'We Have To Balance Rights', Says SC On Plea Against Plying Of Buses In Corbett's Core Area

If there are villages, they also need to have access, it said.

The apex court had on February 18, 2021, stayed the implementation of the office letter issued by the Jim Corbett National Park on December 23, 2020, allowing the buses to ply within the core area.

The matter came up for hearing on Friday before a bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan.

Advocate Gaurav Kumar Bansal, who had filed the petition, said the apex court had in February asked the counsel appearing for the state of Uttarakhand to take specific instructions from the authorities as to whether the road in question was in the core area or buffer area.

The state's counsel told the bench that out of the 53 km road, there were two zones of 4 km each which fall under the core area.

"The remaining 45 km does not fall in the core area," the state's counsel said.

However, Bansal referred to an earlier affidavit filed in the matter and said it was stated that out of the total 73 km of the Pakhro-Moreghatti-Kalagarh-Ramnagar forest road, 37 km traverses through the buffer area of the Corbett Tiger Reserve.

He said that as per the affidavit, 26 km traverses through the core zone while the remaining 10 km passes through the revenue land.

"We have to balance the rights," the bench observed, adding that if there are villages, they also need to have access.

The bench asked an advocate, who is assisting it as an amicus curiae in several environment and wildlife-related cases, to assist it in this matter and listed it for hearing in August.

The petitioner has alleged that to provide wrongful gain to a private company, forest officials of the state allowed it to ply buses within the core area of the tiger reserve.

"It is respectfully submitted that Director, Corbett Tiger Reserve vide its Office Order dated December 23, 2020, has allowed buses of a private sector company to ply within the core area of Corbett Tiger Reserve, Uttarakhand," his plea said.

"It is respectfully submitted that Section 38 (O) of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 provides that Tiger Reserves shall not be diverted for ecologically unsustainable uses, and in case it is required, then it is mandatory for State of Uttarakhand and its Forest Department officials to do the same only after taking approval from National Board for Wildlife and on the advice of National Tiger Conservation Authority," it said.

The petitioner has also sought quashing of the order of director of the national park.