IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 934 of 2008 (P.I.L.) Naresh Gujral …… Petitioner Versus State and others …… Respondents. Sri Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Sri Subhash Upadhyay, Advocate for the respondents no. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6. Sri Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for the respondent no. 5. Sri Sudhir Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate for the respondent no. 7. Sri D.S. Patni and Sri Gautam Chaubey, Advocates for the respondent no. 8. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. [Oral- Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.] By means of this writ petition, filed in the form of Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of mandamus for setting up a Commission to enquire into the illegal felling of tress in that area. A further mandamus has been sought directing the State Government to withdraw or cancel all approvals granted for setting up the resorts in the area of Ramgarh. (2) Heard learned counsel for the parties. (3) In the counter affidavits, filed on behalf of respondents, it has been stated that there had been no illegal felling of the trees nor any violation of the Rules was permitted in construction of the resorts. (4) Vide order dated 24th December 2008, this Court constituted a Committee comprising of District Judge, Nainital, District Magistrate, Nainital and Senior Superintendent of Police, Nainital, to examine whether the trees were allowed to fell illegally and whether the buildings were raised in violation of the bye laws. (5) In compliance of aforesaid order, the Committee examined the matter and submitted its report dated 28.01.2009. The concluding part of the report reads as under:- ^^ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk lanfHkZr vkns”k ds ek/;e ls bl desVh }kjk izeq[kr% nks fcUnqvksa ij fujh{k.k ds mijkar vk[;k pkgh x;h Fkh] ftlesa ls izFke fookn ;g gS fd fookfnr LFky ij Hkouksas dk fuekZ.k cxSj uD’ks ds ;k uD”ks ds vfrdze.k esa fd;k x;k gS ;k ugha \ nwljk fd D;k fookfnr LFky ij voS/kkfud :Ik ls isMksa dk dVku fd;k x;k gS \ tgka rd Hkouksa ds fuekZ.k dk iz”u gS] Lo;a ;kph dh rjQ ls ;g Lohdkj dj fy;k x;k fd Hkouksa ds fuekZ.k esa u rks fdlh ’kklukns’k dk mYya?ku fd;k x;k gS vkSj u gh Hkouksa dk fuekZ.k vuqefr ds fo:) ;k vfrdze.k esa fd;k x;k gSA voS/kkfud :Ik esa isMksa dks dkVs tkus o mlds ifj.kke Lo:Ik Ik;kZOkj.k ds fo?kVu ds lkis{k ;kph dh rjQ ls dksbZ lk{; ugha fn;k x;kA ;gka rd fd ;kph ds ikoj vkWQ ,VkWuhZ gksYMj Jh oh0ch0 fexykuh us Hkh viuh lk{; esa ;g ugha dgk fd fookfnr LFky ij isMksa dk voS/kkfud dVku fd;k x;kA blds fo:) foi{kh la[;k 7 ds lk{kh Jh gseUr MkykdksVh] foi{kh la[;k & 8 ds lk{kh Jh mes”k njeoky ,oa vlEc) lk{kh Jherh mek tks”kh us Li’V :Ik ls lk{; nsrs gq, ;g dgk fd mudh tkudkjh esa fookfnr LFky ij fdlh Hkh izdkj ls isMksa dk dksbZ dVku ugha fd;k x;k gSA bl izdkj Li’V gS fd isMksa dks voS/kkfud :Ik ls dkVs tkus ds lanHkZ esa i{kdkj dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha dj lds vkSj u gh dksbZ lk{; ?kVuk LFky ij miyC/k gSA vr% isMksa ds voS/kkfud :Ik ls dkVs tkus dk dFku Lkk{; ls lefFkZr ugha gSA fjiksVZ vkns”kkuqlkj ekuuh; U;k;ky; dks izsf’krA** It is mentioned in the report that in compliance of Court’s order dated 24.12.2008, passed in this petition, the committee inspected the spot on 07.01.2009 and also took the measurements of the buildings. (6) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the detailed report of the Committee, this Court is not inclined to grant further directions in the matter. Therefore, the Public Interest Litigation is accordingly closed. The writ petition stands disposed of. (B.S. Verma, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 12.02.2009 NS