New Delhi, February 12 The Supreme Court on Thursday modified its earlier stay order and allowed the metalling of the 11.5-km Laldhang-Chillarkhal road in Uttarakhand to benefit thousands of people in the state's 18 remote villages.
However, a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi refused to allow commercial vehicles to use the road, which includes a 4.5-km ecologically sensitive stretch from Chamaria bend to Siggadi Sot area, and is the only functional wildlife corridor connecting the Jim Corbett Tiger Reserve and the Rajaji Tiger Reserve.
"The people in these remote villages are entitled to the benefits of development in the country," the bench said, as it modified its January 11, 2023 order, which had put a stay on the road project due to violations of environmental norms.
The counsel for the state government assured the court that while metalling the road would shorten the distance between Kotdwar and Haridwar by 65 kilometers for commercial vehicles, the state government would comply with any conditions the court imposed for allowing the project.
He assured the bench that commercial vehicles would not use the road, but instead, would take a detour via Uttar Pradesh to reach their destinations.
CJI Kant said that it was necessary to preserve the flora and fauna of the forest, and that the court would not allow heavy load trucks and dumpers to use the 11.5-km stretch.
BJP MP Anil Baluni, who was also a party in the matter, told through his counsel Bansuri Swaraj that the road, which is currently unpaved, is essential for over 40,000 villagers residing in the 18 remote villages in the area.
"The people in these areas are facing difficulties because the road is washed away during the monsoon season. The government has planned a 400-meter elevated stretch to allow wildlife to move from one side to the other," she submitted.
The bench, which noted that the road needs to be paved to provide better access to the villagers, did not comment on allowing buses to use the road, saying that if one exception is made, others will also seek it.
Advocate Gaurav Kumar Bansal, on whose petition the order was passed in January 2023, said that his concern was only the use of commercial vehicles, which would affect wildlife in the area, and he was never opposed to the construction of a paved road for the villagers.
The bench noted that the state government had earlier proposed to allow 150 commercial vehicles through the stretch in a day, which was objected to by the petitioner and other expert bodies. It directed the state government to ensure that no commercial vehicles use the route.
The top court had earlier observed that the construction through the corridor violated provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, and directed the state government to obtain all necessary approvals before proceeding with the project.
Several nature and wildlife activists have raised concerns about the road's impact on wildlife movement and the sanctity of the habitat, which is home to various wildlife species, including tigers, elephants, and leopards.
Senior advocate K Parameshwar, who has been appointed amicus curiae, pointed out that the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) has found that the road design is not proper and is obstructing the river flow.