Formal Representation & Evidentiary Submission — Shillong Peak Ropeway Project

SECTION 1

PREAMBLE

This representation is submitted to place on official record glaring institutional contradictions, statutory violations, and documented facts regarding the ₹151-Crore Shillong Peak Ropeway Project.

For years, the state leadership, cabinet ministers, and central funding submissions justified this project to the public as an urban transit solution meant to decongest Shillong. Administrative records, however, expose a troubling contradiction: the project imposes massive concrete construction within vital forest and water catchment areas while sidestepping mandatory environmental impact assessments, genuine public consultations, and essential security clearances.

Accordingly, I present Three Core Questions backed by verified records and the government’s own public admissions, requiring an immediate, formal written response from the concerned authorities.

QUESTION 1

On the Justification for Decongestion, Central Funding Mandates, and Replicating the New Shillong Township (NST) Failure

For decades, the New Shillong Township (NST) was sold to the public on one big promise: to decongest Shillong by shifting offices and traffic out of the city. Thousands of crores of public money have been poured into NST, yet it stands today as a massive warning of failed planning. Old Shillong is more choked and unlivable than ever, and NST itself is already descending into gridlock because the government focused only on pouring concrete and erecting massive office complexes without basic civic services or integrated transit routes in place.

Now, we are watching the exact same script play out with the Shillong Peak Ropeway. For years, from the 2019 15th Finance Commission submissions to public assurances by our Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister, aerial ropeways were pitched to the public and sanctioned over ₹70 crore in central funding under the banner of 'decongesting Shillong city.' Yet today, when questioned by residents, the administration stands before us and publicly denies that this ropeway was ever meant for city decongestion, admitting it is purely a tourist facility.

Formal Core Interrogation: "So my question to the administration is simple: Having spent thousands of crores on NST only to worsen gridlock on both ends, and having now publicly abandoned the very 'decongestion' justification / promise used to justify and fund this ropeway, why and by what moral or administrative right, should the government proceed with this Ropeway project here at Lum Shyllong at all when the administration has already miserably failed to deliver on decongesting the city?"

EVIDENTIARY REFERENCES (PUBLIC DOMAIN):

1. State Leadership Declarations

Chief Minister Conrad K. Sangma (Dec 4, 2024): Official foundation stone address explicitly asserted: "The ropeway is a potential mode of urban transport and could be a solution to decongest the city."
Deputy Chief Minister Prestone Tynsong (Sept 6, 2022): Publicly announced to media outlets (Hub Network, The Shillong Times) that aerial transit networks were being taken up specifically to "decongest Shillong city" where road widening is unfeasible.
15th Finance Commission Submissions (July 16, 2019): Official Meghalaya State Government submissions sought grants explicitly framed around the master objective to "introduce ropeways to decongest Shillong city."

Verified Press Records Media Link

2. Central Funding Criteria

Sanctioned with over ₹70 Crore in central funding under PM-DevINE (Ministry of DoNER), the project brief relies on alternative urban transit criteria to reduce vehicular load on central hill routes.

DoNER Sanction PIB Record

3. NST Decongestion Precedent

Promised as a macro-level relief valve to decongest Shillong City, NST project failed due to unintegrated transit planning, merely shifting gridlock onto narrow arterial bottlenecks.
The lower terminal at Lawsohtun replicates this failure by creating "Induced Demand" traffic congestion inside residential nodes.

Source Links:

Shillong Times (2024) ThePrint (Secretariat) Land Conflict Watch Highland Post (₹2500Cr) NewsOnAir (CM Address) PIB Release Shillong Times (2022) Syllad (Traffic Crisis)

QUESTION 2

Hiding Behind the 2022 EIA Exemption While Ignoring Heavy Concrete Terminals & Water Catchment Risks

The administration labels this project "eco-friendly" by pointing to overhead cables and a 0.2% footprint for six mid-line towers, while relying on the April 27, 2022 amendment (S.O. 1953(E)) to the EIA Notification, 2006 to bypass a comprehensive EIA and statutory public hearing.

However, measuring only the mid-line towers ignores the diversion of 2.3257 hectares of forest, the felling of 545 mature trees, and the massive reinforced concrete (RCC) terminal buildings explicitly mandated in the Directorate of Tourism's own tender documents inside Upper Shillong’s vital water catchment.

So my question to the administration is: On what independent, peer-reviewed hydrological basis/data does the government claim that Shillong’s spring sources, specifically Patakhana and Wahingdoh, will remain safe from concrete excavation and catchment disruption, and why has the administration not made public the complete records of the following:

1. The full Public Health Engineering (PHE) water catchment report: Officials verbally cited this report on November 5, 2026 to claim a "0.2% footprint" for the six towers, yet have never published the study or explained why it omits the RCC terminal buildings explicitly listed in Tender Corrigendum-09 (Clauses 2.4.1 and 2.4.2(a));
2. The complete New Development Bank (NDB) Environment and Social Management Plan (ESMP): Only a two-page Project Summary and scattered tender excerpts, such as S. No. 3 of Corrigendum-09, which treats 1:10 compensatory afforestation merely as a "recommendation" for "provisioning" rather than a binding rule, are public, while the full ESMP required under NDB’s Environment and Social Framework remains undisclosed;
3. The Stage-II MoEF&CC forest diversion approval and conditions: Officials confirmed obtaining MoEF&CC forest diversion and tree-felling approval (2.3257 ha / 545 trees), yet the formal Stage-II clearance letter and its legally binding conditions have not been placed in the public domain; and
4. The mandatory environmental safeguard compliance records under OM F. No. 22-17/2021-IA.III: While MoEF&CC exempted aerial ropeways from prior Environmental Clearance in April 2022 (S.O. 1953(E)), it simultaneously issued this Office Memorandum binding project proponents to strict construction safeguards, whose compliance records remain hidden from public inspection?

EVIDENTIARY REFERENCES:

1. PHE Catchment Note & RCC Terminal Tender Scope Tender Ref M/D Tour/2019/90

Official Verbal Citation (Nov 5, 2026): During public consultation at State Convention Centre, Shillong, MRDA CEO C.V.D. Diengdoh, IAS cited an unpublished PHE report claiming six mid-line towers occupy 0.2% of catchment area and sit 500m to 1km from springs (including Patakhana and Wahingdoh). Verified via The Times of India and SP News Agency.

Contradictory Tender Scope (July 18, 2024): Directorate of Tourism Corrigendum-09 (No. M/D Tour 180/2019/Part IV/57), Clauses 2.4.1 and 2.4.2(a) explicitly mandate bidder experience in constructing "RCC Building, Towers", proving heavy concrete terminal stations are omitted from the 0.2% footprint calculation. Document available via NDB Procurement Portal.

2. NDB Category B Disclosure & Non-Binding ESMP NDB ESF Framework

NDB Financing Disclosure (July 18, 2022): Classified as Category B under NDB’s Environment and Social Framework (ESF), acknowledging "diversion of forest land, likely impact on indigenous people, and occupational and community health and safety", requiring full Environmental and Social Management Plans (ESMPs).

Non-Binding Tree Replacement Clause: Corrigendum-09 Clause 11.0 (ESMP Table, S. No. 3), the 1:10 compensatory afforestation ratio is explicitly framed as non-binding: "for the purpose of provisioning, this ESMP recommends 10 trees to be planted for every tree being cut", leaving replacement strictly to baseline Forest Department minimums.

3. Stage-II Forest Diversion Clearance 2.3257 Ha / 545 Trees

Official Disclosure (Nov 5, 2026): MRDA CEO C.V.D. Diengdoh confirmed forest diversion clearance and tree-cutting permission were obtained from MoEF&CC for 2.3257 hectares of forest land and felling of 545 mature trees, without releasing the formal Stage-II sanction letter or binding conditions into the public domain. Verified via SP News Agency.

4. MoEF&CC Gazette Exemption & Safeguards S.O. 1953(E) & OM F.No.22-17/2021

Gazette S.O. 1953(E) (April 27, 2022): Omits aerial ropeways (Item 7(g)) from prior EC under EIA 2006. Text indexed via India Code / MoEF&CC Gazette Record.

Binding Office Memorandum F. No. 22-17/2021-IA.III (April 27, 2022): Issued simultaneously by MoEF&CC Impact Assessment Division, stipulating that EC exemption is "subject to certain environmental safeguards" and does not exempt the project from approvals under any other Act. Listed on MoEF&CC PARIVESH OM Compilation Portal.

QUESTION 3

On Traffic Contradictions and the Double Standard on Military Security

Strategic Defence Zone Security Contradiction

The upper ropeway terminal directly borders the strategic Eastern Air Command (EAC) Air Force Station and radar facilities at Upper Shillong. While public commuter infrastructure (Rilbong-Barik flyover) was scrapped for Cantonment proximity, 13 elevated commercial gondola cabins are permitted to operate with direct aerial line-of-sight.

In February and April 2026, the state government formally scrapped its flagship Rilbong–Barik flyover previously promoted as Shillong’s "single largest traffic decongestion intervention" after Defence authorities (GOC 101 Area) objected that an elevated corridor near Cantonment boundaries posed an unacceptable security risk.

Yet, for a commercial tourist ropeway directly bordering the strategic Eastern Air Command (EAC) Air Force Station and radar facilities at Upper Shillong, the administration claims that simply placing the upper terminal 80 metres below the viewpoint resolves all security concerns.

Core Security Question A: "How can the government justify sacrificing a vital public commuter flyover at Rilbong–Barik on military security grounds while simultaneously operating 13 elevated passenger cabins with an unobstructed aerial line-of-sight overlooking sensitive Air Force and Army installations at Upper Shillong?"

Core Security Question B: "And why has the administration failed to place the exact security conditions attached to the IAF (26 July 2023), Indian Army (7 August 2023), and AAI (24 April 2023) No Objection Certificates, even in redacted form, in the public domain?"

EVIDENTIARY REFERENCES (PUBLIC DOMAIN):

1. Scrapping of Rilbong–Barik Corridor Feb–April 2026

Official Cancellation: Following formal objections conveyed by GOC 101 Area regarding elevated structures near Cantonment zones, Dy CM Prestone Tynsong publicly confirmed on April 28, 2026 that the flyover was dropped due to "safety and security reasons" and downgraded to a surface 4-lane road. Reported by The Shillong Times (Feb 13, 2026) and The Meghalayan Express (April 28, 2026).

2. Eastern Air Command Proximity Oct 23, 2026

Official Alignment Admission: Tourism Department officials admitted during public consultations that upper terminal was shifted roughly 80 metres below Shillong Peak viewpoint specifically to "address Air Force security concerns" adjacent to EAC station, while still operating 13 elevated gondola cabins above the ridge canopy. Reported by The Assam Tribune (Oct 23, 2026).

3. Undisclosed Defence & Aviation NOC Conditions NOCs Withheld

Official Clearance Claims (Aug 2 & Nov 5, 2026): MRDA stated it obtained NOCs from Airports Authority of India (24 April 2023), Indian Air Force (26 July 2023), and Indian Army (7 August 2023), but failed to place actual NOC documents or operational, altitude, or surveillance conditions—even in redacted form—in the public domain. Verified via SP News Agency & Govt DIPR Press Release.

4. The Policy Double Standard Institutional Contradiction

While daily urban commuters were denied an elevated decongestion flyover at Rilbong–Barik to protect ground-level Cantonment perimeters, an elevated commercial tourist ropeway operating directly beside strategic Air Force radar and defence assets is being pushed forward without disclosing its security parameters.

CLOSING DEMAND

DEMAND FOR FORMAL CLARIFICATION AND STATUTORY COMPLIANCE

In light of the documentary evidence and institutional contradictions placed on record above, the Concerned Citizens of Meghalaya hereby demand:

1

Point-by-Point Written Clarification:
A formal, written, point-by-point response addressing each of the Three Interlinked Core Questions detailed in this representation, placed on official record without generic or evasive assurances.
2

Full Public Disclosure of Primary Records:
Immediate publication in the public domain of the complete Detailed Project Report (DPR), the Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) for the Lawsohtun–Madan Laban corridor, the full Public Health Engineering (PHE) water catchment report alongside an independent baseline Hydro-geological Survey, the complete New Development Bank (NDB) Environment and Social Management Plan (ESMP), the Stage-II MoEF&CC forest diversion conditions, OM F. No. 22-17/2021-IA.III compliance records, the Defence & Aviation NOCs (AAI, IAF, and Indian Army—even in redacted form), and the PM GatiShakti geospatial compliance filings.
3

Immediate Moratorium on Civil Works:
A complete suspension of all tree-felling, excavation, and civil construction activities until all withheld statutory clearances and environmental studies are publicly disclosed and a genuine, comprehensive public consultation and independent hydrological evaluation are conducted in full compliance with environmental and civic governance norms.

SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF:

CONCERNED CITIZEN / CONCERNED CITIZENS OF MEGHALAYA

(Authorized Representative / Designation)

Date: November 11, 2026
Place: Shillong, Meghalaya