High CourtsSingle Bench

Nandi Ram Arya vs C.K. Mishra And Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 5 April 2022 · Citation: (2022) 04 UK CK 0025

HON’BLE JUDGES
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Civil Contempt Petition No. 27 Of 2020
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 462 words

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

1.

Writ Petition (PIL) No. 201 of 2018 filed by the petitioner was disposed of with a direction to the Secretary, Ministry of Forest and Environment and Additional Chief Conservator of Forest (Central) to consider grant of forest clearance for construction of a motor road namely Garkhet-Rikholi and a link road between Jinoli-Simalkha, vide order dated 27.02.2019.

2.

In this contempt petition, it is alleged that the order passed by writ court has not been complied, inasmuch as, the Central Government has not granted necessary forest clearance for construction of roads.

3.

A compliance-affidavit has been filed by C.K. Mishra, Secretary, Ministry of Forest and Environment, Government of India. Annexure No.6 to the said affidavit is a letter issued by Additional Chief Conservator of Forest, (Central) Regional Office, Dehradun to Nodal Officer/Additional Chief Conservator of Forest, Government of Uttarakhand.

4.

Perusal of the said letter reveals that the reference made for forest clearance to Rikholi-Jinoli-Khalar to Simrad-Pang-Khatara Road has been closed due to non-furnishing of requisite information, as desired by the letter dated 09.05.2014.

5.

Annexure No.7 to the said affidavit is a letter dated 16.11.2018 issued by Forest Conservator (Central) to Additional Chief Secretary, Forest, Government of Uttarakhand. Perusal of the said letter reveals that for construction of Jinoli-Tari-Sakdeena motor road (6.650 km.) clearance was granted subject to certain conditions mentioned in the letter.

6.

From the aforesaid letter, it is apparent that forest clearance for construction of one road has already been granted and regarding the other road, the file has been closed by the Central Government, as the Authorities of the State Government could not furnish the requisite information to the Central Government within stipulated time.

7.

In such view of the matter, it cannot be said that respondent no.1 has wilfully disobeyed the order passed by this Court for which he may be proceeded against under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

8.

From the order passed by Division Bench of this Court, it is reflected that administrative and financial sanction for construction of both the roads was granted in the year 2013, however, construction of one road could not begin for want of clearance from the Central Government.

9.

From the documents enclosed with the compliance-affidavit, it appears that due to lapse on the part of the State Authority, the concerned file was closed by the Central Government.

10.

Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the contempt petition is disposed of with a direction to Secretary of the concerned Department to submit a proposal for fresh clearance in respect of the file, which was closed by the Central Government due to non-furnishing of relevant information, within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.