Dehradun: In a significant development, the Uttarakhand high court has stayed the state government’s order to prosecute the former director of the Corbett Tiger Reserve. This decision comes amidst a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into allegations of illegal tree felling and unauthorized construction related to the tiger safari project within the reserve’s buffer zone.
A bench led by Justice Ashish Naithani granted interim relief to the 2004-batch Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer, identified as Rahul. The court highlighted that the case involves crucial questions regarding the authority’s power to reverse a previous decision to deny prosecution without new evidence.
The court has effectively put the September 16 sanction order on hold, preventing any coercive action against the petitioner until the next hearing. Both the state government and the CBI have been directed to submit their counter-affidavits within four weeks. The case is slated for a final hearing on December 11, with the court emphasizing that it has not yet made any judgment on the merits of the case.
Earlier, on September 16, the Uttarakhand government had given the go-ahead to prosecute the former director for his alleged involvement in illegal tree cutting and construction for the tiger safari project. This action followed a stern reprimand from the Supreme Court to the state government for initially refusing to grant sanction to prosecute Officer Rahul, who is an accused in the CBI’s investigation into the Corbett safari project.
In a statement submitted to the Supreme Court, Satyaprakash Singh, joint secretary of the state forest department, mentioned, “While respectfully maintaining before this court that the earlier decision to decline sanction was a bonafide decision, the state government has now taken a conscious decision to grant sanction to prosecute Sh. Rahul as requested by the CBI.”
Following this, Rahul filed a writ petition in the high court to challenge the September 16 order.
The petitioner’s counsel, Dushyant Mainali, argued that the sanction order was issued unlawfully and without proper jurisdiction. He contended that the authority had already made its decision when it refused sanction on August 4, making the subsequent reversal on the same grounds illegal, especially since the CBI had not contested the initial refusal.
Representing the CBI, counsel Piyush Garg argued that granting protection at this juncture would essentially halt the entire prosecution. He stated that the order was passed after careful consideration of all relevant materials and legal advice.
The high court acknowledged that the issues raised, particularly the legality of reversing the sanction without new evidence, require thorough examination. The court noted that the petition brings forth significant questions concerning public servants’ procedural safeguards and the interpretation of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
“Since these issues strike at the very root of the maintainability of the prosecution, it would be appropriate… to stay the operation of the impugned order until such questions are finally adjudicated,” the court stated.