JUDGMENT : R.C. Khulbe, J. 1. The present Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed by Prem Singh Rawat with the following reliefs:- a. To issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus for an enquiry by the Central Vigilance Commission regarding construction of more than 10 Kms. of new road in the Corbett Tiger Reserve partly on the expense of public money and partly by the owner of the Leisure Hotels, in total disregard of the Forest (Conservation) Act and the directions of the C.E.C. and the Ministry of Forest and Environment. b. To issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus to direct the forest authorities to punish the officer found guilty of violation of Forest Conservation Act, Wild Life Protection Act, and the directions issued by the C.E.C. and the Ministry of Forest and Environment. c. To issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus to command the authorities to immediately stop the cruelty towards aquatic life in the name of conservation of Mahashir. d. To issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus to award proper punishment under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code to those, who were party to the agreement entered in the month of November, 2004 on a stamp paper that was purchased on 3rd December 2004. e. To issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus to issue any order or direction for stopping the running of jeeps and other four wheelers from Ramganga River and Corbett Tiger Reserve. 2. The factual matrix of the PIL is that Mr. Mukund Prasad Gupta, owner of the Leisure Hotels & Sporting Ambitions, purchased some private land at village Jamun in the year 2004, which is surrounded by Corbett National Park and is more than 10 Kms. inside the Corbett Park from Durga Devi Gate. In fact, Durga Devi Gate is the entry point for village Jamun. The owner of the Leisure Hotels wanted to construct a Resort named ‘Hideaway River Lodge’ on his plot at Village Jamun, but there was a problem of ingress in the reserve forest i.e. Corbett Tiger Reserve. Without ingress, it was not possible for him to carry construction material for resort. The owner of the Leisure Hotels wanted to construct a Resort named ‘Hideaway River Lodge’ on his plot at Village Jamun, but there was a problem of ingress in the reserve forest i.e. Corbett Tiger Reserve. Without ingress, it was not possible for him to carry construction material for resort. Prior to year 2004, there is no mention in the management plan or map of any road from Durga Devi gate to village Jamun and it was not possible for any four wheeler to reach village Jamun. In order to solve the problem, the owner of the Leisure Hotels contacted Shri D.V.S. Khati, the then Director, Corbett Tiger Reserve, Ramnagar, who misused his office in total disregard of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Central Government by permitting Mukund Prasad Gupta to construct nearly 8 Kms. of kutcha Road inside Corbett Tiger Reserve from Ramgagar River to his resort at Jamun. 3. Shri Khati again, at the expense of the public money, got constructed nearly 4.5 Km. of new Kutcha road from Durga Devi Gate to Ramganga River. This construction of road inside Corbett Tiger Reserve opened the doors for the Land Mafias for the sale and purchase of the land inside Corbett Tiger Reserve. The Director, C.T.R. provided access to the owner of the resort inside the Corbett Tiger Reserve to ferry construction material for his resort at Village Jamun as there was no pre-existing Kutcha road for which Rs.28,000/- were spent by the department. Thus, the permission was given to a private person to construct the road inside the Corbett Tiger Reserve in violation of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 as well as the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 4. Apart from that, Director, C.T.R. Shri Khati again illegally provided a trained female elephant, belonging to the forest department, to ferry tourists of Hideaway River Lodge. Thus, the elephant was engaged to promote the commercial activities of Hideaway River Lodge. The Director, C.T.R., without prior approval of the Central Government, also permitted the private person to do fishing work and facilitate them in transportation of a new Kutcha road in Corbett Tiger Reserve for which number of trees were cut and herbs were cleared, which were grown naturally on land. 5. The Director, C.T.R., without prior approval of the Central Government, also permitted the private person to do fishing work and facilitate them in transportation of a new Kutcha road in Corbett Tiger Reserve for which number of trees were cut and herbs were cleared, which were grown naturally on land. 5. In these circumstances, a direction in the nature of mandamus has been sought to be issued for an enquiry to be conducted by the Central Vigilance Commission regarding construction of more than 10 Kms. of new road in the Corbett Tiger Reserve and for stopping the ferrying of jeeps and other four wheelers from this road. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 4, wherein it is submitted that there was no order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the year 2001 for fixing the boundaries of Corbett Tiger Reserve. The legal term “Tiger Reserve” itself came into existence after the enactment of The Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Act, 2006 and there is no question of fixing the boundary wall of Corbett Tiger Reserve before that date. The status of area in question was that of “Reserve Forests” as per Indian Forest Act, 1927 in the year 2004, when the tripartite agreement was entered. The area in question had been notified as buffer area of Corbett Tiger Reserve vide Notification No. V.G.05/X-2-2010-19(34)/2006 dated 26.02.2010. 7. Prior to filing of the present PIL, an enquiry committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of Member Secretary, National Tiger Conservation Authority, by the Ministry of Forest and Environment, Government of India. The Committee submitted its report to the Government and recommended for cancellation of the Tripartite Agreement entered into between the State of Uttarakhand (Uttarakhand Forest Department), Uttarakhand Forest Corporation and the Angling Associations. The Government cancelled the Tripartite Agreement after going through the enquiry report vide order dated 28.11.2012. 8. Before 2004, village Jamun was surrounded by reserve forest but the nature of the land of the said village is of revenue. The said 4.5 Kms. road was in existence and the Director, Corbett Tiger Reserve ordered for its repairs on 13.12.2004. No road was constructed by any private person in the reserve forest near Village Jamun. 8. Before 2004, village Jamun was surrounded by reserve forest but the nature of the land of the said village is of revenue. The said 4.5 Kms. road was in existence and the Director, Corbett Tiger Reserve ordered for its repairs on 13.12.2004. No road was constructed by any private person in the reserve forest near Village Jamun. The said area is not a part of National Park or Sanctuary and no departmental elephant was given for the purpose of ferrying tourists to the Leisure Hotels Limited and Sporting Ambitions. However, permission was granted to Leisure Hotels Limited and Sporting Ambitions to use privately owned elephant for safari as per the agreement. All the tripartite agreements signed by the Government in the year 2004 have been cancelled and no angling activity is being allowed in the reserve forest and particularly in River Ramganga. 9. The respondent nos. 8 & 9 filed their counter affidavit and submitted that the said Kutcha road is more than 200 years old which is the only way for the villagers of Jamun and Jhurungu. This Kutcha road should be opened for the interest of villagers. 10. We have heard learned Counsel for both the parties at length and perused the material available in file. 11. It was the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Forest Department had provided an elephant belonging to the Forest Department to ferry tourists of Hideaway River Lodge. The elephant was engaged to promote the commercial activities for the above lodge. 12. In this regard, a counter affidavit has been filed by the State, wherein it is submitted that no trained elephant was provided by the forest department to the Lodge but it was a privately owned elephant, for which permission was given by the forest department according to the tripartite agreement. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised a second issue that the forest department entered into an agreement with private persons in the name of angling without prior permission of the Central Government. 14. From the perusal of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised a second issue that the forest department entered into an agreement with private persons in the name of angling without prior permission of the Central Government. 14. From the perusal of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 to 4, it is clear that the tripartite agreement was executed by the forest department with the private parties but before filing this PIL, an Enquiry Committee was constituted by the State Government under the Chairmanship of Member Secretary, National Tiger Conservation Authority, by the Ministry of Forest and Environment, Government of India, and on the basis of the report of the committee, the State Government has cancelled this tripartite agreement vide its order dated 28.11.2012. It shows that there is no tripartite agreement in existence after 2012. 15. The third and very crucial issue which was raised by Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the forest department had permitted the owner of the Leisure Hotels and Sporting Ambitions to construct 8 to 10 kilometers of Kutcha road inside the Corbett Tiger Reserve from Ramganga River to his resort at Village Jamun. 16. In this regard, respondent nos. 2 to 4 have submitted through their counter affidavits that the said Kutcha road was in existence long back prior to 2004 and the said road was repaired by order dated 13.12.2004 of the then Director, Corbett Tiger Reserve. 17. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and Section 27, 28 and 35 (8) of The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and argued that the forest department had no power to construct the road without prior approval of the Central Government. Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 is being extracted hereiunder:- “2. Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 is being extracted hereiunder:- “2. Restriction on the de-reservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purpose-Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force a State, no State Government or other authority shall make, except with the prior approval of the Central Government, any order directing- (i) that any reserved forest (within the meaning of the expression “reserved forest” in any law for the time being in force in that State) or any portion thereof, shall cease to be reserved; (ii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose; (iii) 1[that any forest land or any portion thereof may be assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or any other organization not owned, managed or controlled by Government; (iv) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be cleared of trees which have grown naturally in that land or portion, for the purpose of using it for reafforestation]. 2[Explaination.—For the purpose of this section “non-forest purpose” means the breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for- (a) the cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms, oil-bearing plants, horticulture crops or medicinal plants; (b) any purpose other than reafforestation, but does not include any work relating or ancillary to conservation, development and management of forests and wild-life, namely, the establishment of check-posts, fire lines, wireless communications and construction of fencing, bridges and culverts, dams, waterholes, trench marks, boundary marks, pipelines or other like purposes].” 18. Section 27, 28 and 35 (8) of The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 are being extracted hereinunder:- “27. Restriction on entry in sanctuary-(1) No person other than,- (a) a public servant on duty, (b) a person who has been permitted by the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorized officer to reside within the limits of the sanctuary. (c) a person who has any right over immovable property within the limits of the sanctuary, (d) a person passing through the sanctuary along a public highway, and (e) the dependents of the person referred to in clause (a), clause (b) or clause (c), shall enter or reside in the sanctuary, except under and in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted under Section 28. (2) Every person shall, so long as he resides in the sanctuary, be bound- (a) to prevent the commission, in sanctuary, of an offence against this Act; (b) where there is reason to believe that any such offence against this Act has been committed in such sanctuary, to help in discovering and arresting the offender; (c) to report the death of any wild animal and to safeguard its remains until the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorized officer takes charge thereof; (d) to extinguish any fire in such sanctuary of which he has knowledge or information and to prevent from spreading, by any lawful means in his power, any fire within the vicinity of such sanctuary of which he has knowledge or information; and (e) to assist any Forest Officer, Chief Wild Life Warden, Wild Life Warden or Police Officer demanding his aid for preventing the commission of any offence against this Act or in the investigation of any such offence. 63[(3) No person shall, with intent to cause damage to any boundary-mark of a sanctuary or to cause wrongful gain as defined in the Indian Penal Code, alter, destroy, move or deface such boundary-mark. (4) No person shall tease or molest any wild animal or litter the grounds of sanctuary.]” “28. Grant of permit-(1) The Chief Wild Life Warden may, on application, grant to any person a permit to enter or reside in a sanctuary for all or any of the following purposes, namely:- (a) investigation or study of wild life and purposes ancillary or incidental thereto; (b) photography; (c) scientific research; (d) tourism; (e) transaction of lawful business with any person residing in the sanctuary. (2) A permit to enter or reside in a sanctuary shall be issued subject to such conditions and on payment of such fee as may be prescribed.” “35. Declaration of National Park-(8)The provisions of Sections 27 and 28, Section 30 to 32 (both inclusive), and clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 33, [Section 33-A]76 and Section 34 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to a National Park as they apply in relation to a sanctuary. Declaration of National Park-(8)The provisions of Sections 27 and 28, Section 30 to 32 (both inclusive), and clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 33, [Section 33-A]76 and Section 34 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to a National Park as they apply in relation to a sanctuary. 77[Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, in case of an area, whether within a sanctuary or not, where the rights have been extinguished and the land has become vested in the State Government under any Act or otherwise, such area may be notified by it, by a notification, as a National Park and the proceedings under Sections 19 to 26 (both inclusive) and the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4) of this section shall not apply.]” 19. It is pertinent to note here that during the course of hearing of this PIL, the Division Bench of this Court constituted a Two-member independent committee on 18.06.2018 to visit the spot and to find out the truth whether any Pukka road was constructed in the disputed area, and whether the road is being used by the public for the commercial purpose. 20. The two members’ committee submitted its report on 19.06.2018 which is on record. The crux of the report is as under:- “A. The length of the dirt road (Kuchha) is around 4.5 K.m. and the width ranges from 1 to 3 mt. in different places. The road through-out was found to be covered by leaf litter. There is no sign of road being used by people in the area and there was no sign of population or habitation along with the road. It was noticed and informed that in 2004-05 the road was repaired to provide access through vehicular movement to a resort located across Ramganga River, which was not permissible. B. The road is primarily used by the forest officials for patrolling however at times occasionally use, the route for private purpose. However the Forest officials are of the view that from the point of view of safety there advise to the villages is against using the road. Frequently elephants dung and tiger scat was observed on the road. As per the forest officials the road passes through critical tiger and elephant habitat. Pug marks of tigress and cubs were observed and roar was heard twice during inspection. Frequently elephants dung and tiger scat was observed on the road. As per the forest officials the road passes through critical tiger and elephant habitat. Pug marks of tigress and cubs were observed and roar was heard twice during inspection. C. The road does lead to the both of River Ramgaga in. However since 2010 the road is not in a condition and is neither fit for vehicular movement nor is being used for vehicular movement. D. An amount of Rs.27,992/- was spent in the year 2004-05 for repair of the road for maintenance of as per the record shown to us by the concerned D.F.O.” 21. From a perusal of the report it is ample clear that the length of the road is around 4.5 Km. and width ranges from 1 to 3 mt. in different places but which is fully covered by leaf litter. 22. As far as the use of road is concerned, there is no sign in the road being used by people in the area and there was no sign of population or habitation along with the road. 23. It is also clear from the report that in the year 2004-05, the said Kutcha road was repaired by the forest department after spending an amount of Rs.27,990/-. 24. The report reveals that the road is not being used by the public and it is open for the wild life because the Commissioner found the elephants’ dung and tiger scat on the road and pug marks of tigress and cubs were also observed and roar was also heard during inspection by the Commissioner. 25. Jim Corbett National Park, which is a part of the larger Corbett Tiger Reserve, a Project Tiger Reserve lies in the Nainital district of Uttarakhand. The magical landscape of Corbett is well known and fabled for its tiger richness. Established in the year 1936 as Hailey National Park, Corbett has the glory of being India's oldest and most prestigious National Park. It is also being honored as the place where Project Tiger was first launched in 1973. This unique tiger territory is best known as the father who gave birth of the Project Tiger in India to protect the most endangered species and the Royal of India called Tigers. 26. The forests are meant for the enjoyment of wildlife. It is also being honored as the place where Project Tiger was first launched in 1973. This unique tiger territory is best known as the father who gave birth of the Project Tiger in India to protect the most endangered species and the Royal of India called Tigers. 26. The forests are meant for the enjoyment of wildlife. The concept of establishment of the Forest Department was to protect the forest and its wildlife. But in the present time, the people have started encroaching upon the area of wild animals by poaching and cutting the trees and constructing the road, as a result of which, the wild animals are forced to come out of jungle into the populated areas. 27. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that in the year 2004-05 the forest department repaired this road by spending an amount of Rs.27,992/- but since then this road is not being used by the public and it is being used by forest officials only for patrolling occasionally for the protection of forest and wild life. 28. Although, by way of Tri-partite Agreement entered into between the State Government, Uttarakhand Forest Corporation and the Angling Associations for the angling activities but later on, that agreement was cancelled by the State Government in the year 2012 which shows that at present, no such activities are going on in the reserved forest area. The length of the Kutcha road is around 4.5 kilometers which was being used by the public. The Forest Department repaired it in the year 2004-05 for reaching to Village Jamun. Although, it is not being used by the public for a long time but in order to protect the interest of wildlife, a direction is required to be issued to the respondent nos.1 to 6 that they will not allow any person illegally to use this Kutcha road in future or any other activities without prior permission of the Central Government. 29. Accordingly, this PIL is disposed of with the direction to the respondent nos.1 to 6 that they will not allow any person, including respondent nos.7 to 9, to use this Kutcha road in future which falls within the tiger reserve forest and it should be free for wild life for their enjoyment.