‘Cannot sanctify illegality’: Rajasthan HC quashes wildlife panel rejection of Kanha Hotels near Nahargarh

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has quashed an order rejecting wildlife clearance for the operational five-star Kanha Hotels and Spa near Nahargarh Sanctuary. Justice Sameer Jain ruled on 27 April 2026 in a writ petition by Kanha Hotels and Spa Pvt. Ltd.

The hotel sits at Village Chimanpura, Tehsil Amer, on the Jaipur-Delhi highway. The land was bought in 1995. It had already been converted from agricultural to industrial use the previous year. The Rajasthan Tourism Department approved the tourism unit on 24 March 2007. JDA sanctioned the building plan on 13 January 2011. State Environmental Clearance came on 23 June 2017. The 250-room hotel, run today in collaboration with the Taj Group, was structurally complete by 19 February 2019.

The trouble started on 8 March 2019. That day the Centre issued an Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) Notification under the Environment (Protection) Act. It declared an ESZ of 0 to 13 km around Nahargarh. Under the Notification, “no new commercial hotels and resorts” could come up within one kilometre of the sanctuary boundary. Kanha’s hotel sits about 95 metres from that boundary.

The hotel applied to the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) on 30 September 2019. The Deputy Conservator of Forests inspected the site on 4 March 2020 and recommended clearance. He recorded that the project had “no negative impact on sanctuary” and did not fall in any wildlife corridor. The State Board for Wildlife endorsed the recommendation in 2023. JDA issued the Completion Certificate on 28 February 2023.

At its 78th meeting on 22 February 2024, the Standing Committee took up the proposal as a “fresh proposal”. In a brief entry at Para 78.3.23, it noted the State’s positive recommendation, then refused clearance citing the one-kilometre bar on new hotels. The decision was communicated on 28 February 2024. The hotel — employing about 350 people, with bookings stretching two years out — moved the High Court under Article 226.

Senior Advocate R.B. Mathur, with Daksh Pareek, argued that the order was non-speaking and tried to apply the 2019 ESZ Notification retrospectively. The hotel was an “existing unit” under Para 10.4 of the Zonal Master Plan. That clause protects any hotel which obtained tourism approval, building plan sanction, or Environmental Clearance before 8 March 2019. Hotels are also “regulated”, not “prohibited”, under the ESZ scheme. Counsel relied on the Supreme Court’s order dated 3 June 2022 in T.N. Godavarman Thirumilpad v. Union of India.

Additional Solicitor General Bharat Vyas, for the Union, argued that the Court should defer to the NBWL Standing Committee as an expert body. Condition 10 of the 2017 Environmental Clearance had required prior wildlife clearance “if applicable”, and the hotel never obtained one before construction. Since the Completion Certificate came only in 2023, the project should be treated as “new”, not “existing”. Additional Advocate General B.S. Chhaba, for the State, took the same line. JDA’s counsel said building plan compliance was JDA’s domain, while wildlife clearance fell to central authorities.

Justice Jain rejected the deference argument up front. He observed that “the doctrine of judicial deference cannot be extended to the extent of sanctifying illegality”. This meant courts can step in where an expert body acts arbitrarily, ignores natural justice, or misreads the law — even on environmental matters.

The Court then held the Standing Committee’s order was a non-speaking, ex parte decision. The Committee had treated Kanha’s project as a “fresh proposal” for a “new commercial hotel” without engaging with the 25-year paper trail of prior approvals on record. Justice Jain held: “The Standing Committee has committed a manifest error in law as well as on facts by erroneously classifying the Petitioner’s project as a ‘new commercial hotel’, instead of recognizing it as an ‘existing unit’.” That collapsed the entire foundation of the rejection.

The Court then turned to the ESZ Notification itself. Para 2 expressly says the Zonal Master Plan “shall not impose any restriction on the approved existing land use, infrastructure and activities”. Para 10.4 of the Zonal Master Plan defines an “existing unit” as any hotel that obtained any of seven listed approvals before 8 March 2019. Kanha had four of those — tourism approval, building plan, Environmental Clearance and pollution consents. It plainly qualified.

The judge also relied on the Ministry’s Office Memorandum of 8 August 2019. Clause (ii) says that projects outside the demarcated ESZ do not need prior Standing Committee clearance. That holds even if they fall within 10 km of a sanctuary. Kanha’s hotel sits outside the ESZ boundary. The clearance the Committee had refused was not even legally required.

The Court called the retrospective use of the 2019 Notification impermissible under the maxim lex prospicit non respicit — the law looks forward, not backward. It also held that the Committee had violated the principle of audi alteram partem by passing the order without hearing Kanha. The Committee had also wrongly disregarded the positive recommendations of the Deputy Conservator of Forests and the State Board for Wildlife.

The High Court allowed the writ petition in toto. The impugned findings of the Standing Committee dated 28 February 2024, at Para 78.3.23 of the minutes of the 78th meeting, were quashed and set aside. No order as to costs.

Case details