Supreme Court Stays Felling Of Trees In Pune's Ganeshkhind Road Till Dec 21; Asks Appellant To Approach Bombay HC

The Supreme Court on Friday stayed till December 21 the felling of trees for the widening of Gansehkhind Road in Pune to enable the petitioners challenging the  action of the Pune Municipal Corporation to approach the Bombay High Court.

A  bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing an appeal against the interim order of the Western Zone of National Green Tribunal (NGT) on the issue of felling of “Majestic trees” on GaneshKhind Road by the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC).

The bench asked the parties to approach the Bombay High Court and requested the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court to “take up the proceedings with all reasonable dispatch”. To enable the petitioners to have a reasonable time to move the High Court it was further directed that no further felling shall take place between “the date of this order(15.12.23) and till 5 pm Tuesday.”

The matter pertains to a PIL filed by an economist before the Bombay High Court against the indiscriminate cutting of trees on the well-known GaneshKhind Road, also known as the University Road in Pune for the purposes of road widening in the area. On October 12, 2023, the division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor passed an order directing the PMC to follow the required procedure of rehearing public objections to the felling of trees which was overlooked earlier by the authorities.

The present appellants were aggrieved that despite such directions, the PMC has continued to cut 80-year-old trees without any proper order in place. The appellant, on seeing the continued violation of the High Court order moved the NGT with prayers of mandatory injunction, directing the PMC “to establish processes and procedures for the protection and preservation of trees in accordance with the law, both in letter and spirit.”

During the latest hearing on December 11, 2023, the NGT refused to grant interim relief of directing PMC to maintain the status quo on the felling of trees until the complete procedure of rehearing is not followed and re-listed the matter for hearing on January 25, 2024.

Appearing on behalf of the Appellants, Senior Advocate Najmi Waziri stressed, “The most majestic trees of that city are likely to be cut down. There was a hearing but we don't know the result of that ..4 people holding each other's hands, that is what the 8-meter circumference of the tree, it's over 80 years old, and it becomes a heritage tree under the Tree Preservations Act, my lord….27 out of the 90 trees were cut and this was not in the list of trees given. The respondents do not say anything about it, no denial that it was cut and look at the type of trees which have been cut...whatever the reason, road widening, metro or flyover above that, once that happens the traffic will ease but let the procedure be followed.”

Explaining how the PMC has been in blatant violation of the High Court Order, despite there being 734 petitions( before the PMC) objecting to the felling of these heritage trees, Waziri argued, “My lords even after this order was passed, in the last 2 nights, at 1 o clock at night they start felling of these majestic trees, nothing would be left, the order of the NGT has to be imbued with the precautionary principle that you will be cautious. High Court says no felling except by procedure, so they put up a public notice, I appeared there my lords, 734 petitions have been raised, they hear us but there's no order passed and yet the felling goes on, what will the citizens be left with?”

To this, the CJI suggested that the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court be apprised of these developments and that a contempt petition should be filed in this regard by the Appellants.

While the bench was inclined to issue notice on the matter, it was also observed that “If we issue stay it causes very serious prejudice, because there are development works going all over the city”.

Case Details: Ameet Gurucharan Singh Vs. The State Of Maharashtra Diary No.- 52331 - 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order