AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Lok Pal Singh, J
This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring the impugned condition in the letter dated 11.10.2012 and dated
9.10.2012 issued by the respondent no.1 as unlawful and arbitrary and quashing the same.
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution, directing the Respondent No. 2
to not interlink the case of the ex-employees with that of renewal of permit and protect the rights and interests of the petitioner.
iii) Issue any other appropriate writ, order and/or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and
to meet the ends of justice.
Petitioner is a Company run by its Directors, namely, Mr. Yusuf Zaheer and Mrs. Ganeev Rajkotia, and is engaged in the business of rafting on
white waters in Rishikesh and camping on the beaches of Shivpuri. Petitioner has to apply for rafting as well as camping permit, which is granted by
the Tourism Department and Forest Department respectively. In the year 2007, a dead python was found near the camp-site, allotted to the petitioner,
in which three employees of the petitioner-company were found guilty and they were convicted by the Court of Sessions in the said offences, against
which appeal is pending before this High Court. By the order dated 11.10.2012, petitioner Company has been granted provisional permission for river
rafting/camping at Shivpuri. Petitioner Company is aggrieved by the condition mentioned in the letter dated 09.12.2012 and the order dated 11.10.2012
that in case any order is passed by the Court or by the Government, the same shall be binding on the petitioner Company.
Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.4 stating that the permission of river rafting in the hill area is granted in accordance with
the provisions mentioned in the Government dated 25. 9.1999, which provides that after evaluation of the work and conduct of the Company, the
permission of river rafting and temporary camping would be provided by the Conservator of Forest. It is also stated that due to violation of Wild Life
Conservation Act, 1972, earlier the petitioner-Company was not granted permission of camping by the then Conservator of Forest, Bhagirathi Circle,
and now the permission has been granted with the condition impugned. It is further stated that the petitioner Company cannot escape from its legal
liabilities and merely because the accused have left the petitioner-Company, the same does not absolve the Company from its liabilities under Section
58 of the Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without there being any fault or involvement of the petitioner-Company in the alleged criminal
case, impugned condition has been imposed upon the petitioner-company. According to the learned counsel, the offence was committed by the ex-
employees of the petitionerâ€"company and the Company or it’s Directors are not in any manner associated with the said case. Learned Counsel
would further contend that the condition imposed upon the petitioner is stigmatic as well as punitive in nature.
I have heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire material available on file.
On a perusal of the condition mentioned in the order dated 11.10.2012, it would reveal that nothing has been said against petitioner Company; it is
only in anticipation that if in future the Court or the State Government directs something, the same will be binding upon the petitioner. In the opinion of
the Court, the condition imposed is not stigmatic in nature. Moreover, by order dated 11.10.2012, permission was granted for the year 2013, which
period has already expired.
In view of the above, writ petition lacks merit. The same is hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.