Supreme Court annuls agreement to operate resort by amending the structure of Dharamshala in Resunga forest area

Kathmandu. The Supreme Court (SC) has annulled the agreement reached between Resunga municipality and Hotel Pauwa Pvt Ltd to operate a hotel in Resunga protected forest area of Gulmi.

A division bench of Justices Kumar Regmi and Saranga Subedi issued the verdict today that the agreement reached between the municipality and Hotel Pauwa on Kartik 17, 2076 was invalid.

The verdict states that the agreement reached to construct an international resort by amending the structure of the dharamshala and the activities carried out as per the agreement are illegal.

The order states that the municipality may take initiative to construct the Resunga protected forest, Mahapokhari and the environmental and environmental importance of the area without affecting the religious, social and archaeological importance.

Devi Prasad Rijal of Muskot, Gulmi, said that Mahapokhari, Bhola Temple, Shivalaya, Pashupatinath Temple, Homkhadi and the penance site of Shashidhar Swami have been polluted and destroyed after the construction of the hotel. In this area, there are small Resunga, Garudthan, Ramkunda, Yagyashala premises, Siddhathan, Bishnupaduka and Shivalaya, Prabhu Thakur Prasad’s Ashram (Maira), Chautara and Saun Math.

Devi Prasad Rijal, Bishnu Prasad Aryal and Ajit Bhandari of Gulmi had filed a writ petition at the Supreme Court on March 6 arguing that the operation of a commercial hotel in the Resunga forest area had a negative impact on local religious activities.

Resunga Municipality, Municipality Mayor, Hotel Pauwa, local bodies, Department of Archaeology, Ministry of Forest, Ministry of Culture and Lumbini Province have also been named as defendants in the writ.

There is a hut of Swami Shashidhar of archaeological and historical importance inside the Resunga Protected Forest Area. Resunga Municipality has been accused of making an agreement with Hotel Pauwa Private Limited to establish a dharamshala in this holy dham of Gulmi with the consensus of the locals. According to the locals, this has affected the temple and religious activities there.

Earlier, the District Development Committee (DDC) on June 22, 2015 had agreed to construct a dharamshala at Swami Shashidhar’s hut area inside the religious forest of Resunga, but the dispute arose after the municipality provided the land to operate the hotel on rent.

According to the archives of the Ministry of Forest and Environment, the place where the hotel is currently being operated is the ‘Resunga Religious Forest’ area under the ‘National Forest’. A notice was published in the Nepal Gazette in 2074 BS as ‘Resunga Protected Forest’. The Ministry, in its reply to the Supreme Court, has stated that the agreement and grant to Hotel Pauwa to operate business in the 30 ropani national forest area adjacent to the Mahapokhari area is illegal.

The Division Forest Office, Gulmi has also accused the municipality of forcibly handing over the ownership of the land without abiding by the federal law.

In a written reply submitted to the Supreme Court, Hotel Pauwa Pvt Ltd has claimed that Resunga Municipality had published a public notice to carry out the remaining construction of the dharamshala which was in limbo, that they had participated in that notice and had signed an agreement to operate the dharamshala without affecting the religious, historical, cultural and archaeological importance of the area.

According to social worker Krishna Bahadur Kunwar, there is no truth in this claim of Hotel Pauwa and religious activities are being affected due to the hotel.

The writ petitioners had filed an application at the Supreme Court’s Decision Implementation Directorate after the Supreme Court did not annul the agreement with Hotel Pauwa despite the Supreme Court’s order in April last year. On the basis of this, the Directorate has given the Resunga Municipality to the Government of Nepal on November 30.

Devi Prasad Rijal, one of the writ petitioners, said that they were preparing to approach the Supreme Court again if the SC order was not implemented.