Truth About Delhi LG's Site Visit Now Out After Much Cover-Up, Specify If Tree Cutting Was Ordered By Him : Supreme Court To DDA
The Supreme Court on Friday (July 12) remarked that a "cover up" was going on at the instance of the Delhi Development Authority regarding the role played by the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi VK Saxena in directing the illegal felling of trees in Delhi Ridge Forest Area.The Court also warned that it will consider issuing a contempt notice to the Delhi LG. A special bench comprising...
The Supreme Court on Friday (July 12) remarked that a "cover up" was going on at the instance of the Delhi Development Authority regarding the role played by the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi VK Saxena in directing the illegal felling of trees in Delhi Ridge Forest Area.
The Court also warned that it will consider issuing a contempt notice to the Delhi LG. A special bench comprising Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a suo moto contempt case initiated against the Vice Chairman of the DDA Subhashish Panda over the felling of trees in violation of the directions of the Supreme Court. In the earlier proceedings, the Court had directed the DDA to "come clean" on the LG's role, after certain e-mail correspondences suggested that the tree felling was done on the directions issued by the LG after a site visit done by him on February 3.
During today's proceedings, the Court, after reading the latest affidavits filed by the DDA VC, said that the "truth" had now come out regarding the LG's visit, after much reluctance on the part of the authorities. Yet, there is no clarity on whether he issued any directions, the Court lamented.
“What we said, cover up is going on, that is coming true now”, Justice Oka remarked, scrutinizing affidavits submitted by the DDA Vice Chairman and Ashok Gupta, a DDA officer who was present at the site during the LG's visit.
“First day somebody should have told us that "yes LG came and issued direction". Coverup went on for 3 days 4 days. What is happening?...We will consider whether (contempt) notice should be issued against the LG”, Justice Oka said.
"We realised the role played by the LG the day the Attorney General appeared on his own. That was sufficient," Justice Oka added. Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for the Delhi LG, submitted that the LG was a "constitutional authority" and should not be "condemned unheard." However, Justice Oka refuted this submission by saying that there is no mandate to hear a person before the contempt notice is issued to him.
Justice Oka questioned whether any officer of the DDA told the LG that the permission of the Supreme Court is required to fell the trees in the Ridge area.
“Now please tell us, after your officers were granted permission by the LG, did they inform him that the court's permission is not there? Was it not their duty to point out to LG that we can't do it unless court allows? Will it be correct for us to say that as per directions of LG the work started?”, Justice Oka asked Senior Advocate Maninder Singh for the DDA.
“What troubles us is, everybody has committed a mistake. First day everybody should have come to the court said it is a mistake, we have done it. But the coverup goes on and goes on. After 4 or 5 orders the truth comes out in the form of DDA's officer's affidavit that the LG did visit”, Justice Oka said.
The court in its order directed the DDA to clarify whether the tree felling was ordered by the LG or decided independently. The contractor responsible for the felling was also ordered to provide details of the felled trees' locations and the transplanted trees. “The contractor will also disclose the place or places where the logs of cut trees or felled trees have been kept by him and also state About the location of the transplanted trees.”
The matter will be next considered on July 31.
The court also directed the relevant authorities to come up with a machinery for surveillance in Delhi to monitor the illegal felling of trees. "All of you will come forward and create a machinery for keeping constant surveillance on the entire Delhi area so that these incidents are immediately noticed", the court stated.
Court questions Delhi Government too
The court questioned the Delhi Government for issuiing an order on February 14, 2024 for the transplantation of 422 trees when the court had not granted permission.
Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi for the Delhi government claimed that DDA misconstrued its notification dated February 14, 2024 as permission. He said that the word “permission” should not have been in the notification, which granted exemption from the applicability of S.9 (3) and (4) of the Delhi Tree Preservation Act, 1994 mandating permission from the Tree Officer for felling, cutting, removing or disposing of trees. Sondhi conceded that the notification pertained to an area which included some area in the Delhi Ridge, for which court permission is required.
However, Justice Oka said that the Delhi government did grant permission “in so many words”. The court asked what action the state government took after noticing that the trees were felled in breach of its permission. The court questioned whether the Delhi government would withdraw the order, to which Sondhi submitted that the notification would be withdrawn.
Sondhi told the court that the logs from the felled trees have been seized. However, the court noted that the seized logs were of keekar trees whereas other trees such as Jamun, Neem et also existed in the concerned area. The court questioned why the Delhi government did not get a record from the DDA of the species of trees which were felled before passing the attachment order.
Justice Oka directed the Delhi government to develop a scheme for environmental compensation demanded an affidavit from the Delhi government outlining its plan to address the environmental damage and specifying the species of felled trees.
“Most unfortunate part is that though all senior officers of the state government such as Chief Secretary of NCT Delhi, Principal Secretary of the Environment and Forest Department were present, it appears that none of them pointed out to honourable LG the requirement of obtaining permission of this court for felling the trees from Ridge area. And even otherwise, requirement of permission from the tree officer under the Trees Act”, the court stated. The court said that if any officer did point out this requirement, he is free to file an affidavit to bring the truth on record.
The court directed the Delhi government to file a supplementary affidavit regarding the presence of any Forest Department or Tree Authority officers during the tree felling, along with species details of the felled trees. The court said that the Delhi government must take responsibility for the unauthorized permission for felling without statutory authority from the Tree Officer and explain how it will compensate for the environmental damage.
The court highlighted that the Delhi government had previously granted similar unauthorized permissions and must cease this practice. The Delhi government is required to outline actions taken against the responsible officers and submit records of all such permissions granted in the last five years.
Infrastructure for the Tree Authority and Forest Department must be in place within six weeks and two months, respectively. The Delhi government must detail preventive steps against illegal tree felling and ensure all logs of illegally cut trees are seized, with the DDA providing necessary records.
Background –
Earlier, the Court had noted that the email records suggested that the tree felling was carried out as per the orders of the LG VK Saxena after he visited the site on February 3, 2024. However, the DDA submitted that the LG's visit was to the CAPFIMS. The Court had therefore directed the DDA to "come clean" on this aspect. On June 26, the Court expressed displeasure at the DDA's first affidavit, saying that it was trying to "protect higher-ups". The Court then directed a compliance report to be filed by July 11 disclosing records of what transpired in the visit by the Delhi Governor.
On June 26, the Supreme Court criticized the Delhi Government for allowing the DDA to illegally cut trees. The court held that the Delhi Government usurped the Tree Officer's powers in permitting the felling of trees in the Delhi Ridge. The bench criticized the State Forest Department's notification issued to the DDA as permission for the tree felling.
Additionally, the court expressed concern over the failure to locate the timber from the felled trees and suggested a broader issue of illegal tree felling. The court also directed the Delhi Government and the DDA to enhance the green cover in the National Capital, considering the extreme heatwave conditions.
Case Details: Bindu Kapurea v. Subhasish Panda Dairy No. 21171-2024, In Re Subhasish Panda Vice Chairman DDA SMC(Crl) No. 2/2024