No judicial halt on PEKB mining, rules Chhattisgarh HC
PEKB mining to continue
Bilaspur | Correspondent: The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a petition filed against the ongoing coal mining operations in the Parsa East and Kete Basan areas within the Hasdeo Arand region. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal clarified that when a project has already secured all statutory and legal clearances from both the Central and State governments, it is not appropriate to halt the established process through judicial intervention.
The Court observed that striking a balance between developmental activities and environmental concerns is essential, particularly in projects involving significant public interest where the work has already progressed substantially.
However, the ground reality is that the mining operations for the first phase of PEKB coal block were completed four years ago, while mining continues in the second phase.
This entire dispute revolves around the mining operations for Phase-1 and Phase-2 of the Parsa East and Kete Basan (PEKB) coal block. Challenging the decision of a Single Bench, the Hasdeo Arand Bachao Sangharsh Samiti (Save Hasdeo Arand Struggle Committee) and Jaynandan Singh Porte argued that the cancellation of Community Forest Rights in 2016 was effected without the consent of the *Gram Sabha* (village assembly) and the subsequent grant of fresh mining clearances in 2022 was an unlawful act.
The petitioners alleged that the rights of the villagers had been disregarded.
On the other hand, the State Government argued before the Court that the *Sangharsh Samiti* is neither an authorized nor a statutory body empowered to present claims on behalf of the villagers.
After a thorough review of the matter, the Division Bench concluded that the processes for forest diversion and land acquisition for the project were entirely in conformity with the applicable rules and regulations.
The Court also highlighted the delays on the part of the petitioners in filing the case, as well as errors regarding the failure to present all relevant facts comprehensively. The Division Bench upheld the decision delivered by the Single Bench on October 8, 2025, affirming that it was legally sound and required no interference.
