IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed the necessity for state compliance in environmental management to prevent ecological and human losses.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. The present Public Interest Litigation has been preferred by the petitioner, in person. The main cause highlighted in the present PIL is relating to channelling the flow of water and control of removal of silt/debris from sensitive/Reserve Forest Zone of Nandhaur, Ganga, Gaula, Sukhi, Kosi and Dabka rivers.

2. It is contended in the petition that from the main rivers of the State of Uttarakhand, namely Nandhaur river of District Nainital, Ganga river of District Haridwar and Gaula river of Haldwani, District Nainital, every year after rainy seasons, the agricultural land of the farmers as well as the forest land and forest produce are being destroyed due to flood carving out from the said rivers.

3. It is contended that extensive damage is being caused to the forest wealth, widespread loss of life and the main reason for which is the accumulation of shields debris in the middle of rivers for many years, due to which the rivers moved away from their main stream and have entered the inhabited area by curving towards the villages. The rivers enters the Bhabar region from Shivalik Mountain terrain after which the force of rivers become much less as compared to the hilly regions, the width of river expands in bhabar region which is a normal nature of river. On reaching from mountains to plain region the rivers dumps the shield, stones, sands, debris due to which the rivers by leaving its original flowing area are causing land erosion in villages/forest land endangering to the loss of life and property.

4. It is submitted that by office letter dated 12.07.2022, the District Magistrate, Nainital requested the Secretary, Disaster Management and Rehabilitation of Government of Uttarakhand for a fund of Rs. 6163.25 lakh for initiating flood rescue/protection scheme in District Nainital but despite the request only 5 per cent of the required amount has been sanctioned (Annexure-4).

5. A reference has been made of a report dated 26.11.2009 which was obtained under the Right to Information Act, and as per point No. 3, it reveals that till 2009, from Nandhaur river 6560 trees were flowed in the river which causes total loss of more than Rs. 1,90,00,000/- to the forest department and also loss to precious forest land.

6. A further reference has been made of a joint inspection report dated 09.06.2021 of technical engineers of District Nainital and District Udham Singh Nagar in which it is clearly mentioned that if debris and silt are accumulated in the mid of the river is removed and river is channelized, then it will be a most suitable preventive measures.

7. A further reference has been made of another joint inspection report dated 13.10.2022 submitted by Chief Engineer Level-2, Irrigation Department, Haldwani District Nainital, wherein it is mentioned that it will be useful to channelize the river by removing silt debris in controlled manner from mid of the river.

8. A further reference has been made of an order passed by this Court on 14.02.2023 in WPPIL No. 47 of 2022 wherein this Court directed the State Government to undertake the activity of dredging entirely on its own, without the involvement of private agency and with the involvement of the State departments.

9. The petitioner, who appeared in person submits that the State Government and their officials are not complying with the directions issued by this Court pursuant to the judgment dated 14.02.2023 passed in WPPIL No. 47 of 2022 and failed in channelizing the Nandhaur, Ganga, Gaula, Kosi, Dabka and other rivers by removing the debris and silts from the rivers.

10. On 14.08.2023, Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State tendered in Court a joint inspection report dated 10.08.2023, which sets out some of the works done for the purposes of dredging and channelizing of the rivers. On perusing the said report, this Court was of the view that the same is not clear and it does not indicate as to what steps have been taken by the respondent f