Private buses in Corbett’s core: Controversial ex-director didn’t have ‘any powers’ to permit it

A committee has filed a report in the Supreme Court that says a former director of Uttarakhand’s Corbett Tiger Reserve permitted private buses to operate within the park’s core reserve area even without “having any powers to do so”.

The report was submitted today by a central empowered committee, which also recommended that the “plying of buses on the Pakhro-Moreghatti-Kalagarh-Ramnagar forest road shall not be allowed”.

The former director is Rahul, an Indian Forest Service officer who held the position until April 2022. He is presently chief conservator of forests in Uttarakhand.

Importantly, Rahul – who uses only his first name – has been a controversial figure in the state. In April 2022, he was removed as director of the Corbett reserve after the Uttarakhand High Court took note of “illegal tree felling and construction” there. In August this year, Uttarakhand Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami reportedly “overruled” colleagues to appoint Rahul as director of the Rajaji reserve. Dhami later backtracked when the Supreme Court criticised Rahul’s appointment.

But the ongoing hearing is about an order issued by Rahul in 2020. 

The order permitted a private company, Garhwal Motor Owners Union Ltd, to ply its buses in the core tiger reserve. The company’s website says it provides “bus services up to the remote areas of the Garhwal Himalayas”.

The order’s text said it was issued by Rahul “on the direction” of the chief wildlife warden.

Supreme Court lawyer Gaurav Bansal subsequently filed a petition in the Supreme Court in 2021. The hearing began in the same year. Last year, the state government filed an affidavit saying the 2020 order by Rahul was “in the public interest”. 

Meanwhile, in 2002, the Supreme Court formed a committee to ensure the implementation of its orders in environmental, forest and wildlife cases. The current committee is chaired by Siddhant Das, a retired forest service officer, and has three other members. 

The committee’s report, as submitted today, quoted petitioner Bansal as saying the plying of private vehicles is “illegal” and provides “wrongful gain to a private sector company”. It said section 38(v) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act of 1972 had deemed the core area of the reserve an “inviolate area for Tiger Conservation”.

On the state government’s claim that the order was in “public interest”, the report said the order “nowhere mentions any section of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 or the Indian Forest Act, 1927 which gives powers to the issuing authority to issue such orders”. 

Confusingly, the Uttarakhand government submitted two affidavits to the court that contradict each other. The first, submitted in January 2023, said the Pakhro-Moreghatti-Kalagarh-Ramnagar forest road is 73 km long and 26 km of it falls in the core area. The second affidavit, filed two months later, said only eight km passes through the core area.

The report said it is “clear from these documents that the Road does pass through the Core Zone”. It also said that, as per documentation from the Wildlife Institute of India, the road has “high usage” by rare, endangered and threatened species. Also, the report pointed out that a forest road is not a highway, so entry is restricted.

“Hence travel on the forest road by bus for commuting on the said road violates the provisions of sections 27 and 28 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972,” it said. 

The next hearing in the case is tomorrow, October 22. 

In times of misinformation, you need news you can trust. We’ve got you covered. Subscribe to Newslaundry and power our work.

Assembly polls are due in Jharkhand and Maharashtra, and teams from Newslaundry and The News Minute are hitting the ground. Click here to contribute to our new NL Sena project.