<p>The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice to the Uttarakhand government on a PIL against the decision of its forest department to allow a private company to ply its buses within a core area of Corbett Tiger Reserve.</p>.<p>A bench presided over by Chief Justice S A Bobde sought a response from the state government on a plea by advocate Gaurav Kumar Bansal contending the Wildlife Protection Act was being violated by the state for "wrongful gains" with its decision on December 23, 2020.</p>.<p>"The plying of buses and that too of a private sector company within the core area of Corbett Tiger Reserve is nothing but an act of compromise with the protection and conservation of our national animal," his plea stated.</p>.<p>Bansal also cited an RTI response by the National Tiger Conservation Authority that forest officials of Uttarakhand have not taken its permission as provided under Section 38 (O) of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 for plying of buses by the private company.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice to the Uttarakhand government on a PIL against the decision of its forest department to allow a private company to ply its buses within a core area of Corbett Tiger Reserve.</p>.<p>A bench presided over by Chief Justice S A Bobde sought a response from the state government on a plea by advocate Gaurav Kumar Bansal contending the Wildlife Protection Act was being violated by the state for "wrongful gains" with its decision on December 23, 2020.</p>.<p>"The plying of buses and that too of a private sector company within the core area of Corbett Tiger Reserve is nothing but an act of compromise with the protection and conservation of our national animal," his plea stated.</p>.<p>Bansal also cited an RTI response by the National Tiger Conservation Authority that forest officials of Uttarakhand have not taken its permission as provided under Section 38 (O) of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 for plying of buses by the private company.</p>
