Gauhati HC issues notices over de-notification of Garbhanga Wildlife Sanctuary

The court was hearing two similar PILs that questioned the state government’s move to cancel the preliminary notification for GWS

Guwahati: The Gauhati High Court has issued notices to the Centre, the Assam government, and 12 others regarding the de-notification of the Garbhanga Wildlife Sanctuary (GWS) on the outskirts of Guwahati.

In addition to the Centre and Assam government, notices were also issued to the ministry of environment, forest and climate change, the chief secretary, the northeast frontier railway (NFR), and several senior forest officials. (Representative file photo)

A bench comprising justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Susmita Phukan Khaund issued the notices on December 11 while hearing two similar public interest litigations (PILs) filed by Rajeev Bhattacharya, Gaurav Choudhury, and Subrat Talukdar, who questioned the state government’s move to cancel the preliminary notification for GWS.

In addition to the Centre and Assam government, notices were also issued to the ministry of environment, forest and climate change, the chief secretary, the northeast frontier railway (NFR), and several senior forest officials.

In March 2022, the Assam government issued a preliminary notification declaring around 117 sq km of forest area in Kamrup (Metropolitan) district, located on the outskirts of Guwahati, as GWS. The area is home to various wildlife species, including elephants, birds, and reptiles.

However, in September 2023, following a decision by the state cabinet, the preliminary notification for GWS, which borders Meghalaya and the Ramsar site of Deepor Beel, a freshwater lake, was cancelled without any specific reason.

In their PILs, the petitioners cited several Supreme Court orders saying that once a notification is issued, an area gains protected status, and any decision to reverse this status through de-notification or cancellation must be approved by the National Board of Wildlife (NBW) and the Supreme Court.

The petitioners argued that the decision to cancel the preliminary notification was “capricious, unreasonable, and arbitrary” and sought the court’s intervention. Allegedly, the preliminary notification was cancelled at the behest of a senior forest officer to “facilitate mining activities.”

The petitioners also alleged that illegal stone mining and the proposed laying of a railway track by NFR within the forest would lead to the destruction of the rich biodiversity.

The petitioners urged the high court to set aside the 2023 notification cancelling the earlier notification and direct the respondents to give effect to the original decision to declare the Garbhanga area a wildlife sanctuary.