National Green Tribunal
Giriraj Parikrama Sanrakshan Sansthan vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 May, 2019
Item No.01 to 03 Court No. 2
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Original Application No. 229 of 2013
(M.A. No. 736 of 2013, 194 of 2014, 211 of 2017, 216 of
2017, 363 of 2017, 478 of 2017, 519 of 2017, 652 of
2017, 514 of 2018, 1183 of 2018, 1360 of 2018, 1400 of
2018, 1737 of 2018, 1742 of 2018 & I.A. No. 144 of 2019,
145 of 2019 & 157 of 2019)
With
Original Application No. 280 of 2017
(M.A. No. 529 of 2017)
With
Execution Application No. 19 of 2018
In
Original Application No. 24 of 2016
Giriraj Parikrama Sanrakshan
Sansthan & Ors. Applicant(s)
Versus
Department of Environment &
Forests & Ors. Respondent(s)
With
Dwaikadham-Radhika Dham Resident
Welfare Trust Applicant(s)
Versus
Mathura-Vrindavan Development
Authority &Ors. Respondent(s)
With
Giriraj Parikrama Sanrakshan
Sansthan Applicant(s)
Versus
State of Rajasthan &Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 17.05.2019
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHUVENDRA S. RATHORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. SATYAWAN SINGH GARBYAL, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant(s) Mr. Sarthak Chaturvedi, Advocate
Mr. Anand Gopal Das, Advocate
Mr. Rajesh Kr. Lawania, Advocate in
M.A.s
Mr. Bhuvan Ravandran, Advocate
For Respondent(s) Mr. Pradeep Misra, Advocate for
UPPCB
1
Mr. Amit Tiwari & Mr. Rohit Pratap,
Advocates for State of UP
Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for GNCTD
Mr. Shashank Saxena & Mr.
Amritesh Raj, Advocates for
Mr.Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad,
Advocate
Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Ms. Akansha
Singh & Ms. Ridhima Singh,
Advocates for MVDA
Mr. Kartikay Sharma, Advocate for
Giriraj Sewak Samiti
Mr. Rajkumar and Ms. Sadhana
Mishra, Advocates for CPCB
Mr. Ranjesh K. Sinha, Advocate
Mr. D. K. Devesh, Advocate for Dr.
Manish Singhvi, AAG for State of
Rajasthan
ORDER
In this Original Application, the issue of violation of Environmental Laws has been raised by the Applicant. Briefly stated, the applicant has raised the questions of violation of Environment Protection Act, 1986; regarding damage and disposal of solid and hazardous waste; removal of encroachments from the Reserved Forest area; action with regard to maintaining water bodies (kunds) in the town of Govardhan, Radhakund etc.; to stop noise pollution in the area; the work of afforestation and also to indemnify; restrict vehicular traffic in Govardhan town and around Giriraj Parvat; Forest land not to be diverted etc. etc.
2. On listing of the matter before the Tribunal and after considering the issues raised, it was thought appropriate to grant indulgence and pass an interim order restraining the respondents from felling/cutting of 2 any tree. Subsequently, the Tribunal had appointed a Court Commissioner namely Mr. Rachit Mittal, Advocate. He was directed to visit the site on the same day to carry out inspection. It was also ordered that Commissioner need not give any further notice to the parties, as the order has been passed in their presence. The Commissioner visited the area and submitted a comprehensive report in respect of the issue mentioned herein. He was also given liberty to take photographs and prepare videos. All the officials of the respondents including that of PWD were to present the drawings, contract and outlay plan for completion of the project in question, before the Court Commissioner. The applicant was also given liberty to show photographs and also the sites.
3. On 22nd April, 2014, the Tribunal had ordered, in presence of the Counsels for the respective parties, that no construction work shall be carried out in the area in question nor any tree shall be uprooted or cut. A copy of order was sent to the Chief Secretary, District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police of the concerning districts.
4. On 29th May, 2017, when the report of the Commissioner was received, the Tribunal observed that it was not satisfied with the contents of the report and he was directed to revisit the area and submit a detail and comprehensive report. However, Superintendent 3 Engineer, Mr. D.D. Sharma was present before the Tribunal and he had given the following undertaking:
"1. The process of widening the Parikrama may be permitted.
2. In this process it is undertaken that no tree will be cut or damaged and all trees existing on or around the Parikrama shall be duly protected.
3. For the trees already damaged or uprooted, the Government shall take reforestation of 30 times of trees damaged and/or uprooted. The trees, as an expression which is clearly understood as any existing tree irrespective of its age.
4. Every effort would be made to expand the Parikrama outward as opposed to inward. 5. However wherever it is not possible it may be expanded inward.
6. On the entire Parikrama, public amenities, toilets, seating arrangements shall be provided.
7. There shall be dustbins kept after every short interval and due propaganda would be given to inform the public that they must use the dustbins rather than throwing the waste in the forest or on the pavement.
8. The MSW waste so collected in the Dustbins or otherwise shall be lifted every day and properly transported in accordance with MSW Rules, to the concerned specified site. There it shall be segregated, treated and given for recycling or for any other process so as to ensure that the municipal waste does not cause any nuisance or environmental hazards.
9. The entire Govardhan Parvat and Parikrama shall be decalred and in fact it is already declared by the Notification as a protected/reserved forest. No non-forest activity shall be carried out in the forest area.
10. The public amenities provided shall be maintained properly so that no inconvenience is caused to the public by the odor or any other nuisance generated.
11. Plantation shall be carried out by the State around the Parikrama, in addition to the forestation existing as of now.4
12. Due protection should be provided to the forest area to prevent its misuse by the public.
13. All unauthorized construction and illegal structures will be removed from in and around the Parikrama."
The Tribunal accepted the aforesaid undertaking and it was made clear that the same shall be treated on behalf of Government of Uttar Pradesh as well.
Secretary Environment and Secretary, Urban Development were made equally responsible for compliance of the above mentioned undertaking.
5. When on the next date of hearing i.e. 28th July, 2014, the Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the direction given by the Tribunal on 29th May, 2014 are not being obeyed. Similar contentions were raised by the interveners also. Tribunal directed the Deputy Commissioner of District Mathura, Regional Engineer and Environmental Engineer, UPPCB, Chief Engineer of PWD and Executive Officer of Nagar Panchayat to conduct inspection personally and submit compliance report in respect of directions contained in order dated 29th May, 2014. It was made clear by the Tribunal that if it was found that the directions had not been complied with, it will be compelled to take coercive action against the respective authorities.
6. Further on 2nd September, 2014, the Tribunal directed the Deputy Commissioner and the Regional Engineer, UPPCB, PWD and Executive Officer of Nagar 5 Panchayat to ensure that garbage is not dumped everywhere but should be removed, segregated and disposed of in accordance with the Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) rules, 2000. A report in this regard was directed to be filed. The respondents were also directed to comment upon the photographs which were shown during the course of hearing.
7. On 12th May, 2015, MoEF was directed to produce the record referred to in the reply. It was observed by the Tribunal that:
"Since February, 2014, there has been no compliance and we have proceeded in this matter with a hope that the said record would be produced. Now, we find ourselves at the end of our limits and, therefore, we direct the Director/Secretary, MoEF to be present before us, if the relevant records are not produced by the next date of hearing."
8. During the course of hearing on 28th July, 2015, it was observed by the Tribunal that:
"A team comprising of Swami Gyan Swarup Sanand, Mr. U.N. Singh, Additional Director, CPCB, Mr. R.K. Singh, Regional Officer, UPSPCB, Mathura, Mr. Sunil Prakash, Assistant Engineer, UP PWD, Mr. Rajnish Sharma, Executive Officer, Goverdhan Nagar Panchayat, Mr. Rahul Shukla, Advocate, Mr. Anand Gopal Das visited the Parikarma Marg and Shri Giriraj Radha Kund and other places related with the Parikarma to study the environmental issues and problems of devotees on 20.03.2015 in pursuance to our order dated 12.12.2014. Physical inspection report with the recommendations flowing out of it has been placed before us. The parties in principle do not 6 have any objection or quarrel with the recommendations made therein."
9. Subsequently, on 4th August, 2015, the Learned Counsel appearing for the State submitted that he is instructed by Mr. R.K. Singh, RO, UPPCB, Mathura, Mr. Anil Kumar, Executive Engineer, PWD and Mr. N.K. Jaanu, District Forest Officer Mathura. Upon their instructions, the Counsel made a statement that:
"the State of UP accepts the Recommendations made in Inspection Report of the inspection conducted on 20.03.2015, which have been reproduced herein below, and further assures that the same shall be adhered to and executed in true letter and spirit in the interest of environment in or around the Shri Girirajji Parvat and Parikrama Marg, Goverdhan, Dist. Mathura, UP"
Recommendations:
1. "A service road of 10 meter wide around Parikrama Marg behind existing houses and Ashrams and a Ring Road outside the said service roads may be constructed and all vehicular traffic should be terminated on said service road and Parikrama Marg may be completely closed for any vehicular movement with exception to medical and fire series.
2. Entire Parikrama Marg may be declared as no construction zone to avoid any further encroachment.
3. Interceptors should be constructed and Sewage generated in the area should be diverted to STP.
Residents may be directed to take sewage connection. A punitive action may also be recommended against residents for violations/discharge of sewage on roads/water bodies.
7
4. The areas along the Parikrama Marg which have not been provided with sewerage system should be provided with sewer lines and suitable sewage treatment facility should also be provided.
5. Facilities for collection of MSW and its proper disposal should be made for disposal of MSW where collected MSW may be disposed off as per MSW (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000.
6. At some places, alongside the pucca road, natural path between the Kacchi Parikrama Marg and Giriraj ji have emerged on its own and are convenient to the pilgrims because shadow of trees saves the devotees from scorching sun on such natural paths. Therefore, at such places widening of Kacchi Parikrama Marg, which may result in cutting of trees. Is not necessary. In view of abandoning of further widening of Kacchi Parikrama Marg vide Office Order No. 485/12CAgra Region/2015 dated 06-02-2015, the remaining forest areas diverted for non-forest use shall again be declared as Forest area.
7. The officials have informed the visiting team that widening of Kacchi Parikrama Marg at proposed places will not be done considering the inevitable damage to existing dense plantation in the area and thus no trees will be cut in future.
8. At few water bodies, simple waste water treatment system based on sand/gravel filtration had been provided by the non-government organization/ Ashram and that treated waste water is used of plantation. Such treatment system can be improved by providing design and construction by the professional Environmental Engineers/body and subsequently treated waste water can be used for the tree plantation in better way.
9. Condition of Roads should be improved.
10. Parking Facilities for the vehicles at suitable places atleast 200 mts away from Parikrama Marg are required to be provided.
11. A drive may be carried out for identification of Forest land in accordance with demarcation map and all encroachments may be removed in a time bound manner. 12. A plantation drive may be carried out on forest land including Forest land 8 situated at Madaur on Gata No. 1673 measuring 2.55 Hectare.
13. That 3.9 hectare of non-forest land may be notified as forest land in compliance of Letter No. 8B/UP/68/2013/FC/1180 dated 08.10.2013 in Goverdhan area and plantation drive may be carried out in a time bound manner.
14. Any future widening of Kacchi Parikrama Mar gamy be undertaken only on outer side of Parikrama Marg instead of inner side of Kacchi Parikrama Marg (The side of Giriraj Goverdhanji) Which not only leads to the diversion of forest land but also involves the cutting of trees.
15. Illegal construction activities/buildings erected next to Giriraj ji along the Parikrama Marg have blocked/obstructed the view to have darshan by the devotees. It is recommended that such illegal construction between Parikrama Marg and Giriraj ji be demolished, so that the pilgrims can have a clear and unobstructed darshan/view of the scared Giriraj Govardhan.
16. The private land next to Giriraj ji along the Parikrama Marg shall be declared as no construction zone.
17. An independent organisation on the lines of other shrine Board in the country may be constituted for the proper management of this religious place, providing all the required facilities and maintain and upkeep the sanctity of holy places/ kunds, cultural heritage, environment protection, sanitation, pollution control, eco- balance of the Green cover which includes Kund, Pokhar, Talab and Jhari and related aspects."
10. It was also observed by the Tribunal that:
"the Applicant expresses satisfaction with the statement made on behalf of the Respondent-State and its limbs Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 6 - MoEF, Government of India submits that they shall join and co-operate with the State of UP in executing the recommendations in true letter and spirit."
It was observed by the Tribunal that:
9
"we hope and trust that the concerned authorities shall fix the priorities in appropriate sequence and take effective steps in execution of these recommendations expeditiously. Periodical reports of the execution of these recommendations shall be filed by the State of UP through District Magistrate, Mathura every three months before the Registry of this Tribunal. Liberty is granted to the Applicant to point out if there is any laxity on behalf of these stakeholders in execution of these recommendations. Copy of the periodical report shall be furnished to the applicant."
Further, it was ordered:
"Original Application No. 229/2013 thus stands disposed of with no order as costs. All pending miscellaneous applications also stand disposed of. Further, it was ordered that list these matters for monitoring the progress on 17th November, 2015. "
Therefore, all further proceedings in this case are only by way of execution of the order passed by the Tribunal on 04.08.2015.
11. It would be relevant to mention here that a separate Execution Application No. 19 of 2018 had been filed by the applicant which is also listed today. It may be noted that another original application (24/2016) had been filed by the same applicant exclusively against the State of Rajasthan. The said Original Application was pertaining to protection, conservation and restoration of Giriraj Parikrama falling in State of Rajasthan. The Tribunal vide order dated 20th May, 2016 had recorded the statement of the Learned Counsel appearing for State of Rajasthan wherein it was submitted by him that:
10
"they would carry out directions/recommendations already issued by the Tribunal vide order dated 4th August, 2015 (O.A. No. 229 of 2013)."
It was further directed that the State would carry out plantation around Parikrama Marg and plant not less than 1000 trees in the area 1.2 km falling in its jurisdiction.
12. Further, it was submitted in the Execution Application that the State of Rajasthan has not complied with the directions issued by the Tribunal on 4th August, 2015 and irreparable damage was being caused to the ecology and the sacred Giriraj Parvat by illegal encroachments and constructions on the holy hill itself. On 17th March, 2018, the State of Rajasthan is said to have used JCBs, old public bulldozers on the Giriraj Parvat/Hill/Shillas for some construction activity which was in gross violation of the direction of the Tribunal wherein the State was directed to declare Giriraj Govardhan Parikrama as 'no construction zone'.
13. The Tribunal then appointed a Commissioner vide order dated 22nd August, 2017 for inspection in respect of compliance of the directions dated 4th August, 2015. The Commissioner had made the following observations with reference to State of Rajasthan:
"1. There were several encroachments on Parikrama Marg by hawkers, restaurant owners on the Rajasthan side of Parikrama Marg.
3. Some structures were also noticed on the Reserved Forest area of Govardhan Parvat."11
14. With the aforesaid averments, the applicant had prayed in the execution application that serious action against State Authorities may be taken for non- compliance of the above stated directions. Further, the State of Rajasthan may be directed to comply with the directions dated 4th August, 2015 in O.A. No. 229 of 2013 and order dated 20th May, 2016 in O.A. No. 24 of 2016 and file status report for the same.
15. It is in furtherance of the aforesaid directions and proceedings that this matter had been taken up by the Tribunal for compliance of recommendations/orders which were accepted without any reservation by the Respondent-States and their officials.
16. When the compliance report dated 3rd January, 2016 was submitted before the Tribunal on 19th May, 2016, it was observed that apparently compliance of the recommendations accepted by the State of Uttar Pradesh vide order dated 4th August, 2015 is in the process of being complied with. However, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that the Shrine Board, envisages to properly manage the religious places particularly Shri Giriraj Govardhanji by recommendation no. 17, has not been formed. He had further submitted that encroachment in the forest continues. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the applicant to further clarify the points about encroachments. 12
Later on 6th July, 2016, it was observed by the Tribunal, on the submission made by the Counsel for the applicant that despite of the expiry of 10 months, no effective compliance has been made. From the compliance report filed, it is seen that the compliance is not complete. Therefore it was ordered that a proper detail compliance report be filed within two weeks.
17. On 26th August, 2016, it was observed by the Tribunal that the work to be executed for compliance of the recommendations made in the Inspection Report and accepted by the Authorities as their obligations vide order dated 04/08/2015, besides removal of encroachments several other works were to be carried out. With a hope that there would be expeditious execution of the work for the compliance of the recommendations, the Tribunal had directed the concerned authorities to fix priorities in appropriate sequence and take steps for execution sequentially. But nothing on this count had been done.
18. The Tribunal had on 6th October, 2016, after taking stalk of the situation, made it clear that in case the order is not complied with, it will not hesitate in invoking jurisdiction and power conferred under Section 27 and 28 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 for taking serious action in the matter.
13
19. As pointed out on 22nd December, 2016 that Parikrama Marg has a due protection of law on securing compliance/execution of the recommendations i.e. "entire Parikrama Marg may be declared as no- construction zone to avoid any further encroachment."
It is also revealed from para 4.1.2 in Mathura, Vrindavan Development Master Plan, 2021, page 22 reads as under:
"No permission for any construction/development shall be given in the space between Parikrama Marg and Goverdhan Marg."
20. The Tribunal had on 13th January, 2017, after perusing the status report, observed that it is vague and does not contain any specific or categorical statement as to which of the directions have been complied and which of them have not been. It was also pointed out to the State Governments to keep in mind the order dated 6th October, 2016 where the Tribunal had expressed dissatisfaction and directed positive action. As regards submissions of the Learned Counsel that Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority is not approving any drawing for construction between Goverdhan Parvat and Goverdhan Parikrama Marg, as per Mathura Vrindavan Master Plan, Part-C Year 2021 and that no further construction activity has been taken up, the Tribunal observed that it does not convince them. Hence, specific statement was directed to be given, to this effect. 14 Similarly, the State of Rajasthan was to submit a report through District Magistrate, Bharatpur on the issue referred above, making it clear as to whether directions have been complied or not.
21. Later, on 14th February, 2017 after considering the submission made by the Learned Counsel for the applicant that there is gross violation of the directions of the Tribunal, the Tribunal ordered the presence of the responsible senior most officer from the department of Forest, State of Uttar Pradesh and State of Rajasthan, as well as, District Magistrate, Mathura on the next date of hearing. At the juncture when State of Rajasthan sought further time of two weeks, the Tribunal declined the same. However, the Tribunal granted one week time to comply with the order dated 13th January, 2017, failing which they were to pay a cost of Rs. 30,000/- to be deposited with State Pollution Control Board.
22. On 21st February, 2017, the Tribunal observed:
"we have perused the records of this case which speaks for itself as to what has transpired from the date of the order in question under execution passed till now. On different dates of hearing the Tribunal has expressed its dissatisfaction in the manner in which the respondents have failed to report compliance of the order in totality. Baring few statements that some of the 3 conditions have been complied, no positive result has surfaced till now."
Further, 15 "to our dismay we find statements in the report are contrary. We are therefore dissatisfied about the manner in which the order has been understood and is sought to be implemented."
23. The Learned Additional Advocate General assured the Tribunal that steps, as required, would be taken. But considering as to what had transpired in the past; to avoid unnecessary waste of time and to bind the officers concerned. The Tribunal issued following directions:
"1. The respondent no. 1-State of Uttar Pradesh and Principal Secretary/ Chief Secretary State of Uttar Pradesh will ensure that appropriate instructions are issued to the officers under its control who are responsible or competent to enforce each of the directions contained in the order of the Tribunal dated 29-05-2014 passed in O. A. No. 229/2013.
2. The officers who are area wise/zone wise incharge must file a affidavit giving clear undertaking as to 4 the period within which they would comply the directions in totality with no excuse whatsoever.
3. They must file a periodical report and also mention that as and when action is completed after serving copy on the applicant's counsel.
4. For this purpose we grant them two weeks time as requested by Learned Additional Advocate General but while doing so we cannot ignore that the applicant is compelled to approach this Tribunal to complaint of non compliance of the directions issued in the order in question and to seek its enforcement. This case was filed in the year of 2014 and from that year till now the applicant has been regularly appearing before the Tribunal to report non compliance only due to default on the part of the Respondents.
In the circumstances, the applicant needs to be paid minimal litigants to bear immediate expenditure. This order is not an order imposing the penalty but an order imposing tentative litigation cost subject to further orders.16
In the circumstances the State shall pay a cost of Rs. 50,000/- to the applicant is the first instance subject to this order that may passed in this regard. The cost shall be deposited within the 10 days from now in the Registry or paid directly to the applicant. We would require the presence of the officers on that date of hearing include require the presence of Mr. DD Sharma who had filed affidavit. In view of this order the date of hearing fixed on 2nd March, 2017 shall now stand 5 changed to 21st March, 2017."
24. After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties on 22nd August, 2017, the Tribunal held that local inspection is necessary and for that purpose it constituted a Committee of five persons namely:
1. Mr. Swami Gyan Swarup Sanand,
2. Mr. U. N. Singh, Additional Director, CPCB,
3. Mr. R. K. Singh, Regional Officer, UPSPCB, Mathura,
4. Mr. Sunil Prakash, Assistant Engineer, UP PWD,
5. Mr. Rajnish Sharma, Executive Officer, Goverdhan Nagar Panchayat to visit along with Mr. Rahul Shukla, Advocate and Mr. Anand Gopal Das.
Thereafter the said Committee was reappointed along with five more Members who were mainly Advocates.
25. After aforesaid orders of the Tribunal for compliance of its order on the basis of the recommendations made by the Committee, Senior Officer of State of UP was called. Mr. A.K. Awasthi, Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh had appeared on 1st 17 February, 2019 and submitted, interalia, in respect of legislation to constitute a Shrine Board for three temples, namely Jatipura, Dhanghati and Mansi Ganga, that the process has already started. He submitted that:
"a draft has been prepared and processed through Inter-Department consultation. Now, it is placed before the Cabinet."
Further, he submitted that:
"some information with regard to the assets of the temple are required to be collected."
The Tribunal observed that:
"the information is to be received from the temples, which are under Receivers. Two temples of Mansi Ganga and Danghati are under Civil Judges as Receivers, appointed by the High Court. The third temple of Jatipura is also under Tehsildar as Receiver, by order of SDM. The required information regarding temple of Jatipur has already been sent by the Receiver. In so far as Receivers appointed for temple of Dhanghati and Mukarba Mansi Ganga are concerned, we would ask the Civil Judge, that looking to the urgency of the matter and the fact that the steps are being taken for the welfare of the public at large, they should send the required information to Mr. A.K. Awasthi, Additional Chief Secretary, within a period of one week positively. After having received such information, the matter be immediately placed before the Cabinet for its approval and thereafter to the Secretariat of legislation.
"We direct the Additional Chief Secretary to have the complete information as well as the approval of the Cabinet within a period of 15 days. Thereafter, we expect from the State of Uttar Pradesh to take up the bill on the floor of the Legislative Assembly/Parishad in the next session."18
26. The Learned Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh submitted that further steps regarding legislation for Shrine Board were being taken and as presently required, the same was sent for approval to the Election Commission of India. However, the Election Commission of India has directed that this matter can be taken up after 23rd May, 2019.
27. It is significant to note that I. A. No. 146/2019 was filed on behalf of the Commissioner, Devasthan, Government of Rajasthan, Udaipur with the prayer to clarify/modify the order dated 01.02.2019 passed by the Tribunal to the effect that the directions to constitute Shrine Board may be excluded in respect of Shrinath Ji. The said application was considered by the Tribunal on 06.03.2019 for some time, but later the Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that they may be granted further time to do the needful. Time sought was of 90 days. It was observed by Tribunal as under:
"In view of the fact that earlier on several occasions time had been granted to the State of Rajasthan for doing the needful i.e. bring an enactment/ordinance for creation of shrine board at "the ancient temple of Shri Nath Ji at Poochari Ka Lotha and the entire part of the Giriraj Parvat which falls within the territory of State of Rajasthan, which is approximately 1.3 km, last opportunity is granted for the purpose. This is essential for the reason that it is a universally known fact that every and each part of Giriraj Parvat is worshipped by the pilgrims who visits Goverdhan. Therefore not only for the ancient Shree Nath ji Temple at Poochari Ka Lotha but for 19 also Giriraj Parvat time has come which necessitates creation of a Shrine Board for proper management and welfare for the public at large who visit the place 24x7x12.
In the interest of justice, we grant 45 days to the State of Rajasthan for taking appropriate steps, failing which coercive orders shall be passed."
28. It has also been informed by one of the applicants in his affidavit dated 16.05.2019 that inordinate delay in constitution of the Shrine Board has led to serious consequences and enormous repercussions. He has submitted that the perennial and a large scale financial frauds committed by the authorities have surfaced in public domain. Ms. Chhaya Sharma the Upper Civil Judge (Mathura), vide order dated 25.02.2019, in Suit No. 332/1999, titled Giriraj Sewak Samiti Vs. Dalip Kumar and Ors.', had recorded that illegal siphoning of funds have been done by officers of the Giriraj Sewak Samiti who have granted tenders for maintenance of the temples to various private agencies and have not accounted for the money received by the Temple, which is meant for use of its welfare and also whether requisite approvals have been sought for use of such money.
29. The said Suit was filed by Giriraj Sewak Samiti against persons within the Society alleged to have indulged in malpractices that endangered the transparent and efficient existence for the Society. In this suit Receivers were appointed for maintenance and administration of the temples in Goverdhan due to in- 20 fighting taking place within the Society. It was in the interest of public and to resolve the issues taking place within the Society, the Court had decided to appoint Receivers with prescribed powers to administer the temple.
On 25.02.2019, the Court recorded that money raised by Assistant Manager of the Society, namely Mr. Dalchand Chaudhary, was not fully deposited in the account of the Society for the period under investigation, namely from May 2017 upto March 2018. The Court further observed that amount of over Rs. 3,00,00,000/- received in the months of April-July 2018, has not been deposited in the bank account of the Society. The applicant has placed on record, along with the affidavit, copy of the order dated 25.02.2019 passed in Suit No. 332/1999. Further vide order dated 12.05.2019, the Court specifically ordered that all decision taken by the Manager/Assistant Manager shall be apprised to the Court. A copy of the said order has also been placed on record.
30. Apart from the aforesaid facts, and the amount of embezzlement which has been taken note of by the Civil Court, allegation is that the total scam is of over Rs. 10,74,00,000/- in the account of Danghati Temple and Mukharvind Temple. This has been widely published as news items in the local papers of 14.05.2019. It is also 21 stated by the applicant that Human Right Commission has also taken cognizance of the rampant corruption in the management of the Danghati temple and has issued notices to the concerning authorities.
Therefore, crores of rupees that were to be used for preservation of the entire natural and human habitat of Giriraj Ji Parvat upon which these temples are located, has been stolen at the cost of human-environmental damage.
31. It would not be out of place to mention here that the entire Giriraj Parvat has been declared as forest by the State Government in 1998. In other words, area of Giriraj Parvat is under the Forest Department and is a forest land. Therefore, no individual can raise any construction on it.
We are of the view that even the ancient temples which are on the Giriraj Parvat cannot be a property of any individual or society. Similarly, any construction whatsoever raised on the forest land has to be demolished. The aforesaid circumstances clearly reflects as to how these ancient temples, which are sacred places for lakhs of pilgrims, are being kept by private individuals as their personal property. It has been made a source of income by such like individuals and regular embezzlement is being committed, instead of using the amount, collected as offerings, for the purpose of 22 development and maintenance of the temples and Giriraj Parvat.
32. In these circumstances, it is although more essential that the respective State Governments should make appropriate arrangements and ensure that the temples as well as Giriraj Parvat area are under their control and supervision. Appropriate arrangements should also be made by them for the pilgrims who are regularly visiting in large number. It was probably for this reason that the Committee had recommended, in item no. 17, that it is necessary to have a Shrine Board for Giriraj Parvat and its temples.
33. In respect of progress made, since the last date of hearing in compliance of the directions issued by the Tribunal, the Learned Counsel for State of Uttar Pradesh has submitted that DPR for storm water drain in Villages Aanyor, Radha Kund and Danghati have been prepared. It has also been submitted that as regards the service road, for distance of about 15 kms, survey has been done and 15 days would be required for completing the same. In respect of other works nine DPRs have been prepared by the Government of U.P. and they would be soon processed.
34. The Learned Counsel for State of Uttar Pradesh has further submitted that an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs had been given by the State for pumping station at the STP. 23 The work of remaining stretch of Ring Road between Barsana and Deeg, measuring 2.9 kms has been completed. He has also informed that Finance Committee of the Government has approved funds and orders have been placed by PWD Department. Further, it has been informed that on the basis of the report of the sample of milk which was sent for testing, prosecution against the defaulter has been initiated on 15.05.2019.
35. The Learned Counsel for State had suggested an alternative, of clearing safety tank in place of door to door sewage connection, in remaining part of Goverdhan Town and Radha Kund. But after having seriously considered the said proposal, we were not satisfied and the same is not accepted. Therefore, it is directed that every house should have sewage connection and the same be connected to the main sewage line so that the same is treated at the STP. The Learned Counsel for State of Uttar Pradesh has also informed that so far as sewage connection of the houses near Mansi Ganga is concerned, which are 1820, the same has been completed.
The Learned Counsel for State of Uttar Pradesh has submitted that steps with regard to formation of Shrine Board have been taken expeditiously by the Government but the same could not be finalized on account of code of conduct prevailing due to Parliamentary Election. The proposal was sent for approval to the Election 24 Commission of India. However, the Commission has suggested that the same may now be done after 23.05.2019. The Learned Counsel for the State has assured that the process for formation of Shrine Board would be completed at the earliest.
We direct that the District Magistrate, Mathura and Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathura to remain present before the Tribunal, on the next date of hearing.
List these matters on 27th June, 2019.
Raghuvendra S. Rathore, JM Dr. Satyawan Singh Garbyal, EM May 17, 2019 SN & JG 25