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

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 Bench had already taken cognizance and very specifically directed that you should not do it.”

Thereafter, the Counsel prayed, “If the Court is not passing an interim order then at least till the reply is not filed, they may not have further inclusion of vehicle because that will upset the entire system.”

The Counsel then informed the Court that two other petitions on the same issues are pending and there is also a contempt petition pending against the non-compliance of the order.

The Counsel further explained, “I have to be allotted a vehicle as per the roster system which is maintained. Now these resort people they have their own vehicle so I only buy a ticket and they supply me the vehicles so that hampers the business of the locals who put their…”

Issuing notice on the plea the court listed the matter on April 15 to consider the interim relief.

Case Title: Bandhavgarh Paryatan Jan Seva Samiti versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh, WP 9600/2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order