the Protected Areas, the Union of India as well as various State/Union Territory Governments shall strictly follow the provisions contained in the Office Memorandum dated 17th May 2022 issued by MoEF & CC. 16. On perusal of two Orders, dated 03.06.2022 & dated 26.04.2023, it transpires that the direction made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paragraph 56.8 in the Order dated 03.06.2022 has remained in force till date. It can be iterated, at the cost of repetition, that in respect of a wildlife sanctuary or a national park for which a proposal of a State or Union Territory has not been received, then the 10 Km buffer zone as Eco-Sensitive Zone [ESZ] is to be implemented. Within that area, the entire set of restrictions concerning an Eco- Sensitive Zone [ESZ] would continue to operate till the final decision in that regard is arrived at. Albeit, mining is an activity which is prohibited within the 10 Km area of Eco-Sensitive Zone [ESZ]. 17. On a specific query by the Court, the learned Standing Counsel, Environment and Forest Department has submitted that as on date, there is neither any final notification, nor any draft proposal on Eco-Sensitive Zone [ESZ] of Kaziranga National Park from the State Government, which has been submitted to the Central Government, and as such, the direction of the 10 Km Eco-Sensitive Zone in Kaziranga National Park is operative as on date. Therefore, Paragraph 61 of the Order date 26.04.2023 is not applicable to the present case. 18. On a query to the learned Standing Counsel, KAAC, it has been submitted that by a direction to suspend vide an Order of Suspension dated 29.01.2025, the mining activities including the stone quarries within the jurisdiction of Parkup Pahar Range have been suspended and the said direction is made subsequent to a direction of the Central Empowered Committee [CEC]. It is subsequent to the direction of the Central Empowered Committee [CEC] to stop mining activities in the Parkup Pahar Range in the southern boundary of Kaziranga National Park [KNP] the direction to suspend was issued on 29.01.2025. As a result, the activities of the Stone Quarry have also come to a halt. 19. It is subsequent to the direction of the Central Empowered Committee [CEC] to stop mining activities in the Parkup Pahar Range in the southern boundary of Kaziranga National Park [KNP] the direction to suspend was issued on 29.01.2025. As a result, the activities of the Stone Quarry have also come to a halt. 19. The Central Empowered Committee [CEC] was initially directed to be formed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide an Order dated 09.05.2002 in T.N. Godavarman [supra] primarily for monitoring implementation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Orders and to place the incidents of non-compliance before it. Subsequently, the CEC was constituted under statutory provisions contained in the Environment [Protection] Act, 1986 and the CEC has been tasked to bring to the notice of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the steps taken for removal of encroachment, implementation of working plans, compensatory afforestation, plantation and other conservation issues. 20. A Notification dated 05.09.2023 published in Issue no. 3784 of the Gazette of India has been placed before the Court. By the Notification dated 05.09.2023, the Central Government had constituted a permanent authority to be known as the Central Empowered Committee [CEC] consisting of the members mentioned therein pursuant to the Order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled T.N. Godavarman [supra]. In Paragraph 2 of the Notification, the powers and functions which the CEC would exercise are delineated. 20.1. The powers and functions including powers to monitor which are conferred upon the CEC are :- 2. The Committee shall exercise the following powers and perform the following functions:- A. Powers and functions conferred upon the Committee by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202/1995 and 171/1996 in the case of T. N. Godavarman Thirumalpad Vs. Union of India and others :- a. to monitor the implementation of Supreme Court’s orders in above matters and place reports of non compliance before the Central Government for appropriate actions; b. to deal with any applications made to it by any aggrieved person and wherever necessary, to make a report to the Central Government in that matter; c. for the purposes of effective discharge of powers conferred upon the Committee under this order; the Committee can :- i. call for any documents from any persons or the government of the Union or the State or any other official. ii. undertake site inspection. iii. ii. undertake site inspection. iii. seek assistance or presence of any person(s) or official(s) required by it in relation to its work. iv. co-opt one or more persons as special invitees for dealing with specific issues. v. co-opt, wherever feasible, the Secretary of the State Government dealing with the subjects related to Forest or Wildlife or Environment or his representative or the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests of the State as special invitees while dealing with issues pertaining to a particular State. vi. to suggest or recommend measures generally to the State as well as Central Government, for the more effective implementation of the Act and other orders of the Supreme Court in above matters. B. to examine and advise or recommend on any issue referred to the Committee by the Central Government, from time to time. 21. The CEC has been entrusted to examine and advice or recommend on any issue referred to it by the Central Government, from time to time. In case any suggestion or recommendation of the CEC, not acceptable to the State or Central Government, the Government shall give reasons in writing for not accepting the same and such decision of the Central Government shall be final. 22. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paragraph 11 in an Order dated 31.01.2024 passed in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India and others , [2024] 1 SCR 1194, to submit that powers and functions of the CEC are to monitor and place reports, in a case of non-compliance, to examine and advice or recommend on any issue in direction. Further, in the Order in T.N. Godavarman [supra] the Hon’ble Supreme Court has inter alia observed that once an order is passed by the Court, it is not appropriate for the CEC which was constituted under the very orders of the said Court, to give a report which in effect, questions the correctness or otherwise of the Orders passed by the Court. 23. Whether a direction of the nature to suspend all the mining activities within the Parkup Pahar Range jurisdiction can be made by the Central Empowered Committee [CEC] or not is a matter which requires a detailed examination. 23. Whether a direction of the nature to suspend all the mining activities within the Parkup Pahar Range jurisdiction can be made by the Central Empowered Committee [CEC] or not is a matter which requires a detailed examination. The issue of legality and validity of such a direction can only be examined after receipt of the responses from all the respondents including the CEC, who till date has not filed its responses to examine its views. 24. It is in the above backdrop, the facts reported by the respondent no. 13 with regard to the location of the Stone Quarry of the petitioner in his Report dated 18.08.2023 [Annexure-5] submitted before the respondent no. 14 are of import and relevance. In the Report submitted by the respondent no. 13, the following aspects were highlighted :- As per report of the concern Assistant Conservator of Forest I/c North Western Range, Parkup Pahar vide letter no. under reference the details reports are given bellows : 1. The mining sites are outside 10 km eco-sensitive zone of the southern boundary of Kaziranga National Park (KNP) and there are not river streams or rivulets in the vicinity of the proposed mining area which flows into Kaziranga National Park (KNP). 2. The mining sites are outside from parts of the 9 (nine) Identified animal corridors as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 3. Minimum distance of the proposed blasting site from the nearest School 4 km. 4. Minimum distance of the proposed blasting site from the nearest Hospital 8 km. 5. Minimum distance of the proposed blasting site from the nearest Village 1.5 km. The mining site is approximately 15 km far away from National Highway, there are electric transmission line, heavy traffic road, and the site does not recognised as no development zone, besides there are no any permanent Elephant corridors, and the area falls outside USF/DCRF/PRF/RF/PA/WLS. 25. From the Report of the respondent no. 13, it emerges that the Stone Quarry of the petitioner is situated outside the 10 Km Eco-Sensitive Zone [ESZ] from the southern boundary of the Kaziranga National Park [KNP] and there is no rivers/stream or rivulet which flows into Kaziranga National Park [KNP] in the vicinity of the Stone Quarry. The Stone Quarry is stated to be outside the nine identified animal corridors as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 26. The Stone Quarry is stated to be outside the nine identified animal corridors as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 26. It has been contended on behalf of the respondents that since the validity of the Environment Clearance, granted on 17.06.2023, had expired after two years, any direction to remove the extracted stone is not called for. The impugned Suspension Order is of 29.01.2025. The petitioner herein has sought for permission to lift the quantity of stone already extracted and kept stored in the Stone Quarry premises. It has been undertaken that since the Order of Suspension, the Stone Quarry is not being operated in obedience of the Order of Suspension. It is, thus, the quantity of stones already extracted prior to the Order of Suspension for which the permission to lift, as interim relief, has been sought for. 27. The Coordinate Bench in the Orders passed in writ petitions, W.P.[C] no. 5200/2025 & W.P.[C] no. 5203/2025 [supra] had permitted the petitioners therein to remove the already extracted stones from the designated area of the stone quarries involved therein. 28. Having considered the location of the Stone Quarry, as reported by the respondent no. 13, this Court is of the considered view that a similar interim order is called for in the case in hand. It is accordingly, directed that the petitioner can be permitted to remove/lift the extracted stones from the Stone Quarry area of Naupani Kaiphoi Anglong P.P. Land Stone Quarry, which were stored after extraction prior to the Order of Suspension. It is accordingly ordered. The respondent authorities, more particularly, the respondent no. 13 shall prepare an inventory as regards the extracted stone kept in the premises of Naupani Kaiphoi Anglong P.P. Land Stone Quarry and thereafter, allow the petitioner to lift/remove the same under the monitoring of the respondent no. 11 within a period of 1 [one] month from the date of submission of a certified copy of this Order at the office of the respondent no. 13. 29. List the case on 27.04.2026.