Uttarakhand Eco Tourism Scam: Report Alleges Loot, State Looks Away

Fragile Slopes of Munsiyari: A Disaster Waiting to Happen

Munsiyari, a remote tehsil in Pithoragarh district in Uttarakhand, sits at the edge of India’s border with Tibet and is among one of the most landslide-prone regions in the Himalayas. Nestled at an altitude of roughly about 2,200 metres above the sea level, the area is ecologically fragile, with steep slopes that are easily destabilised by heavy rainfall, deforestation, or construction activity. Experts have long warned that large-scale concrete development in this terrain can be disastrous, as the mountains here lack the geological strength to withstand such stress. 

In recent years, Munsiyari and its surrounding valleys have witnessed repeated landslides and flash floods because of unchecked human interference. The terrain is so fragile that even small-scale digging for foundations can trigger slope destabilisation. Permanent constructions in brick, mortar and cement—what locals call pakka constructions—only add to the instability, compounding the risk of sudden disasters that can wipe out villages, roads, and critical infrastructure.

Of late, the warnings have been borne out in multiple parts of Uttarakhand, where fragile slopes combined with glacial activity and unregulated construction have led to recurring floods, landslides, and debris flows. Entire villages, markets, and roads have been wiped out in sudden disasters, leaving behind heavy human and ecological losses. Scientists caution that these events are not isolated accidents of nature but the cumulative result of man-made interventions in an already unstable Himalayan region.

It is against this backdrop that allegations of corruption surrounding the construction of eco-huts inside the Khaliya Reserve Forest in Munsiyari take on a more serious dimension. This is not just about financial irregularities and losses to the exchequer. By sanctioning large concrete structures in one of India’s most ecologically sensitive zones, officials risked endangering human lives, destabilising local ecology, and setting the stage for potential man-made disasters. Yet, as the following story shows, when a whistleblower sought accountability, the Uttarakhand government appeared more eager to question him than to act against those accused of violations.

From Green Cover to Grey Concrete: The Khaliya Forest Scandal

On 24 December 2024, IFS officer Sanjiv Chaturvedi sent a detailed letter to the Chief Conservator of Forests, Head of Forest Forces in Uttarakhand, containing serious allegations against IFS officer Dr. Vinay Kumar Bhargav. Chaturvedi, who is posted in Haldwani as Chief Conservator of Forests (Working Plan), is widely regarded as an anti-corruption crusader and is also a recipient of the Ramon Magsaysay Award.

Chaturvedi’s report accused Dr. Bhargav of violations under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The findings relate to Dr. Bhargav’s tenure as Divisional Forest Officer of Pithoragarh in 2019, during which he allegedly oversaw the construction of permanent concrete structures within the Khaliya Reserved Forest without mandatory approvals. These included about 10 VIP eco-huts, a dormitory, a sales centre for forest cottage industry products, and a “growth centre.” The report estimated the financial misappropriation involved at ₹1.63 crore.

The inquiry further alleged that undue benefits were extended to a private firm, M/s Nanda Iron and Building Material, by bypassing the required tendering process. Instead of competitive bidding, contracts and payments were issued directly to the firm, raising the risk of over-invoicing and false billing—a common route for siphoning off public funds. 

Additionally, the report flagged the transfer of 70% of tourism revenue from the eco-huts to a newly created society, the Munsyari Eco Vikas Samiti (EDC). Notably, the MoU enabling this transfer was signed in August 2020, while the society itself was formally registered only in September 2020. According to Chaturvedi, this arrangement diverted a large share of revenue outside the scope of government audit, creating a parallel pool of funds that was vulnerable to misuse.

75 Km Fire Lines Existed Only on Paper

Chaturvedi’s report has noted that IFS officer Dr. Bhargav authorised payments for non-existent fire line maintenance in Pithoragarh Forest Division in Uttarakhand during the financial year 2020–21. According to the division’s approved action plan, only 10 fire lines existed in the range, with a combined length of 14.6 km.

However, the report states that Dr. Bhargav approved an expenditure of ₹2 lakh for the cleaning and upkeep of 90 km of fire lines, despite no such sanctioned fire lines being present in official records. No proposals for expansion or deviation were ever approved, indicating that the additional length was fabricated on paper.

Fire lines are narrow strips of land inside forests that are deliberately cleared of vegetation to act as barriers against wildfires. By removing dry grass, shrubs, and combustible material, these lines stop or slow the spread of fire from one section of the forest to another. Their length and maintenance schedule are approved in the forest division’s annual action plan, and funds are allocated accordingly.

Chaturvedi’s findings conclude that the expenditure was based on “complete fake records,” amounting to a case of criminal conspiracy and embezzlement of government funds. 

The letter urged immediate legal action, calling for the registration of an FIR against Dr. Bhargav and investigation by either the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or the State Vigilance Bureau. It further recommended that the case be referred to the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) for proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. 

Chaturvedi also pointed to an earlier instance from 2015, when Dr. Bhargav was exonerated by the government on the grounds of “lack of experience,” even though an inquiry had established charges of financial irregularities against him.

Eight Months On, No Action Beyond Show-Cause Notice

While the state government has issued a show-cause notice to Dr. Bhargav seeking his clarification on the allegations, more than eight months have passed since Chaturvedi’s report was first submitted, and no concrete action has been taken in the case so far. The delay has raised questions over accountability, especially given the seriousness of the charges involved. 

The Probe has accessed a letter dated 17 July 2025, signed by RK Sudhanshu, Principal Secretary, Uttarakhand Government, and addressed to Dr. Vinay Kumar Bhargav. The letter cites specific allegations drawn from the Chief Conservator of Forests’ communications and directs Dr. Bhargav to submit his clarification within 15 days, failing which further action would be taken.

The notice details the series of alleged irregularities, including the construction of concrete structures inside the Khaliya Reserved Forest at Munsiyari in 2019 without prior approval. These include a dormitory, a sales centre, ten VIP eco-huts, and a growth centre. It also highlights the selection of a private firm for supply and construction work, and the release of lump-sum payments without tender or competent sanction.

Other charges listed in the show-cause include the signing of an MoU transferring 70 percent of tourism revenue from the eco-huts to the newly created society, without proper authorisation, as well as the expenditure of ₹2 lakh for the maintenance of 90 km of fire lines when only 14.6 km of fire lines existed in the division’s approved action plan. Despite these serious findings, the government’s response has so far remained limited to the notice, with no indication of stronger action being initiated.

Centre Orders Uttarakhand to Act on Forest Law Violations

The Centre has now stepped in, pulling up the state government over alleged violations of forest protection laws and demanding accountability. Acting on Chaturvedi’s findings, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) on 13 August 2025 directed the state to file a Violation Report under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980.

In its communication, the ministry has also sought a detailed Action Taken Report (ATR), asking the state to specifically identify individuals, organisations, and authorities responsible for the illegal constructions and financial irregularities flagged in Pithoragarh. The directive makes clear that those named will face proceedings under Sections 3A and 3B of the 1980 Act, provisions that empower the government to initiate strict legal action against offenders, including prosecution.

The Centre has further instructed the Uttarakhand government to nominate a senior forest officer — not below the rank of Divisional Forest Officer — to formally lodge complaints against those found guilty of violations. 

The MoEFCC’s intervention comes against the backdrop of repeated warnings from Chaturvedi about the seriousness of the irregularities and the risks of letting the matter linger without decisive action. With the Centre’s directives now on record, the spotlight shifts back to the state government, which has so far restricted itself to issuing show-cause notice without following through on punitive measures.

Dr. Bhargav Explains His Position to The Probe

The Probe reached out to Dr. Vinay Kumar Bhargav for his response to the serious allegations against him. Dr. Bhargav said he would soon be submitting a detailed reply to the state government’s showcause notice.

On the issue of unauthorised constructions inside the Khaliya Reserve Forest, Dr. Bhargav maintained that no work could proceed without government sanction, as “without approval, the treasury will not release funds.” He reiterated that he had obtained the necessary approvals and that these would be included in his official response to the showcause notice. He further claimed that the dormitory and growth centre had existed prior to his tenure, and that during his time only eco-huts and sales centres were established.

Addressing allegations of awarding contracts without a tendering process, Dr. Bhargav asserted that “all procedures were followed in line with rules.”

However, despite repeated requests from The Probe, Dr. Bhargav was unable to provide any approval letters or tender-related documents to substantiate his claims.

The Fire Line Controversy: Dr. Bhargav’s Defense vs. Procedural Norms

When questioned about official records showing only 14.6 km of sanctioned fire lines in the division, yet ₹2 lakh being approved for the upkeep of 90 km of non-existent fire lines, Dr. Bhargav defended his actions. He argued that under the Working Plan, motor roads within forest areas can serve as fire lines because they function as barriers during wildfires. “Our fire lines got covered up by shrubs, vegetation, and trees. So those fire lines were practically non-existent in nature. What option do we have left? We are left with the options proposed in the approved Working Plan,” he said.

Dr. Bhargav further clarified that the expenditure cited by Chaturvedi pertained specifically to the Berinag range. According to him, the Working Plan for Berinag mentions 137 km of motor roads, which could be treated as fire lines for maintenance purposes. “It signifies that we can clear 137 kilometres of fire lines depending upon the intensity. We did only 90 kilometres against 137 kilometres. The allegations are baseless,” he maintained.

However, procedural norms point to a stricter framework. While Working Plans may acknowledge that roads can act as fire barriers, they cannot legally be recorded as sanctioned fire lines in expenditure documents unless explicitly approved. Any deviation from the prescriptions of the Working Plan requires prior clearance from the Government of India, routed through the Chief Conservator of Forests (Working Plan). Without such approval, showing roads as fire lines in financial records amounts to a procedural violation and raises serious questions about the legitimacy of the expenditure.

The Revenue Diversion Question: An MoU Before Registration

One of the most serious allegations concerns the transfer of eco-tourism revenue to Munsiyari Eco Vikas Samiti (EDC). Records show that an MoU enabling this transfer was signed in August 2020—while the society itself was formally registered only in September 2020. This raises a fundamental question: how could an unregistered body be entrusted with government funds?

When asked about the discrepancy, Dr. Bhargav dismissed the charge. “This is a procedural requirement. You have to upload the MoU, minutes of meeting, and all the other details. The registration certificate may have emerged after a week due to some issue in the portal, but the registration was done on the same day itself,” he said. Pressed further on how the MoU could predate the registration, he rejected the allegation outright: “This information is wrong. MoU was signed on the same date of registration.”

Dr. Bhargav argued that the decision to entrust revenue management to the Samiti was consistent with the Working Plan, which stipulates that eco-tourism should be run by Eco-Development Committees (EDCs) to generate livelihoods for local communities. “It was not possible for government employees to do this menial work—housekeeping and other things,” he added.

Yet the central issue remains unresolved. Why was this particular society—with no prior track record—selected for the transfer of 70% of eco-tourism revenue? And why was an MoU signed before its legal existence was even confirmed? These unanswered questions cut to the heart of the allegations and remain the weakest point in Dr. Bhargav’s defence.

He also claimed the inquiry against him violated principles of natural justice. He told The Probe that a 700-page report against him was prepared without his knowledge, and that neither Sanjiv Chaturvedi nor the Head of Forest Forces had sought his version. “Such a serious matter was taken up without even hearing me once,” he said.

Responding to charges of raising illegal permanent structures inside the Khaliya Reserve Forest, he maintained that most buildings predated his tenure. The dormitory, he said, was simply refurbished from old labour huts; the “growth centre” was an existing RCC dome adapted for new use; and the sales centre was just a small prefabricated counter. According to him, the only new constructions were the eco-huts and the sales centre, both described as modular, lightweight, and relocatable, not permanent concrete buildings.

On questions of inflated expenditure at the growth centre, Dr. Bhargav insisted that only ₹5 lakh had been spent but the Divisional Forest Officer mistakenly recorded it as ₹40 lakh. “I scolded the DFO the other day. I asked him how did he write 40 lakhs. He said by mistake I wrote,” he claimed.

In a written statement, Bhargava further clarified:

“The already established Munsyari Eco Park, along with dilapidated permanent structures built by the Research Wing, Uttarakhand, were officially transferred to the Pithoragarh Forest Division by order of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (HoFF) on 14 October 2015.

As DFO Pithoragarh in 2019, we only carried out limited renovation, upgradation and modification of these already existing permanent structures, and did not construct any new permanent structures.

As per the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, construction of eco-tourism facilities and related activities are permissible within forest areas if they are part of an approved Working Plan, Wildlife Management Plan, or Tiger Conservation Plan. These activities are specifically excluded from the definition of ‘non-forest purpose’ and therefore do not require separate clearance under the Act.

The renovation and utilisation of existing permanent structures for eco-tourism and nature education in Munsiyari are fully in line with the legal framework of the FCA. Any attempt to present these works as violations is misleading and ignores the intent of the law, which encourages community-based eco-tourism and conservation-linked infrastructure under approved plans.”

Principal Secretary Trains Gun on IFS Officer Who Reported Violations

The Probe reached out to Uttarakhand Principal Secretary Ramesh Kumar Sudhanshu for his response. While he confirmed that a showcause notice had been issued to Dr. Vinay Kumar Bhargav, Sudhanshu was sharply critical of Sanjiv Chaturvedi, the IFS officer who flagged the violations. Asked why no action had been taken in the eight months since Chaturvedi’s report was submitted, Sudhanshu retorted: “Ask Sanjiv Chaturvedi if he can send a letter to the Government of India directly? Is he authorised to send a letter directly to the Government of India?” On being pressed about the Centre’s written directive to act against forest law violations, Sudhanshu appeared dismissive: “We keep on getting letters. If they have asked for a report, we will send a report.”

Meanwhile, Dr. Bhargav has approached the Uttarakhand High Court against the state and the union government. He has sought the court's intervention to quash the letters, reports, and notices issued against him. In his petition, he contends that the action against him was based on an inquiry conducted by an authority without jurisdiction and that he was denied an opportunity to present his case. He argues that the proceedings violate the principles of natural justice and has urged the court to put in place safeguards to prevent reputational harm to officials facing such inquiries.