OM PRAKASH BHATT Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Court is of the opinion that these proceedings must now draw to a close. The issue is not whether the petitions have to be allowed or dismissed as in matters of environment and ecology there is no such thing as winning or losing a case. This Court has repeated more than often and the Supreme Court has said so repeatedly that protecting the environment and ecology is a constitutional obligation and a fundamental duty of the citizen, the State not excluded.

(2.) This petition by Om Prakash Bhatt and others was basically brought to Court as the residents of the hills, particularly of Garhwal, and more particularly of the district of Chamoli, felt threatened by the invasion by State organisations and the erosion of the sanctity and the peace and tranquillity of the bugiyal. Bugiyal, in Garhwal, basically means meadows and pasture land which exists above a certain altitude in the mountains no different than the alpine meadows of Switzerland and Austria. Closer to home the meadows at Khilanmarg above Gulmarg in Kashmir are called "marg". The complaint to the Court was that these areas are pastura lands to the sheep and the shepherd. The submission was that the bugiyal is basically an ecosystem in itself and this delicate balance between ecology and environment has to be understood and respected. It cannot be defiled and the intricate balance of nature does not suffer the presence of aliens on these pasture lands as it keeps away the sheep and shepher, thus, disturbing the ecology. This living phenomenon may be watched but cannot be tread upon.

(3.) The complaint is that the Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam (hereinafter, in short, the Nigam) had put up pre-fabricated lodging houses as a hotel for tourist on the slopes of a bugiyal which is below the peak of the temple of Tungnath. This has happened at Chopta. Tungnath incidentally, is accepted and reported even by the State administration as one of the highest temples in India.