The Chhattisgarh High Court, in a significant hearing of the case WPPIL No. 21 of 2020: Arpa Arpan Maha-Abhiyan vs. State of Chhattisgarh, underscored the critical importance of environmental conservation, particularly focusing on the protection and revival of the Arpa River. The case was heard by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad.
Background of the Case
The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by the organization Arpa Arpan Maha-Abhiyan, an advocacy group committed to the restoration of the Arpa River, which has been facing severe ecological degradation. The petitioners have alleged that unchecked encroachments and inadequate conservation measures by the state authorities have resulted in the deteriorating condition of the river.
The case also interlinks with another pending PIL (PIL No. 113 of 2019) concerning similar issues, reflecting the broader concern regarding the preservation of river ecosystems in the state.
Key Legal Issues
The case brought forth several critical legal issues:
Violation of Environmental Norms: The petitioner argued that the state failed to enforce environmental laws and safeguard the ecological health of the Arpa River.
Accountability of Authorities: Questions were raised regarding the role of the Municipal Corporation of Bilaspur and other governmental bodies in preventing pollution and illegal encroachments.
Sustainability and Public Welfare: The broader issue of balancing developmental activities with environmental sustainability emerged as a core concern.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners: Advocate Ankit Pandey emphasized the alarming degradation of the river and sought immediate intervention to implement sustainable conservation measures.
For the State: Additional Advocate General Y.S. Thakur presented an affidavit detailing steps allegedly taken for the river’s preservation, including cleanup initiatives and anti-encroachment drives.
For Municipal Corporation: Advocate Pankaj Agrawal defended the municipal body, stating its efforts to address the crisis.
Senior Advocate V.V.S. Murthy and other lawyers representing various stakeholders contributed to a robust discussion on the legal and moral responsibilities of the state in environmental matters.
Court Observations and Interim Order
The High Court made significant observations:
“Environmental conservation is paramount; it transcends immediate developmental goals and must reflect in every policy and action of governance.”
The bench granted the petitioner two weeks to respond to the state’s affidavit and scheduled the next hearing for the second week of January 2025. The court also directed the parties to explore collaborative measures for river restoration, urging a balanced approach that prioritizes ecological sustainability.
