Shail Samachar Newspaper

मकलोड़गंज प्रकरण में 

शिमला/शैल। धर्मशाला के मकलोड़गंज में बीओटी के आधार पर बनाये गये बस स्टैण्ड में किस तरह से वन संरक्षण अधिनियम और फिर टी सी पी अधिनियम की धज्जियां उड़ाई गयी हैं तथा यह निर्माण कार्य कर रही कंपनी प्रशाती सूर्य को अनुचित लाभ पहुंचाने के लिये कैसे सरकार के एक नही सात विभागों ने सहयोग किया है इसका विस्तृृत खुलासा जिला एवम् सत्र न्यायधीश धर्मशाला की रिपोर्ट में सामने आ चुका है। जिला जज को यह जांच सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने सौंपी थी और अब यह रिपोर्ट शीर्ष अदालत के रिकार्ड पर आ चुकी है। रिपोर्ट में सरकार के सात विभागों के खिलाफ कड़ी कारवाई किये जाने की अनुशंसा की गयी है। रिपोर्ट के अनुसार भ्रष्टाचार का यह एक ऐसा मामला है जिसमें जनहित के नाम पर सभी विभागों ने एक साथ अपनी आंखे बन्द कर ली। स्मरणीय है कि जब पहली बार शीर्ष अदालत के सामने यह मामला आया था तब सरकार को एक करोड़ का जुर्माना लगा था। कायदे से तो सरकार को तभी इसका संज्ञान लेकर संवद्ध लोगों के खिलाफ कारवाई कर देनंी चाहिये थी। लेकिन ऐसा नही हुआ। अपील हो गयी। अपील में चालीस लाख का जुर्माना लगा और मुख्य सचिव को विस्तृत जांच के आदेश दिये गये। इस फैसले की भी अपील हो गयी और शीर्ष अदालत ने अपने आदेश को संशोधित करते हुए यह जांच मुख्य सचिव की बजाये जिला जज को सौंप दी। बार-बार अपील में जाने से यह स्पष्ट हो जाता है कि सरकार दोषियों को बचाने के लिये किसी भी हद तक जाने को तैयार है। सरकार जब भ्रष्टाचार को संरक्षण देने के लिये इस हद तक तैयार हो जाये तो अनुमान लगाया जा सकता है कि भ्रष्टाचार का आकार कितना बड़ा होगा और उसमें किस स्तर के लोग शामिल होंगे।
इस भ्रष्टाचार को संरक्षण देने के लिये पूर्व की सरकारों ने जो भूमिका निभाई उसमें तो मामले की अपीलें करने तक का ही काम किया गया। लेकिन अब जयराम सरकार ने जो कुछ किया है वह पहले से भी दो कदम आगे जाने वाला इतिहास रचना हो जायेगा। जिला जज धर्मशाला की रिपोर्ट शीर्ष अदालत में जाने के बाद यह मामला इस माह की तीन तारीख को सुनवाई के लिये लगा था। उस दिन अदालत में हिमाचल सरकार के अतिरिक्त महाधिक्ता ने यह बताया कि प्रदेश सरकार ने इसमें आवश्यक कदम उठाते हुए कारवाई शुरू कर दी है। अतिरिक्त महाधिवक्ता के इस कथन के बाद शीर्ष अदालत ने यह आर्डर किया था।

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Mr Abhinav Mukerji, Additional Advocate General for the State of Himachal Pradesh states that the State Government has taken steps for initiating prosecution for violation of the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 and would like to place the decision of and the steps taken by the State on record. The affidavit, as stated before this Court by the learned AAG, may be filed within a period of three weeks from today.
2 List the Civil Appeals on 24 November 2020.

अब अदालत के आदेशानुसार शपथ पत्र दायर करके उठाये गये कदमों की जानकारी शीर्ष अदालत को दी जानी है। लेकिन सूत्रों के मुताबिक कारवाई करने जैसा कोई कदम नही उठाया गया है। मंगलवार 24 तारीख को यह मामला फिर लगा है। अब सरकार ने इसमें शपथ पत्र दायर करने के स्थान पर सरकार के जिला अटार्नी दिल्ली को 20 तारीख को पत्र लिखकर अदालत को यह सूचित करने के लिये कहा है कि सरकार को इसमें कोई शपथ पत्र दायर नही करना है।

Subject: H.P. Bus Stand Vs Central Empowered committee.

Sir,
I am directed to refer to your letter No. DA(LC)Delhi/C/83/2016-206, dated 7th November, 2020 on the subject cited above and to say that as per the information received from the Principal Chief Conservator of forest (HoFF), Himachal Pradesh and Additional Chief Secretary (Forests) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh( copies enclosed), on further affidavit is required to be filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court as on additional information/action taken report is available in this regards.
You are therefore, requested to apprise the Hon'ble Apex Court accordingly.
This has the approval of Worthy Chief Secretary, Himachal Pradesh

यह पत्र दिल्ली स्थित जिला अटार्नी को लिखा गया है। अटार्नी तो अदालत में पेश नही होता है। अदालत में अतिरिक्त महाधिवक्ता ने यह सूचित किया था कि सरकार ने कड़ी कारवाई करने के लिये कदम उठा लिये हैं और उसी पर शपथ पत्र मांगा गया था। जिला जज की रिपोर्ट पर जो जबाव सरकार ने दायर किया है उसमें रिपोर्ट पर कोई सवाल न उठाते हुए उसे स्वीकार कर लिया गया है। साथ ही यह आश्वस्त किया गया है कि अदालत जो आदेश पारित करेगी उनकी अनुपालना की जायेगी। इस मामले में अदालत ने जो जुर्माने पहले लगा रखे हैं उन्हे अदालत में जमा करवाने के बाद ही अपीलें दायर हुई है। पिछले तीन वर्ष से यह मामला जयराम सरकार के भी संज्ञान में चल रहा है। अब जिस तरह का आचरण इस मामले में सरकार के सामने आ आया है उससे स्पष्ट हो जाता है कि सरकार अपनी फजीहत करवा कर भी दोषीयों को बचाना चाहती है। सरकार में कौन लोग ऐसा करने के लिये मुख्यमन्त्री पर दबाव डाल रहे हैं या मुख्यमन्त्री के संज्ञान में लाये बिना ही ऐसा हो रहा है यह अभी रहस्य बना हुआ है। इस परिदृश्य में कुछ विभागों की कारगुजारी को लेकर जो रिपोर्ट जिला जज ने सौंपी है वह पढ़ना रोचक और आवश्यक हो जाता है।

यह हैं जिला जज की रिपेार्ट के कुछ अंश

Role Of HRTC and HPBSMDA:

As discussed here in above initially the project of car parking at Mecleodganj was to be carried out by H.P. Tourism Department and for the same there was clearance from Government of India Ministry of Environment and Forest under Forest (Conservation) Act 1980, also. Subsequently. The said project was cancelled and the project of structure in dispute was conceived CW3 Smt. Madhu chaudhary, District Tourism Development Officer. Dharamshala, has deposed that in 1995 District Tourism Officer had deposited Cheque of Rs.6,21,300/- with SDO © Dharamshala. for construction of car parking vide of letter Ex. C9. However, the Tourism Department received back the aforesaid amount vide copy of letter Ex. C10 dated 28-02-2004. It shows the ill designs of HRTC and Bus Stand Authority, as the then sanctioned project of car parking meant for general public was got cancelled and new project qua the structure in dispute was initiated. For the same the then officers of HRTC especially who held the posts of MD, HRTC in the year 2004 and the concerned Divisional Manager and R.M. HRTC. Dharamshala in 2005 and CEO and BOD of Bus stand Authority are responsible. As per record the Government has executed lease deed in favour of Bus Stand authority to carry out the construction work of bus stand at Mecloedganj and Bus stand Authority has awarded the construction work to MS Prashanti Surya Construction Company. But one fact is clear that on the spot the construction work was to be carried out by Bus Stand Authority. That means factually the user agency was Bus stand Authority. But on record the SDO © and Tourism Department remained user agency. No step was taken by the Bus stand Authority to change the user agency in its name and to get the NOC requisite approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 and rules made there under. The construction work of the disputed structure commenced in 2005. Thus in my opinion the CEO and members of Board of Directors of Bus Stand Authority, are responsible for ignoring the statutory provision of Forest (Conservation) Act. 190 and the rules made there under.
10. The statement of CW6 Smt. Asha Mehta, Town and Country Planner. Dharamshala, is revealing that from time to time in 2006 and 2007 initially R.M. and D.M. HRTC had submitted site plans for approval which were sent back by the Town Country Planning Department with certain observations. The request for NOC was also rejected by the TCP thereafter, notice U/s 39 of TCP Act was served upon the DM-cum-OSD Bus Stand Authority, Dharamshala, copy if which is Ex. C51. Her statement is further revealing that the D.C. Kangra vide copy of letter Ex. C59 had asked DM-cum- OSD Bus stand Authority, to stop the illegal construction. On 19-12-2016 and 01-02-2017 two letters Ex. C67 and Ex. C68 were received from RM HRTC Dharamshala with revised maps of six stories of bus stand but till date the bus stand map has not been approved or sanctioned by the TCP. It established that initially the officers of HRTC and thereafter the DM –cum-OSD bus stand authority submitted the site plans/maps of the disputed structure for getting the sanction from TCP, but no such sanction was given by the TCP. Initially the HRTC and thereafter the Bus stand Authority continued with the construction work of the disputed structure . Hence, from the date of construction i.e. 2005 till 2009 when the construction work was stopped, the concerned officers of HRTC as well as CEO, OSD as well as BOD of Bus Stand Authority, are responsible for ignoring and violating the provisions of H.P. Town Country Planning Act.
11. Here it is relevant to discuss the provisions contained U/s 28(1) of Himachal Pradesh Town Country Planning Act,1977, which reads as under:-
“ When the Union Government or the State Government intends to carry out development of any land for the purpose of its departments or officers or authorities, the officers-in- charge thereof shall inform in writing to the Director the intention of the Government to do so, giving full particulars thereof, accompanied by such documents and plans as may be prescribed at least thirty days before undertaking such development”.
12. In this the Bus stand Authority did not inform in writing the Director of Town and Country Planning Department, regarding the construction work in question as discussed here in above in the aforesaid statutory provisions, Said information should have been given by the CEO of the Bus stand Authority in the year of 2005 when the construction work started on the spot. So, the CEO of Bus stand Authority in the year 2005 is responsible for ignoring the statutory provisions of Section 28 of the H.P. Town Country Planning Act.
13. CW 15 Sh. H.K. Gupta Chief General Manager, HRTC, Shimla, has stated that the construction of Mecleodganj bus stand and car parking was awarded to M/s Prashanti Surya Construction Company on 08-11-2004 vide letter Ex. C99 and M/s Prashanti Surya Construction Company started work on the spot without any formal order. Here the statement of CW16 Sh. Vijay Kumar Sood, is relevant who has stated that the construction work was started in mid 2005. CW 15 Sh. H.K. Gupta has further stated that when the work was awarded to said construction company, there was no approval section from the Forest Department as well as Town and Country Planning Department. Then I fail to understand how the Bus stand Authority asked M/s Prashanti Surya Construction Company to start and continue with the construction work . Sh. H.K. Gupta has further stated that there is deviation on the spot as compared to the recommendation of EPC and those deviations were approved by the Board of Directors. Again it can not be complained bow the Board of Directors of Bus Stand Authority was competent to give approval to the deviations or to allow construction company to carry out illegal construction. He has filed on record the copy of order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 07-09-2017 Ex. C105. The perusal of said order is revealing that it was brought to the notice of Hon’ble Supreme of India that CEC (Central Empowered Committee ) was purposing to inspect the site and would give the report. So, it was directed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India . meanwhile the work relating to the construction of bus stand may continue. But this order Ex. C105 of Hon’ble supreme court of India never authorised Bus stand Authority to carry out altogether illegal construction on the spot Hon’ble Supreme court has only allowed to erect structure in accordance with law. CW15 Sh. H.K. Gupta has further stated that till date the Bus stand Authority has not taken any action against the construction company.
14. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the officers of HRTC as well as CEO, OSD and Board of Directors of Bus Stand Authority are responsible and are hereby held liable as submitted here in above in Para No. 9
Role of Town and Country Planning Department:
In view of the statement of PW6 Smt. Mehta ,Town and Country Planner, Dharamshala, the notice U/s 39 of TCP Act, copy of which is Ex. C15 was served upon the DM –cum-OSD Bus stand Authority Said notice is revealing that the specific, direction was issued to demolish the development made in contravention of the provision of Town and Country Planning Act and to stop the further construction work. At the same time it also stands established that despite said notice issued in 2007, the construction work did not stop . However the construction work started notice dated 08-03-2007 no action was taken by the Town and Country Planning Department. For the same the technical officers/officials of Town and Country Planning Department Dharamshala, are responsible for not taking requisite steps to stop the construction work on the spot from 2005 to 08-03-2007.
Section 38 of Town and Country Planning Act provides for the penalty for unauthorized development by any person and this act of unauthorized development / construction is punishable with simple imprisonment for a term of six months of fine of Rs. 2000/- or with both and in case of continuing offence with further fine which may extent to Rs. 200/- for every day during which the offence continues after conviction for the first commission of the offence for the Director or the Town and Country Planning Authority is authorized to file complaint in the court of law U/s 81 of Town and Country Planning Act. Which reads as under:-
“No court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act except on a complaint in writing made over the signature of an officer duly authorized by the Director or a special Area Development Authority, as the case may be”
17. In this case no complaint has been filed on behalf of Director Town and Counrty Planning Department or Town and Country Planning Authority. Thus, the concerned officers of Town and country planning Department/Authority are responsible for ignoring the aforesaid statutory provision.
Role of Forest Department :
It is undisputed fact that the land over which the disputed structure is erected is forest reserve land in view of copy of jamabandi for the year 2001-02 Ex.C2. This jamabandi is revealing that vide mutation No.20 which was sanctioned on 09-02-2006 of land bearing khasra Nos. 90/1,136/1, 139, 140/1,141/1 has been transferred in the name of HRTC.
Here the statement of CW4 Sh. Pardeep Bhardwaj DFO, Dharamshala is relevant. he has stated that in 2007 the Transport Authority had applied for the permission to change of user and land use, but said request was rejected by Ministry of Environment Forest Government of India, vide copy of letter Ex.C24. As discussed here in above the mutation of forest land was sanctioned on 09-02-2006. Sh. Pardeep Bhardwaj, DFO has further stated that the Range officer had filed complaint with SHO, Dharamshala, dated 21-07-2007 vide Ex. C28. From 08-02-2006 to 21-07-2007 no action in any manner whatsoever was taken by the officers/officials of Forest Department, Dharamshala in respect of the forest land mutation of qua which was sanctioned in favour of HRTC under law such mutation could not have been effected in the absence of any NOC under forest (Conservation)Act, 1980. So, for the same the concerned officers/officials of Forest Department are responsible as they remained negligent about their official duties to protect the forest land.
Here the statement of CW9 Sh. Sunil Rana, SHO P.S. Dharamshala is also relevant. He has deposed that after consulting the relevant record he came to know that a complaint Ex.C28 was sent by the Range Officer, Dharamshala to the SHO, P.S. Dharmshala, However, vide copy of letter Ex. C79 the DFO Dharamshala was informed to file a complaint under the provision of Forest (Conservation) Act,1980 Rule 9 of Forest (Conservation) Rules,2003, Rule 9(1) reads as under:
“The Central Government may by notification, authorize any officer not below the rank of Conservator of Forest or the concerned forest officer having territorial jurisdiction over the forest land in respect of which the said offence is said to have been committed, to file complaints against the person(s) prima –facie found guilty of offence under the Act or the violation of the rules made there under in the court having jurisdiction in the matter.
Provide that no complaint shall be filed in the court without giving the person(s) or officer(s) or authority (s) against whom the allegations of offence exist, an opportunity to explain his or their conduct and to show cause by issuing a notice in writing of not less than sixty days, as to why a complaint should not be filed in the court against him or them for alleged offences."
Therefore it was obligatory on the part of Conservator of Forest and concerned forest officials to file a complaint in the court of law but no such complaint was filed. The DFO Sh. Pardeep Bhardwaj as CW4 has also stated that a separate letter was also issued to S.P. Dharamshala CW8 Sh. Santosh Patial S.P. Dharamshala has deposed that on 04-08-2007 he had received the complaint Ex.C30 from the DFO, Dharamshala vide letter copy of which is Ex.C77, but to my mind simply writing to SHO and S.P.Dharamshala the forest officers have not discharged their official duties with respect to forest land, because for the same it was the legal duty of the forest officers to issue a show cause notice to the Bus Stand Authority and thereafter to file a complaint in writing in the court of law. For not discharging the aforesaid legal obligations the Conservator Forest and DFO. Dharamshala are liable for having not follows the statutory provisions contained under Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 and Forest (Conservation) Rule 2003.