The Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council (KHADC), Voice of the People’s Party (VPP) and protesting citizens have been protesting against the state government’s proposal for construction at Lum Shyllong. The Rs 151-crore Shillong Peak Ropeway Project has triggered a major institutional and environmental controversy in Meghalaya.
The council alleged that the executing joint venture, KEC International and Tantia Construction, had proceeded without a mandatory trading licence. However, the Meghalaya government has asked the KHADC to remove the locks and seals, return the seized materials and provide written assurance that action would not be taken against the project. The tourism department subsequently lodged a police case against KHADC inspector Kordor Synrem, although no arrests have been made. “The premises of the camp belong to the government. It is a government asset. He further alleged that the tourism department, forest department and leaders of Raid Laban were violating a Supreme Court judgment. Meanwhile, the JAC recently walked out of a government-convened meeting following a tourism department presentation on the project’s impact on the Lum Shyllong catchment.
Therefore, the sealing of the site for the Lower Terminal Point cannot be taken up,” she said. In its October 30 communication to the KHADC executive committee, the tourism department said that the premises belonged to the state government and were being used only for preliminary preparations, not actual construction or commercial activity. Invoking Section 30(2) of the Meghalaya Ropeway Act, 2022, the department’s commissioner RM Kurbah argued that promoters were permitted to undertake preparatory arrangements before completing the contractor’s licensing formalities. The department also cited the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change’s Stage-II approval dated October 24, 2024, for diversion of 2.3257 hectares of forest land in Riat Laban Reserve Forest and Riat Laban Forest. Referring to the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills District Management and Control of Forest Act, 1958, he argued that Raid forests were to be managed by their respective heads under prescribed district council rules. In a 10-point submission, the committee reiterated its demand to scrap or relocate the project, questioned the legitimacy of the 2022 public hearing and demanded the scrapping of sanads issued to Rangbah Shnongs allegedly involved in the project.
