'Delhi Govt Has To Answer Many Questions' : Supreme Court Asks Why Forest Dept Didn't Act Against DDA For Tree Felling
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (June 26) came down heavily on the Delhi Government for allowing the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to illegally cut trees.The Court asked why the Forest Department of the Delhi Government did not take any action despite being "fully aware of the gross violations by the DDA."A vacation bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a suo...
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (June 26) came down heavily on the Delhi Government for allowing the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to illegally cut trees.
The Court asked why the Forest Department of the Delhi Government did not take any action despite being "fully aware of the gross violations by the DDA."
A vacation bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a suo motu contempt case initiated against DDA Vice Chairman Subhashish Panda for the felling of trees in violation of the orders of the Court. During the proceedings, the Court came to notice several lapses on the part of the Delhi Government and issued notice of the contempt petition to it through the Principal Secretary of the Environment and Forest Department
"The Principal Secretary shall file an affidavit explaining how the government has permitted the felling of trees by exercising the powers of the Tree Authority under the Delhi Protection of Trees Act 1994. He will also explain why action was not taken against DDA notwithstanding the fact that the Forest Department of the Government was fully aware of gross violation by DDA," the Court ordered.
The Court further directed the Secretary to initiate criminal proceedings under the Delhi Protection of Trees Act 1994 in respect of the violations of the DDA. The affidavit has to be filed on or before 11 July.
Delhi Govt usurped the powers of the Tree Officer
During the hearing, the Court questioned the Government of Delhi-NCR as to how could it usurp the Tree Officer's powers of permitting the felling of trees in the Delhi Ridge.
The bench took strong objection to the State Forest Department's 'notification' issued to DDA as permission for the felling of trees. Reading from the Vice Chairman's affidavit, Justice Oka remarked on the illegality of the Delhi Government's encroachment on the owers of the Tree Authority.
" Fantastic! Delhi Government reserves the powers of the Tree Authority.... just now you said it is the permission given, this is completely illegal," Justice Oka said.
"The State Government has to answer many questions including the question as to how the Government can usurp the power of the Tree Officer for granting permission," the bench observed in the order.
Notification Of Exemption By Government Oversteps The Powers Of Tree Officer; DDA Misunderstood Its Applicability
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, for DDA, pointed out there was an exemption granted from the Delhi Tree Preservation Act 1994. On perusing the notification dated February 14 which was annexed along with the affidavit of the Vice Chairman of the DDA, the Court observed that exemption has been granted only from the applicability of S.9 (3) and (4) of the 1994 Act.
This exemption notification was relied upon in the Affidavit of the Vice Chairman to claim that there is an 'in principle approval' for the felling of 422 trees. Justice Oka was quick to note that the DDA officials have not made an effort to understand the context of the exemption notification and wrongly took it to be read as a complete exemption from seeking Tree Officer's approval under S.9.
"He doesn't understand the ABC of it ( S.9) and making statements on oath like this. Look at his understanding, the notification is annexed without reading it. This notification is for exemption, he is saying it is in principle approval, what is this happening?" Justice Oka expressed.
It may be noted that Section 9 of the 1994 Act requires mandatory permission from the Tree Officer for felling, cutting, removing or disposing of trees. The Exemption which was granted was only limited to the provision of the Officer's decision being given within 60 days of the permission application. S. 9(3) and (4) reads as :
(3) The Tree Officer shall give his decision within sixty days from the date of receipt of the application: Provided that no permission shall be granted to any person from the same area on more than two occasions during the same year subject to a maximum area of one hectare at a time.
(4) If the Tree Officer fails to communicate his permission on request within the period specified under sub-section (3), the permission referred to in section 8, shall be deemed to have been granted.
Since the permission could only be given by the Tree Officer under S.9 of the 1994 Act, the Court observed that it was 'shocking' to see the State Government usurping the powers of the Tree Officer.
" There is something more shocking- under the 1994 Act permission is required under Section 8 read with Section 9 from the Treet Officer appointed by the government for the purposes of the 1994 Act...the State government had no authority to permit the felling and transplantation of 422 trees. Therefore Notification dated 14 February has not exempted the DDA from the requirement of obtaining permission under S. 8 read with S.9 of the 1994 Act."
Response Sought From Delhi Government On Inaction To Prosecute DDA Officials
The bench has directed the Principal Secretary of the Environment and Forest Department to file its explanation on three main aspects : (1) the legality of usurping powers of Tree Authority and permitting the felling; (2) the reason for inaction to prosecute the DDA officials despite being aware of the felling; and (3) status of constitution and functioning of the Tree Authority under S.3 of the 1994 Act.
The order dictated read as follows:
"Issue notice on this contempt petition to the Govt of NCR Delhi through the Principal Secretary of the Environment and Forest Department. The Principal Secretary shall file an affidavit explaining how the government has permitted the felling of trees by exercising the powers of the Tree Authority under the 1994 Act. He will also explain why action was not taken against DDA notwithstanding the fact that the Forest Department of the Government was fully aware of gross violation by DDA.
We direct him to ensure that criminal law is set in motion for taking legal action in accordance with Sections 22,23,24 of the 1994 Act. The Secretary shall also state whether the Tree Authority u/s 3 of the 1994 Act has been fully constituted and whether the same is functioning.
The affidavit shall be filed on or before 11 July. Notice is also issued to the tree authority u/s 3 of the 1994 Act through the chairman."
Also from today's hearing - 'Protecting Higher-Ups' : Supreme Court Pulls Up DDA For Not Giving Information On Delhi LG's Site Visit Ahead Of Cutting Trees
Case Details: Bindu Kapurea v. Subhasish Panda Dairy No. 21171-2024, In Re Subhasish Panda Vice Chairman DDA SMC(Crl) No. 2/2024