Uttarakhand High Court
WPPIL/1294/2007 of MS. SHANTI THAKUR Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS on 30 December 2010
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1294 of 2007 (PIL) Ms. Shanti Thakur ……… Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ……… Respondents Mr. Siddharth Sah, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Farida Siddiqui, Standing Counsel (Union of India)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 1294 of 2007 (PIL)
Ms. Shanti Thakur ……… Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others
……… Respondents
Mr. Siddharth Sah, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Farida Siddiqui, Standing Counsel (Union of India) for respondent No. 1. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel (Govt. of Uttarakhand) for respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5.
Date of Judgment: 30.12.2010
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J.Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J.
BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL)
This writ petition, in the nature of public interest, has been filed contending that the glacier in the Gangotri area is receding at a fast pace. That the same is really happening, has not been established or attempted to be proved. Petitioner has not brought on record anything from where it can be gathered that there is truth and substance in such contention. It is the contention of the petitioner that in order to stop the catastrophe as projected in the writ petition, human and commercial activities in the belt beyond Gangotri in the Gangotri National Park area must be stopped. No attempt has been made to project what human activities in the Gangotri National Park area is going on, and that, if those are stopped, the grievances highlighted in the writ petition will be redressed.
2. We, accordingly, dismiss this writ petition. We will, however, not stop the writ petitioner to re-approach this Court, in the event he discharges his preliminary obligations pertaining to a Public Interest Litigation of this nature.
Amit
(V.K. Bist, J.)
30.12.2010
(Barin Ghosh, C.J.)
30.12.2010