Sr. No.7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C)PIL 2/2023 CM(3978/2024) CM(5627/2023) MOHD UMAR MIR …Petitioner(s)/appellant(s) Through: Mr. Mir Umar (Petitioner in Per son) Mr. Sheikh Manzoor, Advocate for Intervenor Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND OTHERS. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE O R D E R 07-05-2025 1. Petitioner (Mohd Umar Mir), a respectable Member of the High Court Bar Association had filed this petition in public interest raising concerns as regards the protection of Bangus Valley and to devise a Master Plan so that no concrete structure is raised which destroys the natural beauty of the Valley and rather promotes the eco-tourism in the area. 2. Pursuant to the notice issued to the respondent authorities, affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 3 was submitted. In essence, per the stand set out therein, the authorities would ensure that not only the eco-tourism is promoted but the required steps are taken which shall be eco-friendly. And no commercial tourism would be encouraged and allowed in the Valley. Further, Lolab Bangus Drangyadi Development Authority (LBDDA) is constituted which is mandated to develop an eco-friendly Master Plan for the Valley ensuring sustainable development without promoting concrete construction or haphazard land allotment. 3. Subsequently, vide CM No. 3978/2024, Mr. Sheikh Manzoor, who also happens to be a respectable Member of the Bar, has sought to intervene in the matter, for respondent No. 03 (Divisional Forest Officer, Kehmil Forest Division, Kralpora, Kupwara) had purportedly caused grave violations of Forest Conservation Act. In fact, a picture of the ground meadows went viral on the social media showing a concrete structure made of cement and bricks being raised which apparently diminished the natural beauty of the Valley. 4. Upon being served with a notice in the intervention application, the respondents 1 to 3 have also filed objections/response today in court, which is taken on record. Copy furnished. 5. We had heard the petitioner, the intervenor as also Mr. Mohsin Qadri, learned senior AAG appearing for the respondents at length and perused the records. 6. In context of the issue that arises for consideration, we consider it expedient to refer to paragraph 6 & 7 of the response/objections that have been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 today in court: 6. “In reply to averments made in para 7 of the petition, it is submitted that the site selection has been made keeping in view the existing security facility, police presence and road connectivity making it as a safer location for the Forest Frontline staff to stay overnight. This choice also ensures that the structures are concentrated in one area, thereby preventing scattered/haphazard construction in the Bangus valley. That it is pertinent to mention that the said site is located at the threshold point of the Lokut Bangus allowing quick mobility of the staff. It is submitted that no commercial buildings for tourism purposes are proposed for construction in Bangus. The proposed staff quarter is a modest structure of around 1,000 square feet, intended solely for forest frontline staff who are responsible for the protection, conservation, and management of the Bangus Valley and surrounding forests. 7. In reply to averments made in para 8 of the petition, it is submitted that the construction of the frontline staff quarters is in full compliance with legal requirements, and the respondents remain committed to ensuring that no unauthorized structures are built. The future Ecotourism infrastructure development shall be focused and concentrated at the base of Bangus Valley i.e. at the designated spots Between the Dringyari and BadiBehak. The rest of the Bangus Valley shall be designated as a no- construction zone for tourism to safeguard its ecological sensitivity. This zoning will serve as a protective buffer and a shock absorber, mitigating anthropogenic impact and preserving the ecological integrity of the region. The respondents are fully mindful of their obligations to protect the valley and promote eco-tourism in a sustainable and responsible manner. The construction of the Forest Frontline staff quarters (BO'sHut) in Bangus Valley is lawful, necessary, and shall be completely in sync with the natural surroundings once completed. The instant application for intervention, as such deserves to be dismissed.” 7. In the wake of the position sketched out above, the petitioner as also the intervenor, as always, fairly submit that nothing substantive survives in the petition and the same be disposed of in terms of the stand set out in the response filed by respondents 1 to 3. However, it is urged that in the event any cause of action arises in future, the petitioner would avail such remedies as admissible in law. 8. That being so and for the petition has apparently served its purpose, we close the proceedings in the present case. But before we part with, we must record a deep appreciation for the petitioner, the intervenor as also Mr. Mohsin Qadri, learned senior AAG who assisted the court in the right earnest and truly for public good/interest. (RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE SRINAGAR 07-05-2025 Aadil