Uttarakhand High Court
Sanjay Vyas vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 20 September, 2013
Author: V.K. Bist
Bench: V.K. Bist
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (PIL) No. 25 of 2013
Sanjay Vyas. ........... Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others. ............. Respondents
Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. U.K. Uniyal, Advocate General, with Mr. K.P. Upadhyaya, Chief Standing
Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
Ms. Puja Banga, Advocate for respondent No. 3.
Hon'ble Barin Ghosh, C.J.
Hon'ble V.K. Bist, J.
Recall Application, filed in Court is accepted on record.
2. On this Application moved by the State of Uttarakhand through the learned Advocate General, the State of Uttarakhand is seeking complete vacation of the order of this Court dated 26th August, 2013, whereby and under, this Court directed that no construction of permanent nature shall be permitted within 200 meters from the bank of any flowing river of the State. Learned Advocate General has submitted that the State Government has come up with The Uttarakhand Flood Plain Zoning Act, 2012 and this order, passed by this Court, may stand in the way of implementation of this Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to examine the provisions as well as the validity of this Act. We make it clear that the intention of the Court was never to interfere with any existing legislation. We, therefore, make it absolutely clear that the order dated 26th August, 2013 was not intended to abridge any of the provisions of the said Act as well as the implementation thereof. We make it further clear that, in the matter of implementation of the said Act, order dated 26th August, 2013 shall not stand.
3. The learned Advocate General has submitted that this State has a peculiar characteristics. He has submitted that 61.43 per cent of the total area of the State comes under forests. It has been submitted that, in some districts like Uttarkashi, the forest cover is about 88.79 per cent. It has 2 been specifically stated in the Application that the area under non- agricultural uses in the State is barely 3.84 per cent. It has been submitted that, in the event, the interim order already passed is enforced, then, there may not be any further construction in any part of the hilly areas of the State, inasmuch as, most of such areas have flowing rivers. It has been submitted that, if 200 meters is taken from the bank of one such flowing river, then, one would be required to climb up to the top of the hill, which may not be a convenient place for construction of a dwelling unit and that area may also fall in the forest and, accordingly, there will be no construction at all.
4. We want the State Government to file an appropriate affidavit indicating what research work, if any, has been carried out by it for the purpose of scientifically devising how much land must be kept between a flowing river and a proposed human construction. The learned Advocate General has drawn our attention to Section 12(1) of the Act, which fixes certain responsibilities upon the State Government. We want discharge of such duties by the State Government to be brought on record in the affidavit to be filed. We make it absolutely clear that the intention of the Court was not to stop construction, but to put it to the State Government that it is high time when they must look into all flowing rivers, their topography and come up with a policy as to, for which river and at what altitude, how much space has to be kept open from the bank of such river to the human construction to be made. We want such a response on the next date of listing.
5. List in the 3rd week of December, 2013.
(V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C. J.)
20.09.2013 20.09.2013
G