Puran Chhabaria, v. Union Of India

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPPIL No. 160 of 2021 Puran Chhabaria, S/o Late Shri Totalram Chhabaria, Aged About 62 Years R/o of Tipan, Pendra, District - Gaurella - Pendra - Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1.

Union of India Through Secretary of Environment, Forest And Climatic Changes, Government of India, Indra Paryavaran Bhawan, New Delhi.

2.

State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Government of Chhattisgarh Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3.

Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Government of Chhattisgarh, Aranya Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

4.

Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Wildlife), Government of Chhattisgarh, Aranya Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, DistrictRaipur, Chhattisgarh. 5.

Director, Achankmarg - Amarkantak Biosphere Reserve, Koni, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner :

Mr. Ashutosh Singh Kachhawaha, Advocate.

For Respondent No.1 :

Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Assistant Solicitor General.

For Respondents No. 2 to 5 :

Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Deputy Advocate General.

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice 14.12.2021 Heard Mr. Ashutosh Singh Kachhawaha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for respondents No. 2 to 5. 2.

By filing this "public interest litigation", the petitioner has sought to raise certain issues in connection with Achankmar - Amarkantak Biosphere Reserve (AABR), which is 14th Biosphere Reserve declared by the Government of India.

3.

Though a representation was filed by the petitioner before the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest as well as the Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, we find that such representations are general in nature and the petitioner had not raised the issues sought to be espoused in this public interest litigation.

4.

In that view of the matter, we dispose of this public interest litigation granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate representation before the Principal Secretary, Department of Forest and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Wildlife).

5.

We also reserve liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court by way of public interest litigation, if the necessity arises in future for filing such application.

6.

The security amount deposited by the petitioner shall be refunded back.

Sd/- Sd/- (Arup Kumar Goswami) (Sanjay Agrawal) Chief Justice Judge Hem