Bandhavgarh Tiger Reserve: MP High Court Asks State To Explain How Private Resort's Safari Vehicles Are Operating Beyond Roster System

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has asked the State to clarify that which government policy or National Tiger Conservator Authority (NTCA) guideline has permitted a private resort inside the Bandhavgarh Tiger Reserve to operate its tourist/safari vehicles beyond the specified roster system laid down by NTCA. The court was hearing a plea challenging a March 1 order passed by the reserve's tourism officer stating that four vehicles of the private resort will not be part of the roster system specified by the NTCA. The plea claims that the order violates the Madhya Pradesh Wildlife (Protection) Rules which states that tourists can visit a tiger reserve only through a registered vehicle, and no vehicle other than a vehicle registered in the roster system of a particular tiger reserve will be provided to a tourist/visitor. After hearing the matter for some time Justice Vivek Jain in his order observed, “The respondents No.1 to 5 in their reply shall specifically advert to the position that under what prevailing policy of the concerned Government or the NTCA, vehicles have been allowed to be operated by the respondent No.6 beyond the roster system. The respondents No.1 to 5 shall specifically advert to this issue in their reply. In absence of filing a specific reply on these aspects, this Court may consider grant of interim relief.”The Respondents in the present matter are–Principal Secretary of Department of Forest, Chief Wildlife Warden & Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Wildlife), Chairman of Local Advisory Committee at Bandhavgarh Tiger Reserve, the reserve's Field Director, the reserve's Tourism Officer, Vindhya Vilas Wildlife Resort and National Tiger Conservator Authority (NTCA).The petitioner–President of the Bandhavgarh Paryatan Jan Seva Samiti, a registered society–has contended that the order is in utter violation of NTCA's guidelines for tourism, pursuant to Supreme Court's directions in Anuj Dubey Vs. Union of India (2011) and also contravenes the minutes of the meeting of the Local Advisory Committee along with the rules. During the hearing on March 21, the Counsel for petitioner submitted, “In 2011, a PIL was filed to ascertain the carrying capacity of vehicles in all the tiger reserves. The matter went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various guidelines were issued. The National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) which is the apex body under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister framed the guidelines into two parts, one was related to the wandering of the tigers and second was related to the tourism.”The Court asked, “Your grievance is that one resort has been granted permission to operate their vehicles?”The Counsel replied, “Outside the roster system. The NTCA guidelines mandated for the establishment of a Local Advisory Committee which is known as LAC. In light of that, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest issued an order dated 11.10.13 mandating that all the vehicles should be under the roster system. In 1974 Forest Rules under Rule 38, it was an amendment by the State Government and the State Government in the light of the guidelines issued and the judgement by the Hon'ble Apex Court held that every vehicle should be in a roster system. Any person who does not want to use the vehicle then within the roster he can use a vehicle and pay 70% damages.”At this stage, the Court asked, “So if you have to go beyond the roster system then 70% has to be given?”The Counsel said, “They cannot go beyond the roster system. Suppose I go for a trip and buy a ticket, they allot me a vehicle X. Somehow, I don't like the vehicle because it's not comfortable. So I say you give me another vehicle within the roster but I'll have to pay 70% for the vehicle which has been allotted to me. Now the application of the order dated 11.10.13 was not done by the Bandhavgarh Tiger Reserve.”He then referred to a writ petition filed in the year 2015 and read out an excerpt, “Thus, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and Respondent No. 3 is directed to ensure the compliance of the order dated 11.10.13 in letter and spirit.”At this stage the Court asked, “This is in relation to same Bandhavgarh Tiger Reserve?”, to which the counsel replied in the affirmative. The Court then said, “We'll issue notice. Let them respond.”The Counsel further said, “The reason for incorporating the tourism guidelines was to have a standard process because many local people who take loan and buy the vehicle for their livelihood. Now these resort or influential people who have opened the resorts, for them buying six vehicles does not make a difference compared to a localite. Buying a vehicle and earning his livelihood makes a lot of difference. That is what the NTCA says.”The Court said, “This dispute is going on everywhere between the locals and the big businessmen. Not only in wildlife tourism even in religious tourism. Even when a ropeway project comes up…”The Counsel said, “In this particular situation, the Coordinate...

Bandhavgarh Tiger Reserve: MP High Court Asks State To Explain How Private Resort's Safari Vehicles Are Operating Beyond Roster System

Anukriti Mishra

Tags