IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 1618 of 2007. Date of Decision: 21.2.2011. Sanjivini Jan Kalyan Sewa Samiti …Petitioner. Versus. State of HP & Ors. … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate. For Respondents 1 to 3 & 6: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. AG. For the Respondent No. 4: Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate. For the Respondent No.5. Ms. Shilpa Sood, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) The main grievance of the petitioner is that the area around Renukaji Lake which is part of the Renukaji Wild Life Sanctuary has been used for non forest purposes in total violation of the directions issued by the Apex Court in case titled as T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India & Ors. from time to time and also in violation of the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. 2. The State of Himachal Pradesh has constituted a Board known as Renukaji Board for the management and development of the area in question. The allegations of the petitioner were that parking had been constructed by the Board and a huge tree has been cut and a temple constructed in its place and it was also alleged that shops had been constructed within the sanctuary area. 3. The respondent-Board has not denied the fact that the parking place has been constructed. However, the stand is that the parking place always existed, but was a kutcha parking area which has been surfaced and made a pucca parking place. 4. The stand of the Board is also that the Renukaji lake is visited by a large number of devotees and therefore some basic facilities such as toilets etc. have to be provided to them. 5. In respect of the construction of the Dashavtaar temple, it is submitted that no trees were felled, however, an old tree fell naturally and in its place a temple was constructed. Construction of a temple by no stretch of imagination can be called a forest activity and is clearly a non forest activity. However, since the temple has already been constructed and religious sentiments are involved, we do not want to take the matter any further. 6. It is, however, made clear that neither the respondent-Board nor any other authority or person shall raise any construction of any nature whether it be religious or otherwise in the area in question without first seeking permission of the appropriate authorities. Any construction carried out in violation of the orders of the Apex Court in T. N. Godavarman's case or in violation of the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 shall be liable to be demolished at the risk and cost of the persons who raise construction. In fact, we would like to emphasize, that it is the duty of the Board to ensure that the area in question is maintained properly and no non-forest activity is permitted to be carried out. We hold that the Deputy Commissioner, Sirmaur at Nahan, who is also the Chairman of the Board responsible for compliance of all orders of the Apex Court as well as of this Court and needless to say it is his duty to ensure that the ‘Rule of Law’ is maintained and the Board itself does not violate the law in future. 7. As far as the shops are concerned, according to the Board these shops have not been constructed by it and it has no concern with the same. We, therefore direct the Deputy Commissioner, Sirmaur at Nahan to take necessary action against the persons who have raised construction in violation of the orders of the Apex Court and the law. He shall ensure that such offending structures are removed after notice to the concerned persons. If it is found that the construction has been raised in violation of law, then the same shall be removed latest by 31st December, 2011. 8. We may make it clear that the Board shall be entitled to conduct the Renukaji fair which is a State level fair, as well as Parshuram Jayanti which is held annually and for this purpose the Board will not have to come to this Court time and again to seek permission. It is, however, made clear that in the garb of conducting the fair or the ‘Jayanti’ the Board shall not raise any structure in the area in question which shall cause hindrance in the Parikrama of the lake. For the purpose of such fair, the Board may set up temporary toilets and it shall be the duty of the Board that after the fair ends, the area is cleaned up and brought back to its pristine glory. 9. As already permitted by this Court, the de-silting of the lake can be carried out by the Board. This is not a non forest activity and in fact will enhance the forest activity of the area. The Board shall however ensure that the muck/silt which is excavated shall be disposed of at a place which is at a reasonable distance of the lake, so that it causes no damage to the lake. The Deputy Commissioner, Sirmaur shall visit the sight and shall file an affidavit in this Court that the silt/muck excavated shall not in any manner cause damage to the sanctuary area. 10. The Board is permitted to apply non mechanized boats in the lake in question. It is, however, made clear that the Board if it deems fit can deploy one power boat in the lake for emergency purposes which shall be used only in case of emergency. In view of the aforesaid directions nothing further survives in the petition which is disposed of. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge. 21st February, 2011. (Krn Guleria)