IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 88 of 2010 (PIL) Indra Singh Negi ….…… Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ………. Respondents Mr. Birendra Singh Adhikari, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for the State / respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 6. Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate for respondent Nos. 5 and 7. Date of Judgment: 24.08.2011 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL) We have not gone into the question whether ‘no objection’ of the Forest Department was a requirement before taking steps to make the impugned constructions. We, accordingly, make it clear that we have not decided the said lacuna, if any. 2. The fact remains that the Central Government has provided funds to the Nagar Palika, Nainital under the Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission for the purpose of providing appropriate shelter to those who are residing in inappropriate shelters along Balia Nala. In order to utilize the funds, Nagar Palika has taken up the project of constructing roughly about 200 flats to accommodate those people in the new constructions. It has been contended that the land in question is landslide prone and situated on earthquake zone. Every part of the Uttarakhand, including any part in the vicinity of city of Nainital, is landslide prone and situated on earthquake zone. For that, however, progress cannot be stopped and a scheme, undertaken by the Government to provide appropriate shelter to poor people presently residing in inappropriate shelters, cannot be stalled. 3. It has come on record that the Nagar Palika, Nainital has not yet approached the Geological Department of the State for the purpose of obtaining appropriate opinion as to what further steps are required to be taken for giving appropriate protection to the new constructions. 2 4. We, accordingly, direct the Nagar Palika, Nainital to approach the Geological Department of the State for that purpose, with a request to the Geological Department of the State to provide all necessary and adequate advice to the Nagar Palika in that regard. 5. Although there is no pleading in the writ petition, but the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Lake Development Authority was required to accord sanction for the constructions, but no such sanction has been accorded. This contention is being disputed by the learned counsel for the Nagar Palika. Since, there was no foundation of facts pertaining to the issue, we have not decided the same. 6. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction as above upon the Nagar Palika, Nainital. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 24.08.2011 24.08.2011 Amit