Uttarakhand HC Issues Contempt Notice To Former PWD Principal Secretary For Allegedly Not “Transplanting Trees” Cut In Widening Of Saurashtra Road
The Uttarakhand High Court has issued contempt notice to former PWD Principal Secretary and Executive Engineer, Rishikesh for allegedly not complying with its order to transplant the fully grown trees which were cut in widening of Saurashtra road, Dehradun.A bench of Justice Ravindra Maithani noted that, “It is a matter pertaining to maintaining the ecology of the area, particularly of...
The Uttarakhand High Court has issued contempt notice to former PWD Principal Secretary and Executive Engineer, Rishikesh for allegedly not complying with its order to transplant the fully grown trees which were cut in widening of Saurashtra road, Dehradun.
A bench of Justice Ravindra Maithani noted that, “It is a matter pertaining to maintaining the ecology of the area, particularly of the Shivalik Hills. The Court had directed for transplantation of the trees, which means uprooting them with mechanical devices and placing them at some place so that they may still grow.”
These observation came in response to the contempt plea filed by Abhishek Kumar Garg through advocate Abhijay Negi stating that the officers have disobeyed the directions of the High Court to transplant the trees issued in September, 2022.
The counsel referred to the order passed in the case of Ashish Kumar Garg Vs. State of Uttarakhand, wherein the directions were made, “We are, therefore, inclined to direct the State to buy the necessary equipment, for transplantation of the fully grown trees, positively within the next four months. However, since the work of expansion of the road in question has already commenced, and appears to be necessary to meet the urgent needs of smooth flow of traffic, we are inclined to permit the transplantation of the trees, though under the supervision of the experts of the F.R.I., Dehradun.”
Justice Maithani also noted the photographs in which it was shown that the branches of the fruit bearing trees have been cut by the respondents.
“The Annexure 2, the photographs reveals that, in fact, the trees were cut indiscriminately. They were not transplanted,” observed the Court.
While issuing notice to the respondents, it also directed to answer the following questions:
(i) When did the mechanical devices were purchased for transplanting the fully grown trees?
(ii) Who from the Forest Research Institute assisted the respondents in uprooting and transplanting the trees?
(iii) How many trees were transplanted?
(iv) Where have they been transplanted?
(v) When were they transplanted?
(vi) What is the condition now?
The above information shall be supported with photographs as well as the videographs, it added.
The matter is now listed for December 20, for further consideration.
Casse Title: Ashish Garg v. RK Sudhanshu & another.