Petitioner vs State of Uttarakhand

Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Rajni Supyal Latwal, learned Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for respondent no.2. --------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri G. Narendar) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Brief Holder for the State and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

2. Petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 25.07.2024, whereby the ACEO (Adventure Wing) has been pleased to invoke the provisions of Rule 26(6) & (7) to cancel the license granted to the petitioner, who was carrying on the business of River Rafting. 1

3. The case of the petitioner is that it is a Proprietary Firm registered with the Uttarakhand Tourism Development Board, as per the Uttarakhand Tourism and Travel Trade Registration Rules, 2014 and that the Firm owns and operates two Rafts, having Raft No. UT-390 and UT-391 and has been conducting river rafting on the River Ganga at Rishikesh since the year of registration in 2018. The registration, operation and possession of the two Rafts is not disputed by the respondents; Uttarakhand River Rafting/Kayaking Regulations of 2014, Rule (10)(10) was enacted and the same reads as under:- “(10) Every guide/senior guide/kayakar shall conduct rafting/kayaking in the stretch of river with at least two rafts or one raft and one seti kayak in a rafting trip. Under no circumstances will one operate river rafting/kayaking with a raft or a kayak.”

4. That the petitioner has been carrying on River Rafting activities since 2015 and his Rafts have never been involved in any accident or any unfortunate incident; that the last renewal of registration was done on 11.08.2023; that on

21.12.2023, the petitioner’s Raft No.UT-391 was giving a rafting trip with another Raft, bearing Raft No.295 and which second Raft belongs to Green Valley Adventures; that the fact that the second Raft belongs to the third respondent and the fact that Raft No.UT-295 was following the petitioner’s Raft UT-391 is not in dispute; that the trip started at about 01:55 p.m. from Shivpuri and was to go upto Nim Beach; that there 2 were total six tourists and it was guided by one Praveen S/o Tek Bahadur, Anil Neopane, helper of the petitioner’s Raft and in all there were eight persons in Raft No.UT-391 and, on account of a sudden increase in water levels, there was turbulence and the Raft turned turtle, resulting in all the tourists falling into the water; that the petitioner’s guide, namely, Praveen S/o Teg Bahadur ensured the rescue of all the occupants of the Raft, but one of the tourist had consumed water and was rendered unconscious, despite CPR being given on the spot, consciousness was not revived and, hence, he was taken to Laxman jhula Hospital, where he is said to have passed away; that the name of the deceased tourist was Gowtham R. S/o Shri Ravi, aged about 36 years, and was hailing from Banglore; that immediately after the unfortunate incident, the petitioner’s rafting permit was suspended under order dated 03.01.2024 in exercise of the power under Sub- Rule (6) of Rule 26 of the Uttarakhand River Rafting/Kayaking Regulations of 2014; that a Magisterial Enquiry came to be ordered by the District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal vide order dated 29.02.2024; that the Magisterial Enquiry was conducted by the S.D.M. of Narendra Nagar; that a copy of the report dated 15.05.2024 is produced as Annexure No.13. The report in the penultimate paragraph categorically records that the overturning of the Raft was accidental and to quote the report reads as under: 3 “The post-mortem report found death to be due to drowning. When investigation was carried out in this regard, it was found that the said incident was an accidental incident in which no one was at fault. The same fact came to light during interrogation of the friends of the deceased sitting in the raft and the raft drivers that the raft had overturned accidentally. Every effort was made by the raft drivers to save everyone and, that the complaint lodged by the brother of the deceased has also stated that his brother had died due to rafting accident. The guide of the Raft Company made every effort to save R. Godhan and he was also taken to the hospital.”

5. Thus, the report categorically concludes that the accident occurred on account of an accident and no other violation like drunkenness of the operator or the guide or the driver was found. The conclusion in the earlier part is that no rafting activity can be carried on with one supporting safety Kayak is not the position in the Rules. In fact, the Rules clearly permit rafting activities either with one safety Kayak or another Raft. That being the Rule, the impressions and conclusions drawn by the authority is in the teeth of Rule itself. Hence, the conclusion in the impugned order that the operating Raft must be accompanied by another Raft and belonging to the same company is not the mandate of law.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the safety Raft was at a distance and was not close by and, hence, the same could not be of any assistance. The report would clearly go to show that the rescue activity was undertaken immediately, but probably due to the turbulence and increasing water levels, the same appear to have thwarted the effort to complete an early rescue. It is not the case that the tourist was washed away, but was rescued from the spot, where he had fallen. The fact that five other travelers on the Raft have been successfully saved speaks for the efforts put in by the Raft Operators. 4

7. In that view of the matter, the conclusion drawn by the Competent Authority that there was no second Raft and that the second Raft should be also owned by the same company are stipulations, which are not found under the law.

8. In that view of the matter, the order cancelling the license is vitiated being contrary to the provisions of Rule 10(10) of the 2014 Rules.

9. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The Competent Authority is directed to consider the application of the petitioner for renewal of the license.

10. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ G. NARENDAR, C.J. ____________ ALOK MAHRA, J. Dt: 24th June, 2025 Ujjwal 5