The Uttarakhand High Court has issued a significant directive to the Jim Corbett National Park administration, demanding the submission of its official tiger conservation plan. This development occurred during a hearing on Friday that also addressed ongoing disputes concerning local gypsy vehicle operations within the popular tourist destination.
Court's Directive on Conservation and Tourism
A division bench comprising Chief Justice G Narendar and Justice Subhash Upadhyay presided over the proceedings. The court explicitly instructed the park's director to provide a copy of the conservation strategy, emphasizing its critical role. The judges stated that this plan is essential not only for protecting the big cats but also for promoting sustainable tourism, generating employment for local residents, and maximizing benefits for forest-dependent communities.
The court has scheduled the next hearing in this matter for December 5, setting a clear timeline for the park authorities to comply with the order.
Controversy Over Local Gypsy Permits
The hearing also involved several petitions challenging the park's management of local vehicle permits. The petitioners, including residents Chakshu Kargeti and Savitri Agarwal, argued that the park authorities had unjustly excluded newly registered local vehicle owners from the official list for gypsy operations.
They contended that all individuals holding valid permits and meeting the prescribed conditions should be eligible to participate in the lottery process for gypsy services in the park, regardless of their status as old or new permit holders.
The petitioners alleged a specific grievance: while the park was registering gypsy owners under a special category, it was systematically excluding those whose vehicles were registered for two years. This exclusion persisted even though these individuals had obtained the necessary permits from the Regional Transport Office (RTO) the previous year. They asserted that this practice directly violated previous court orders.
Impact on Local Livelihoods and Government's Stance
The consequences of this exclusion have been severe for the affected operators. The petitioners highlighted that these gypsy operators, who are all local residents, have been rendered unemployed due to their omission from the list. They pleaded with the court that these individuals should also be given the right to employment and a fair chance to earn a livelihood from the park's tourism ecosystem.
In its response, the state government defended the actions of the park authorities. The government's counsel stated that permits were issued strictly in accordance with established standards. They maintained that those who did not fulfil these predefined standards were rightfully excluded from the final list of authorized operators.
The court is now examining the conflict between the park's operational standards and the Supreme Court's existing guidelines on the matter, which the petitioners argued should be followed meticulously.
