Why in the News
The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court on Thursday, 7 May 2026, sought replies from the Maharashtra government, forest officers and several resort operators over allegations of resorts being built in the eco-sensitive zone (ESZ) around the Tipeshwar wildlife sanctuary in Yavatmal. According to the Times of India (Nagpur, 8 May 2026), the bench of Justice Anil Kilor and Justice Raj Wakode issued notices on a public interest petition. The petition was filed by social worker Ankit Naitam through advocate Tejal Agre. The next hearing was said to be after the summer vacation.
The May 2026 report did not state any final conclusion of the court. The allegations are the petitioner's; the subsequent position is not in this article.
Background
The sanctuary. The Tipeshwar wildlife sanctuary is in Maharashtra's Yavatmal district. The Environment Ministry's draft ESZ notification of 7 January 2016 (S.O. 72(E)) gives its area as 148.632 sq km.
The basis of the ESZ. ESZs are declared around a protected area under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, so that development pressure there is reduced. Tipeshwar's final notification is S.O. 4892(E). The ministry's 2024 amendment notification dates it 18 September 2018.
The 2024 amendment. S.O. 3956(E) (6 September 2024) changed paragraphs 5 and 6 of the original notification and reconstituted the monitoring committee. Its chairperson is the District Collector of Yavatmal. Its members include the Chief Executive Officer of the Zila Parishad, the Amravati regional officer of the Pollution Control Board, the town planning officer, one non-governmental organisation representative and one ecology expert nominated by the state government every three years, a representative of the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (East), and one member of the State Biodiversity Board. The Deputy Conservator of Forests of the Pandharkawda forest division is the member-secretary.
The committee oversees activities taking place in the ESZ. Activities that figure in the schedule are sent to the Centre's or the state's authority for environmental clearance. Other activities are sent to the concerned regulatory authorities. A complaint against a violator can be filed under Section 19 by the member-secretary, the Collector or the Deputy Conservator of Forests. The committee submits its annual action report to the Chief Wildlife Warden by every 30 June.
Analysis
What the allegation is. According to the petition, several resorts and agri-tourism centres are running without the mandatory approval of the district monitoring committee and other competent authorities. Apprehension has been expressed that construction, excavation and tree felling are affecting wildlife corridors and increasing human-wildlife conflict in the villages.
The question of enforcement. According to the petitioner, letters of the forest department and police notices accept that some constructions lack permission, yet no concrete action has followed. If this holds true, the problem will be not the absence of the rule but its application. The monitoring committee is the institutional link of this very implementation. At the time of the report, the court had decided none of these points.
The balance. An ESZ does not mean a ban on every activity. Regulated and permitted activity is allowed there. Hence the question of balance between tourism-linked livelihood and conservation arises. At the time of the report, replies from the concerned parties were awaited.
A separate case. According to the Times of India report of 23 July 2026, the Nagpur bench also issued notice on another public interest petition. That one challenges the state circular of 4 May 2026, which limited monsoon tourism from 15 June to 30 September. It also raises the issue of declaring areas like Tipeshwar as tiger reserves. This is a separate petition from the ESZ-resort case.
From the Exam's Point of View
Prelims: Under which Act ESZs are declared; which state and district Tipeshwar is in; the composition of the monitoring committee; the difference among a national park, a sanctuary and a tiger reserve.
Mains: Regulation of tourism around protected areas and local livelihood; rule versus enforcement; wildlife corridors and human-wildlife conflict; the role of public interest petitions in environmental governance.
Practice question: "Issuing an eco-sensitive zone notification is not enough; the real challenge is its enforcement." Examine this statement.
Sources and Limitations
- Times of India: HC flags alleged illegal resorts near Tipeshwar sanctuary, 8 May 2026
- Environment Ministry: S.O. 3956(E), 6 September 2024
- Environment Ministry: draft ESZ notification S.O. 72(E), 7 January 2016
- Times of India: monsoon tourism petition, 23 July 2026
Limitations: The petition and the court's order were not read; the petition's details are based on the Times of India's report. The Times of India wrote the date of the ESZ notification as 18 December 2018, while the ministry's 2024 notification gives the date of the original S.O. 4892(E) as 18 September 2018. The article has taken the ministry's date; the original 2018 notification itself was not read, so the ESZ's width and prohibited activities are not given here. No information on a hearing or order in this case after May 2026 was found in searches, so the current position is unknown.