DHARAMJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tiger Conservation Plan (TCP) for Achanakmar Tiger Reserve (ATR), Chhattisgarh was approved by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, and National Tiger Conservation Authority by order dated 24-9-2015 under Section 38-O (1)(a) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (for short, 'the Act of 1972') subject to certain conditions incorporated in the said order clearly holding that the core/critical tiger habitat has the status of a National Park / Wildlife Sanctuary, all provisions under Chapter IV of the Act of 1972 would be applicable to such areas, in addition to Sections 51(1C), (1D) and 55(ab), (ac) of the Act of 1972. Thereafter, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Bilaspur in exercise of power conferred under Section 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 215 of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994, directed for closure of Kota-Achanakmar-Kevchi Highway prohibiting usage of new buses as well as light motor vehicles and heavy motor vehicles except light motor vehicles of the persons residing in the villages of the said ATR. Feeling aggrieved against the order of closure passed by the learned Collector-cum-District Magistrate on the aforesaid route Kota-Achanakmar-Kevchi Highway, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioners who are four in number stating inter alia that the closure of their movement on the said road offends their fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India and the order passed by the learned District Magistrate is without jurisdiction and without authority of law, therefore, it deserves to be quashed.

(2.) Return has been filed stating inter alia that since Achanakmar-Amarkantak PWD road passes through the ATR area and over 1,000 vehicles run every day causing great disturbance to wild animals of ATR and every year a lot of wild animals of ATR are being killed by speedy vehicles and in accordance with the TCP, the said route has been closed and alternative route has already been provided in the shape of Ratanpur-Majwani-Kenda-Kevchi (RMKK), therefore, the order passed by the said authority is strictly in accordance with law and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) Mr. Satish Chandra Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that the order passed by the learned District Magistrate duly prohibiting the petitioners and the nearby villagers to pass through the said Kota-AchanakmarKevchi road is violation of their fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India. He would further submit that the learned District Magistrate has not recorded any finding that it is necessary in the interest of public safety or convenience, or because of the nature of any road or bridge, the prohibition of motor vehicles is necessary. Even otherwise, no such notification in the official gazette has been published prohibiting the driving of motor vehicles in the said order. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.