CASE SUMMARY

1 Uttarakhand Ex-Cm Case

2 Hydroelectric Case
3 Panchayat Election Case
4 Witch Craft Case
5 Van Gujjar Case
 UTTARAKHAND EX-CM CASE
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Civil Original Jurisdiction

Amended Writ Petition No. 90 of 2010(P.I.L.)

Under Article 226 of Constitution of India

Rural Litigation and Entitlement
Kendra (RLEK) ………………………..Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and five
Others ………………………..Respondent

The petitioner filed this petition through its chairperson alleging that govt. has spent Rs.
92869973(Nine Crore Twenty Eight Lakh Sixty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy
Three Only) until 2010 in providing various facilities to all ex-chief ministers of state unlawfully
without any legislative sanction. State government is spreading crores of rupees in name of
personnel management of ex-CM for their whole life on the other hand every citizen of this poor
state is reeling under extensive burden of debt. the facilities  are provided on the basis of office
memo dated 15 February 2002 and order dated 27 November 2001 which never received
sanction from Council of Ministers in state and also they were not passed in compliance of
Article 166 and 167 of Constitution of India therefore they are not a valid Government orders.
When the inquiry goes under Right to Information Act about validity of orders dated 27
November 2001 by the State Estate Department, the petitioner was replied to ask the information
from Gopan (secrecy) Department. The department replied that order dated 27 November 2001
either by Council of Ministers or by State legislature denoting that the order were illegally
passed in utter disregard to either legislature denoting that the orders was illegally passed in utter
disregard to either legislative or executive powers of State as per Part VI of Constitution of India,
hence void ab initio. While enjoying the facilities by the virtue of being ex-chief ministers the
calculation done by the petitioner included the period when respondent no. 2, 3, 4 were demitted
from their respected offices.
According to petitioner the facilities received from State Government which was enjoyed by the
Respondent No.2 are illegal because all the facilities are received till the end of their term and
total expenditure of facilities is 89, 68, 133, So have Respondent No. 3 having expenditure of 41,
24, 481 and Respondent No. 4 having expenditure of 1,14,79,662. On public exchequer these
types of facilities becomes burden. This seems to be total wastage of money in front of the
natural calamity which was struck last year in UTTRAKHAND. Even after owing a house
Respondent No.5 still held the government property for his own personal use. Before demitting
His respected office of CM. Respondent No. 6 allotted BIJAPUR guest house for himself for his
whole life and also sanctioned crores for renovation and furnishing. Respondent No. 2,3,4 in past
3 years have spent an amount of Rs. 60144420 merely on maintenance and petrol of their
vehicles on Government cost without being legally entitled. Palatial bungalows have also been
allotted through an office memo dated 26 Jan 2010 by State Estate officer.
It is sanding to see that even after a decade from the formation of UTTARAKHAND the resident
of the state have not received the expected benefits. The developmental process has become an
ecological burden because only the hills have been impoverished. The 2008-9 Annual Financial
Description of Government signifies that Per Capita Income is below National Average Income.
Which means state is not benefitting from economic growth of Nation. When untoward incident
happens, State Government becomes helpless and argues of having less police force but on other
side crores of money spent on security of Ex-CM as if they are prized treasure. At their ancestral
houses also securities are provided. When State is under huge financial deficit at that time also
the illegal expenses are incurred from public money. The above stated memo and orders were
illegal and arbitrary because any financial expenditure in State can only be sanctioned by passing
a money bill and appropriation bill in State legislature and all these process were absent in memo
and orders. Respondent has recovered all the benefits which were granted deserve.
By Hon’ble Court Respondent No. 1 was asked to provided relevant papers with regard to illegal
facilities but till date papers has not been provided. Even post of “Ex/Former Chief Minister”
does not exist and also not mentioned in constitution therefore luxurious enjoyed on said post
stands illegal.
The petitioner prays to Hon’ble court to call for records concerning office memo and orders
stated above pass an appropriate order or direction in nature certiorari to quash those orders and
pass a writ directing Respondent to payback amount in providing them facilities.
 HYDROELECTRIC CASE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition (P.I.L.) No. 15 of 2009

Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra (RLEK)                                                            ............Petitioner

Versus
Union of India (through its Secretary), Ministry of Power, Government of India, Shram Shakti
Bhawan, New Delhi and four others.
.............Respondents
Dated: - 26 February, 2009
th

Coram: Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.

       Hon’ble D. S. Verma, J.
Sri Kartikey Hari Gupta, counsel for the petitioner filed this public interest litigation challenging
the suspension of work at the Loharinag-Pala barrage hydroelectric project on Bhagirathi River. 
The counsel argues that the suspension of the hydroelectric project is unreasonable. Suspending
the work would lead to more expenses. Because it seems that, an amount equal to 450 crores has
already been spent on the project and by suspending this project only the contractors would get
benefits due to price escalation.
Further it was mentioned by the council that Ganga River Basin Authority is created by the
ministry of environment and forests for looking into the concerned matter.

ISSUE;      
There should be sufficient reason of passing such an order it depends on the govt. that whether
the suspension order passed by them is maintainable or not.

HELD; 
The Court held that the impugned order dated 19th February, 2009 issued for suspension of the
work shall not be acted upon until further orders of this court. All related matters would be heard
by the court after six weeks.
 PANCHAYAT ELECTION CASE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

Writ Petition (G) no. 719 of 1995

Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra (RLEK)                                     ................Petitioner 

Versus

Government of Uttarakhand & Others.

                                                  ..............Respondents

This order is in regard to a previously filed writ petition. The petitioner claiming that election for
panchayat bodies had not been held in all the States except Bihar. It was because some of the
provision of act which passed by State of Bihar regarding panchayat elections were challenged
in Patna High Court, also the same is pending before the Supreme Court of India. Hence, the
petition stands disposed.
Nevertheless it should be noted that 73rd Amendment Act and some clauses of Article 243
provide for tenure of Panchayat and timely conducting of elections. Article 243 E States that
election should be conducted before the expiry of tenure or within Six months of dissolution of
panchayat. All the clauses specified in Article 243 should be followed and should be withheld
only in case of emergencies.
The petition stands disposed and no action needs to be taken regarding it.
 WITCH CRAFT CASE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

EXTRAORDINARY WRIT JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra (RLEK)                                     ..............Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and 7 others                                                                        ..........Respondent

This case was filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution for issuing of writ of mandamus
by the petitioner i.e. RLEK(Avdhash Kaushal) asking the court to pass a decree for the
protection of women children and other poor section of people who are being exploited in the
name of evil practice named WITCH-HUNT. While the petitioner had organized literary
programme in Jharkhand, many cases of torture and killing of innocent women came to light.
Women, there, are subjected to deprivation, brutality, extortion and mercilessly killed in name of
old and evil practice 'Dayan Pratha' or 'Witch hunt'. The women who are branded as witches are
mercilessly tortured, humiliated, assaulted, raped, lynched, decapitated, hacked and even killed.
Being from amongst marginalized groups and sections of society due to extreme poverty,
illiteracy and ignorance cannot approach Supreme Court for justice.
At the concluding day of 3 days programme, women participants passed a resolution that RLEK
should take up case on their behalf to help them seek Justice and protect their interest and lives
which are being butchered due to evil practice of Dayan Pratha. Thus, this case is being
petitioned as PIL.
In past years, more than 2500 women have been killed in the name of Witchcraft. The women
suffers from violence including gang-rape, torture, sometimes drenched with urine and human
excreta, drink raw blood of freshly slaughtered animals and ever killed brutally. Witch trials are
conducted in tribal areas of Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Assam, Orissa, Bihar and Rajasthan.
Despite there being Anti Witchcraft Act in Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Orissa, Bihar, atrocities are
still committed against women with failure of State in fulfilling their obligation.
Offences against women in relation to dayanpratha are substantive offences under Indian Penal
Code, 1860. These offences include murder under Section 300; abetment to suicide the main
concern of the Commission was to protect the families which have not yet moved out. Keeping
the object in view, the Government of India was directed to appoint a retired District Judge who
would undertake the task of ascertaining the willingness of families to move out to the new camp
and only the families which he identifies as willing families would be moved out with provided
all the facilities promised as per rehabilitation scheme . Commission made it clear that Van
Gujjars should not be subjected to harassment by forest authorities in enjoyment of their
legitimate rights and until law renders them liable to move out, their rights should not be violated
. They, further, ordered authorities not to deny grazing rights in respect of existing 11,000 cattle
and provide additional grazing facilities outside Rajaji National Park to meet the demands. With
reference to right to lop the forest trees, authorities were directed to make a bona fide exercise to
determine lopping areas taking into consideration growth and age of trees, and make them
available for lopping purposes.

er under section 306, attempt to murder under section 307, voluntary causing of hurt and
grievous hurt under section 321 and 322 respectively , wrongful restraint under section 339,
wrongful confinement under section 340 , criminal force under section 350 , assault under
section 354 , rape under section 375 , cruelty by husband under section 498 A and criminal
intimidation under section 503. It also violates Article 6 and 7 of ICCPR, article 3 of UDHR and
article 2(1) and 14 of torture convention. 
The petitioner seeks the court for issuing the concerned writ in order to protect the rights of poor
women. Separate funds and scheme to be immediately created by Ministry of Women and Child
Development to support victim of Dayan Pratha in financially way and help them to secure safe
rehabilitation or provide any other equiseta help for protection of life and dignity of exploited
women.
 VAN GUJJAR CASE

NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMISSION

SARDAR PATEL BHAVAN

NEW DELHI

Case no. 14971/24/97-98

DATE: 4th March 1999

CORAM: JUSTICE V.S. MALIMATH, MEMBER

PROCEEDINGS

This complaint has been filed by Sri Avdhash Kaushal alleging that van Gujjars living in forest
under Rajaji National Park are harassed and tortured by Director and member of the park and are
prevented from ferrying fodder for their animals, selling milk and bribe is demanded for
permitting transport of food, milk and fodder. They were forcefully lead to leave the park in
exchange of two acres of land each. After receiving the petition on the above matter, commission
issued a notice to chief secretary of Uttar Pradesh. In response to which chief conservator of
forests submitted a report enclosing copy of rehabilitation policy and denied the allegations put
on them. The report also stated that Van Gujjars living there are disturbing the eco-system by
indiscriminate felling of tress.
Earlier in 1989, a petition was filed in Supreme Court against of Uttar Pradesh to which court
had directed for settlement of Van Gujjars outside Rajaji National Park. The orders of court were
put into action and till date 62 families have been resettled in the pathri region of Haridwar.
These people were provided with 10,000 Rs for transporting, a school and 2 acres of land each.
Even after hearing the response complainant did not give up his stand and called the response as
factually in supportable. After the consideration of complainant the commission referred the
matter to Shri Chamanlal, Special Reporter who was asked to get in touch with affected parties
who were involved in this case and also talked with the members of Gujjars families who told
him that 62 families have received two acres of land and are living happily there.
The main concern of the Commission was to protect the families which have not yet moved out.
Keeping the object in view, the Government of India was directed to appoint a retired District
Judge who would undertake the task of ascertaining the willingness of families to move out to
the new camp and only the families which he identifies as willing families would be moved out
with provided all the facilities promised as per rehabilitation scheme. Commission made it clear
that Van Gujjars should not be subjected to harassment by forest authorities in enjoyment of their
legitimate rights and until law renders them liable to move out, their rights should not be
violated. They, further, ordered authorities not to deny grazing rights in respect of existing
11,000 cattle and provide additional grazing facilities outside Rajaji National Park to meet the
demands. With reference to right to lop the forest trees, authorities were directed to make a bona
fide exercise to determine lopping areas taking into consideration growth and age of trees, and
make them available for lopping purposes.
All these factors were pointed out and highlighted by the voluntary organization in the national
workshop on ‘Declining access to and control over natural resources in National Park and
Sanctuaries’ organized by the society of Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA), Delhi, in
collaboration with Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra (RLEK), Dehradun. The commission
has given these orders under the hope that it will safeguard legitimate rights of Van Gujjar
families and concern of authorities till decision is taken in accordance with the wildlife
protection Act, 1972.