Uttarakhand High Court Continues Stay on Toll Collection at George Everest Park in Mussoorie

The Uttarakhand High Court has continued its stay on toll collection from visitors at George Everest Park in Mussoorie, following a public interest litigation (PIL) that challenges the terms of a 142-acre land lease granted to a private company. The court has directed the petitioner to submit an affidavit before the next hearing and asked for key contractual documents and decisions related to the lease to be presented.

During the hearing, the petitioner argued that the leaseholder continues to collect toll tax even from local residents, despite a previous court order halting such collections. In contrast, the respondent company denied this claim, stating that the toll is only being collected from vehicles coming from outside the area.

The PIL, filed by advocate Vinita Negi, contends that the park, spread across 142 acres, was leased to a Uttar Pradesh-based private firm by the Uttarakhand Tourism Development Board (UTDB) at the rate of ₹1 crore per year. The petitioner claims that this arrangement adversely affects local communities and tourism stakeholders. A major concern raised was that a public road—used for decades—has now been turned into a toll route, allegedly without legal backing.

The petition also alleges that key facilities such as the helipad, huts, cafes, observatory, and museum within the George Everest estate have also been leased out, affecting public access and transparency. It was pointed out that the company is operating helicopter services for tourists in an area adjacent to the Mussoorie Wildlife Sanctuary, raising concerns about ecological sensitivity.

In defense, the company argued that the road being used for toll collection is not a public road. However, the court has made it clear that toll collection will remain suspended, although the order does not restrict the collection of entry fees for visitors to the park.

The High Court has asked for the original lease documents and the official decision from the Tourism Development Board that approved the leasing of the park to be submitted. The case will continue in the next hearing as the court assesses whether public interests have been compromised in this lease agreement.