Uttarakhand High Court
Dinesh Chandra Pandey vs Union Of India And Others on 22 April, 2019
Author: N.S. Dhanik
Bench: Ramesh Ranganathan, N.S. Dhanik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 41 OF 2019
Dinesh Chandra Pandey ...Petitioner.
Vs.
Union of India and others. ...Respondents
Sri Vivek Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri Sanjay Bhatt, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India / respondent nos. 1 &
2.
Sri Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand /
respondent nos. 3 & 4.
Dated: 22nd April, 2019
Coram: Hon'ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.
Hon'ble N.S. Dhanik, J.
Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. (Oral) Sri Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand, has placed before us a copy of the letter addressed to him by the Principal Secretary, Forest and Environment, wherein a reference is made to two conflicting reports one by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest dated 02.05.2018, and the other by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Wildlife) / Chief Wildlife Warden vide letter dated 03.05.2018.
2. Sri Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel, would submit that, after Range Case No. 13/Haridwar/2017-18 was registered, this Court had, by its order in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 6 of 2012 dated 04.09.2018, directed a CBI inquiry to be caused; in view of the said order passed by this Court, no inquiry could have been continued by the Chief Conservator of Forest in Range Case No. 13/Haridwar/2017-18; the order of this Court directing a CBI inquiry was stayed by the Supreme Court by its order dated 22.10.2018; thereafter Sri Sanatan, Director, Rajaji Tiger Reserve was appointed as the Inquiry Officer on 07.12.2018, and subsequently Sri Surendra Mehra, CCF Wildlife Administration was recommended to be appointed as the I.O. on 24.12.2018; consequently, Sri Manoj Chandran was no longer the I.O; thereafter, the State Government constituted an SIT, headed by the DIG (STF), vide proceedings dated 26.03.2019; in the meanwhile, a report was filed before the Magistrate by Sri Manoj Chandran in February, 2 2019, though he could not have submitted such a report as he had ceased to be the Inquiry Officer by then.
3. The submission of Sri Paresh Tripathi is that Sri Manoj Chandran ceased to be the I.O. consequent on the order of this Court in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 6 of 2012 dated 04.09.2018 entrusting investigation to the CBI; it was open to the Government to again appoint an inquiry officer after the order of this Court was stayed by the Supreme Court by its order dated 22.10.2018; and Sri Sanatan was appointed as the Inquiry Officer on 07.12.2018, and thereafter Sri Surendra Mehra was recommended on 24.12.2018. It is, however, not clear whether the CBI, which was entrusted with the investigation by this Court and which is said to have commenced and continued investigation thereafter, till the order of the Supreme Court dated 22.10.2018, had caused investigation on the basis of the very same complaint in Range Case No. 13/Haridwar/2017-18, or whether it had registered a fresh complaint before it commenced investigation.
4. Accepting the submission of Sri Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel, that, consequent on entrustment of investigation to the CBI by this Court, Sri Manoj Chandran ceased to be I.O., would mean that the earlier FIR must be deemed to have been quashed, though, admittedly, no such order was passed by the Division Bench. This Court would also be required to examine whether a report could have been submitted to the Magistrate by Sri Manoj Chandran in February, 2019 in Range Case No. 13 / Haridwar/ 2017-18, after another I.O. was appointed in December, 2018.
5. Yet another curious aspect which would necessitate further examination is that, though the Chief Minister is said to have directed constitution of an SIT on 26.08.2018, yet the officials concerned had, in disregard of such directions, appointed Sri Sanatan, Director, Rajaji Tiger Reserve on 07.12.2018 (who was allegedly involved in these poaching incidents) and, thereafter, Sri Surendra Mehra, CCF Wildlife Administration was recommended 3 to be appointed as an Inquiry Officer on 24.12.2018. It is only pursuant to the letter addressed by the Secretary Home, Government of Uttarakhand to the Director General of Police, Uttarakhand, that an SIT was constituted by proceedings dated 26.03.2019 under the DIG (STF) on the ground that it had inter-State ramifications. It is not known why, despite the directions of the Chief Minister on 26.08.2018 for an SIT to be constituted, the officials concerned chose not to comply with his directions and, instead, chose to appoint an Inquiry Officer on their own accord.
6. Sri Vivek Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that there was rampant poaching in the Rajaji Tiger Reserve is evident from the fact that the Forensic Report discloses that the carcasses recovered were that of a tiger and a leopard, both the animals were skinned, their spleens and other body parts were removed, and the skins of these animals were pealed-off.
7. This exercise of repeatedely changing Inquiry Officers has resulted in very little progress being made in bringing the culprits to book. All that the State Government, and the officials in the Forest Department, appear to have done is to appoint one Inquiry Officer after another. As to why the contents of report submitted by Sri Manoj Chandran to the Magistrate should be disbelieved has also not been disclosed.
8. The action of the officials concerned does not support the submission of Sri Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel, that the State Government is very keen to bring the culprits to book at the earliest.
9. Sri Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel, would request further time to obtain further instructions.
10. Post on 30.04.2019.
11. Let a certified copy of this order be furnished to the parties, on payment of the prescribed charges, by 23.04.2019.
(N.S. Dhanik, J.) (Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.)
22.04.2019 22.04.2019
Rathour