What Restrictions Have Been Placed On Location Of Industries, Mining Operations In Doon Valley?: Uttarakhand High Court Asks State To File Reply

The Uttarakhand High Court has directed the State to file “a better affidavit” bringing on record, all the documents, and the policies claimed to have been formulated from time to time after the issuance of the 1989 Notification by the Ministry of Environment and Forest.

“The affidavit should specifically state as to what are the restrictions placed in the policy with regard to the location of industries, mining operations, and other development activities in the Doon Valley. It should specifically be stated whether the plans have been approved by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, or not,” stated the bench of Justice Rakesh Thapliyal and Justice Vipin Sanghi.

These observations were made while hearing a PIL filed by Advocate Akash Vashishtha through Advocate Rakshit Joshi against State inaction for preparing the TDP and and Master Plan for the Doon Valley comprising Dehradun, Rishikesh, Mussoorie, Haridwar.

The petition seeks the issuance of directions to the respondents to take immediate steps for preparing a TDP, a Master Plan, and a Land Use Plan for the entire Doon Valley as mandated under the Doon Valley Notification, 1989.

In the previous order, the Court had directed the State to explain its inaction in preparing the Tourism Development Plan (TDP) for Doon Valley — a responsibility entrusted to the State Department of Tourism by the Central Government in 1989.

The purpose of preparation of TDP was to impose restrictions in relation to the activity of tourism in the Doon Valley.

“This situation is completely unacceptable, as the failure on the part of the State Department for Tourism in preparing the TDP defeats the statutory Notification, issued by the Central Government under Section 3(2)(v) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and Rule 5(3)(d) of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986,” the division bench observed in the last hearing.

The Court had directed the State to file an affidavit “explaining its inaction in preparing the TDP in terms of the Notification dated 01.02.1989, the purpose whereof, as aforesaid, was to place restrictions on tourism activity in the Doon Valley.”

However, the Court noted on Wednesday that, “it appears to us that the respondents have not addressed the issues raised by the petitioner, and taken note of by us in our earlier order dated 13.06.2023 (previous order).”

The affidavits filed by the State are bereft of any particulars, and the documents referred to therein have not been placed on record, it added.

In the light of the above the Court directed the State to file the affidavit within three weeks.

While listing the matter for September 09, the Court said, “On the next date, the Secretary, Tourism, Government of Uttarakhand, shall join the proceedings virtually.”

Case Title: Akash Vashishtha v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.

Appearance: Advocate Rakshit Joshi, counsel for the petitioner.

Advocates C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, learned Brief Holder for the State- respondent nos.1 to 3.

Advocate Lalit Sharma, Standing Counsel for the Union of India- respondent no.4

Advocate Aditya Pratap Singh, counsel for respondent no.5.

Advocate Vinay Garg and Mr. Rahul Consul, counsels for respondent nos.6 and 7.