"Must Balance Public Interest With Protecting Ecology": Calcutta HC Declines Plea To Stop Metro Rail Construction In Maidan Area Over Uprooting Of Trees

The Calcutta High Court has declined a plea by the “People United For Better Living in Kolkata (public)” (petitioners) seeking to halt all construction work for a metro station to be constructed in Kolkata's Maidan area due to the uprooting of around 700 trees in the area adjoining Victoria Memorial.

The petitioners sought to stop the Rail Vikas Nigam Limited (RVNL) from continuing its construction work and call for a review of the proposed project by independent experts and to examine and submit an expert report on the feasibility of transplanting the trees. The petitioners contended that from various news reports, they came to understand that 700 trees in the Maidan area are to be transplanted, 500 trees will have to be removed to make way for permanent structures and additionally 200 trees will be transplanted to allow movement of trailers and construction machinery like trains etc.

In rejecting the prayers of the petitioners, a division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya held: 

Undoubtedly the metro rail project is in public interest. Kolkata has a unique distinction of being the first city in the entire country to have the Metro Rail Project. One more unique aspect is that Kolkata is the first city where the underwater metro tunnel has been constructed and successfully being put to use. Therefore, the court has to necessary balance the public interest. We are fully conscious of the need to protect ecology and environment...the plantation programme submitted by the RVNL on April 03, 2024 has been approved by the Forest Department. There are other conditions as well.  In the light of the above, it would be incorrect on the part of the petitioner to allege that there is no proper plantation programme nor there is any identification or marking of the trees etc.

All the submissions made by the petitioner appears to be based on apprehension as their writ petition is fully founded on the information secured from the newspapers. The other factual averments which were set down by the respondent in their affidavit-in-opposition, as quoted in paragraph 8 has not been demonstrated to be factually incorrect, the Court added. 

Background

Petitioners stated that Kolkata Maidan serves as the most critical carbon sink and groundwater re-charger which renders indispensable services to the city in its entirety. 1200 acres of open space in the heart of the city is considered to serve as a “heat regulator” for large sections of surrounding areas, it was submitted.

It was submitted that both the Indian Army and the State Government concur that the Maidan must be protected at all costs and have therefore turned down a proposed transport terminus citing the need to preserve the greenery. Thus, it is stated that the importance of Maidan, not only from the environmental point of view but also in terms of the social, cultural and economic aspects has been judicially recognised in numerous pronouncements. 

RVNL filed their affidavit-in-opposition stating that the petitioner has not approached the court with clean hands, suppressed material facts by furnishing misleading information and also made several misrepresentations for the purpose of obtaining an exparte ad interim order which was wholly uncalled for. It was submitted that the documents which were produced by the petitioner do not show that the applications for information under the Right to Information Act were actually received by the appropriate officer of RVNL.  

It was argued that pursuant to an earlier order of the High Court, the RVNL had decided to make underground metro construction in the Maidan area although the cost of construction of an underground metro is five times more than the cost of elevated metro construction and inspite of that, Railway Board has agreed to change the scheme of metro construction from viaduct to underground to maintain ecology and skyline of Maidan area.

It was further submitted that the construction work around Victoria Memorial had not and could not begin till approval was received from the defence and forest authorities and that the writ petition was filed purely on the basis of apprehension. It was further argued that any termination at the present stage, after the allocation of contract for construction, would cause huge losses to the public exchequer. 

It was argued that in the present case, RVNL submitted a letter to the Deputy Conservator of the Forest informing about the transplantation of trees in the Maidan area and Joka in connection with the Mominpur-Esplanade section of the Joka-Esplanade Metro corridor. In the said intimation, it is stated that 673 trees are required to be transplanted in the permanent construction area while 273 trees are required to be transplanted in the temporary working area. Thus, a total number of 946 trees were required to be transplanted.

It was further submitted that large number of trees transplantation has already been effected to compensate for the tree felling in the Maidan area. It was argued that this is not the first time when any public project had been carried on through the Maidan area and previously keeping a reasonable balance between public convenience and environmental impacts, similar projects having public importance i.e. the Park Street Flyover Park, Curzon Park (East West Corridor) and the Esplanade Metro Station of Blue Line have been undertaken in or around Maidan.

It is stated that the petition has been filed merely on apprehension and mostly by taking into consideration of articles published in the newspapers.

 Accordingly, in noting that the RVNL had applied for and secured the requisite permissions for the construction of the metro rail, as well as the fact that the construction of this particular corridor of the metro railway was almost completed, the Court dismissed the plea upon noting that the petitioner's apprehensions were largely unsubstantiated and based on newspaper reports.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 146

Case: PEOPLE UNITED FOR BETTER LIVING IN CALCUTTA (PUBLIC)  VERSUS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS  

Case No: WPA (P)/569/2023

Click here to read order