Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 611 (UTT)

Ikra v. Chief Wild Life Warden, Uttarakhand

2023-10-30

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2023
JUDGMENT : By means of the instant petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:- i) Issue a writ, order or direction setting aside the ongoing gypsy vehicle registration process 2023-24 being conducted by respondent no.2 in a non-transparent manner creating monopoly and which is in violation of the directions issued by this Hon’ble Court and is opposed to the guidelines issued by respondent no.1 in this regard. ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to carry out the fresh registration of the Gypsy Cab Vehicles for the Corbett Tiger Reserve, Ramnagar, District Nainital for the tourism year 2023-24 with complete transparency strictly in accordance of the direction issued by the Hon’ble Court WPMS 2632 of 2017 vide order 05.07.2017 and judgment dated 25.08.2017 passed in SPA 541 of 2017 (contained as Annexure No.8 & 9 respectively) and the guidelines issued by respondent no.1 in this regard. iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to strictly follow the transparent guidelines issued by the respondent no.1 pursuant to the directions of this Hon’ble Court regarding gypsy registration in CTR as contained in the google form for registration of gypsy vehicles including publication of advertisement in two newspapers and selecting the owners through lottery with complete transparency as provided in the guidelines issued by respondent no.1 in this regard and to conduct a physical verification of the owners/drivers. iv) Issue any other or further writ, order or direction of the nature, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. v) To award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the vehicles are registered by the respondent no.1, Chief Wild Life Warden Uttarakhand for taking tourists from Ramnagar to Corbett National Park. For this purpose, applications should be invited, duly verified and thereafter, registration should be done. According to the petitioner, he is also registered owner of a Gypsy Cab vehicle having all the legal documents to ply the vehicle, but the respondent authorities are not permitting him and other similar situated persons, to participate in the registration process for taking tourists from Ramnagar to the Corbett National Park. 4. According to the petitioner, he is also registered owner of a Gypsy Cab vehicle having all the legal documents to ply the vehicle, but the respondent authorities are not permitting him and other similar situated persons, to participate in the registration process for taking tourists from Ramnagar to the Corbett National Park. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 2017, this Court has issued directions in WPMS No.2632 of 2016, Prem Singh Mehra and others vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, which was decided on 05.07.2017 (“the first petition”) and in Special Appeal No.541 of 2017, Pawan Puri and others vs. Prem Singh Mehra and others, which was decided on 25.08.2017 (“the special appeal”). But, it is the case of the petitioner that the directions issued by the Court in the first petition and in the special appeal are not been followed by the respondent authorities while registering the vehicles for their entry into the Corbett National Park. 5. State has filed its counter affidavit. In para “G”, respondent authorities has stated that registration process of the vehicles will duly commence after obtaining permission of this Hon’ble Court with obligation to make a publication in at least two newspapers having wide circulation in the area. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondent-authorities in not making the process of the registration of the vehicles in transparent manner. He would submit that for this purpose the application ought to have been invited by wide circulation in the newspapers, as directed by this Court in the first petition and in the special appeal, but it is not being done. He would submit that the respondent authorities should be directed to adhere to the registration process in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in the first petition and in the special appeal. 7. Learned Chief Standing Counsel very fairly concedes that the process shall commence now in accordance with the directions given by this Court in the first petition and in the special appeal. 8. The petitioner wanted that the process should be in a transparent manner, as directed by this Court in the first petition and in the special appeal. 7. Learned Chief Standing Counsel very fairly concedes that the process shall commence now in accordance with the directions given by this Court in the first petition and in the special appeal. 8. The petitioner wanted that the process should be in a transparent manner, as directed by this Court in the first petition and in the special appeal. On behalf of the State in the counter affidavit itself, it is stated that the registration process shall be undertaken in accordance with the directions of the Court. Therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed accordingly. 9. The petition is allowed. 10. The respondent-authorities are directed to undertake the process of registration in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in the first petition and in the special appeal.