Jharkhand High Court
Vikash Mahto vs The Union Of India Through The Secretary ... on 14 August, 2018
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh, Ratnaker Bhengra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(PIL) No. 1615 of 2013
Vikash Mahto ............Petitioner
Vrs.
1.The Union of India through the Secretary Environment and
Forest, Govt. of India, New Delhi
2.The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Ranchi
3.The Secretary, Forest & Environment Dept., Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
4.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Jharkhand, Ranchi
5.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Bio-Diversity cum
Chief Wildlife Warden, Jharkhand, Ranchi ......... Respondent
.......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA For the Petitioner : Mrs. Vandana Singh, Amicus Curiae For the Respondents : Mr. Vikash Kumar, J.C to A.G. : Mr. Niraj Kumar, J.C to ASGI 39/14.08.2018 This Court had issued a slew of directions on 28.02.2017 to ensure the implementation of the Tiger Conservation Plan in the Palamau Tiger Reserve (PTR). Affidavits have been filed thereafter in order to show compliance of the directions. Direction No. xiii relating to relocation of 8 villages in the core area of PTR have yet not been carried out. We have taken note of the stand of the Respondents in the order dated 10.07.2018 on this subject. The Deputy Commissioner had proposed certain steps for relocation of 8 villages in a meeting held on 20.04.2018. The Chief Secretary, Jharkhand on review of the proposal approved a number of them delineated in the minutes of the meeting of 20.06.2018, Annexure-F to the supplementary counter affidavit dated 06.07.2018.
2. In the latest affidavit filed on 10.08.2018 on behalf of Respondent no. 3 to 5, it is stated that draft of guidelines for voluntary relocation from core area of PTR have been formulated in line with the recommendations made by the State Level Monitoring Committee in its meeting held on 20.06.2018. The finalization of the guidelines will require inter-departmental consultation and thereafter approval of the State Cabinet. Evidently, that direction has not been carried out till date.
3. Learned Amicus Curiae has filed an affidavit yesterday. She states that the Annual Plan of Operation has been sanctioned/ approved by the NTCA on 20.06.2018. However, the State Government has not released the fund sanctioned / approved by NTCA in gross violation of the provisions of MoU dated 27.12.2016 and the specific order of this Court dated 28.02.2017, para 4(iv) of which required the authorities to implement the MoU. She further points out that even the allocation made under the budget for the present financial year as not been released to the PTR and other Wild Life Sanctuaries as well. She -2- stated that allocation made by NTCA was to be released within a period of 2 weeks as per the MoU dated 27.12.2016. She refers to certain newspaper reports which convey that the employees or the trackers and daily wagers are working without payment for 4 months. Reference may be made to para 4(xv) of the order dated 28.02.2017 in this regard.
4. It would not be out of place to mention herein that pursuant to the order dated 19.12.2017, a meeting of the Steering Committee of the Palamau Tiger Conservation Foundation was held on 08.02.2018. The minutes under para 3 required different Stake Holder Departments to ensure consideration and implementation of certain important decisions towards conservation of Tiger in the PTR. Under Para 4(gha) a decision was taken that compliance be made of the conditions imposed by the National Board of Wild Life(NBWL) in respect of North Koel Reservoir Project ( Mandal Dam). The NBWL had given stage I clearance on 23.02.2018 in the presence of the State representatives as would be apparent from the letter dated 25.06.2018 issued by the Assistant Inspector General of Forest (FC) Division, MoEF&CC, Government of India. This was in response to the letter dated 02.05.2018 also enclosed to the same affidavit of Respondent no. 3 to 5 filed on 10.08.2018, issued by the Chief Secretary, Jharkhand to the MoEF&CC for waiver/amendment of certain conditions prescribed in MoEF&CC's letter dated 23.02.2018.
5. The Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand has filed an affidavit on 13.08.2018, which after delineating the history of the Mandal Dam states at para 11 that all admissible compensation under the then prevailing R&R policy has already been paid to 634 families of the 15 villages. There is no rule to provide further comprehensive package to these families under State of Jharkhand. Accordingly, they have also requested the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Wildlife cum Wildlife Warden, Jharkhand for submission to NBWL for waiver of the condition. The Full Reservoir Level (FRL) of the Dam had been reduced from 367.28 meter to 341.00 meter. The affidavit also refers to the decision taken in the P.M.O meeting where under such reduction of FRL was undertaken.
6. Learned counsel for the Respondent State has pointed out from the affidavit dated 10.08.2018 that a meeting/ workshop of the representatives of the different Departments was held in connection with the implementation of the decisions taken by the Steering Committee dated 08.02.2018. However, except the Agriculture, Animal Husbandry & Cooperative Department and the Energy Department, none of the representatives of the other Departments, such as -3- Health, Medical Education & Family Welfare; Food, Public Distribution & Consumers Affairs; Rural Development; Road Construction; Transport and Welfare Departments attended it.
7. We are surprised that despite the decision taken on 08.02.2018 by the Steering Committee of the Foundation, these Departments have not been able to show any compliance of the decisions taken in respect of the concerned Departments.
8. Learned Amicus Curiae points out that meeting convened by the Chief Secretary, Jharkhand on 05.04.2018 proceeded in a manner which was contrary to the decision taken by the Steering Committee of the Foundation on 08.02.2018 chaired by Hon'ble Chief (Forest) Minister of the State ; reference is made to the decision at para 4(gha) in that regard. It is also pointed out from the affidavit dated 06.07.2018 of the Respondent no.3 to 5(Annexure-F) that on 20.06.2018 a meeting was held under the chairmanship of the Chief Secretary, Jharkhand on the issue of relocation of the villages falling in the core area of the PTR. It is apparent that officers of the State Government are not acting in consonance of the decision of the Steering Committee of the Foundation dated 08.02.2018 and the directions passed by this Court as far back as 28.02.2017. In such fashion the implementation of Tiger Conservation Plan would remain a dream.
9. Having taken note of these distinctive features above, this Court is of the opinion that the concerned officials have serious explanation to offer. Learned counsel for the Respondent State prays for some time to offer their response. They would also explain as to why the allocation sanctioned by NCTA and the budgetary allocation have not been released. We refrain from making any further observation at this stage while making it clear that if the explanation furnished by the Respondent no. 3 to 5 is not satisfactory keeping in light the directions passed by this Court on 28.02.2017 and the decision taken by the Steering Committee headed by Hon'ble Chief (Forest) Minister dated 08.02.2018, adverse view of the matter would be taken on the next date.
10. Let the matter appear on 30.08.2018 as unfixed case. Let a copy of this order be handed over to learned counsel for the State.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) ( Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) A.Mohanty