45. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is persuaded to allow the present writ petition for the following, amongst other, compelling reasons emerging from the record, as that the Petitioner has, since the year 1995, acted bona fide and in a continuous manner, obtaining all requisite statutory approvals from the competent authorities for establishment and operation of the hotel project, including land conversion, tourism approvals, building plan sanction, environmental clearance, and consents from pollution control and fire authorities; that the project in question stands duly completed, with construction having been finalized, followed by issuance of completion certificate and all operational permissions, thereby conferring upon the Petitioner a vested and crystallized right in respect of the project; that in terms of the Notification dated 08.03.2019 read with the Zonal Master Plan (Para 10.4), the Petitioner’s project unequivocally qualifies as an “existing unit”, having secured requisite approvals prior to the cut-off date, and therefore is not subject to the rigours applicable to new constructions; that the Memorandum dated 08.08.2019 clearly stipulates that projects situated outside the notified Eco-Sensitive Zone, though within a radius of 10 Kms, do not require prior approval of the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife, thereby rendering the objection raised in the impugned findings unsustainable; that the competent State Wildlife Authorities, after due inspection and verification, have positively recommended the Petitioner’s project, which recommendation has not been accorded due consideration by the Standing Committee; that the Standing Committee has proceeded on an erroneous factual and legal premise by misclassifying the Petitioner’s project as a “new unit”, and has failed to appreciate the applicable statutory framework, thereby vitiating its decision on account of non-application of mind; that the impugned findings have been rendered in violation of the principles of natural justice, particularly audi alteram partem, as no effective opportunity of hearing was afforded to the Petitioner; that the decision-making process adopted by the Standing Committee is arbitrary, suffers from procedural impropriety, and is contrary to
