The court directed the Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation to pay ₹10 lakh for seeking and securing permission to fell more than the 84 trees it had been allowed by the court.
——-
ON Monday, a Supreme Court Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dr D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices P.S. Narasimha and J.B. Pardiwala, in the case of Re: Felling of trees in Aarey forest (Maharashtra), directed the Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Limited (MMRCL) to pay a fine of ₹10 lakh for moving the Tree Authority to fell more than the 84 trees it had been allowed by the Supreme Court. At the same time, it allowed the MMRCL to fell 177 trees under further conditions and directions, for the purposes of the shunting area of the Mumbai Metro 3 Project.
The three-judge Bench was hearing a clarification application by the MMRCL filed on April 5, through which it sought permission to cut 177 trees instead of the previously directed number of trees, which was confined to 84.
On November 29, 2022, the Supreme Court had directed the modification of the preservation of status quo on the felling of trees by permitting the MMRCL to move the Tree Authority on its application for the felling of 84 trees. On December 19 last year, the MMRCL initially moved the Tree Authority to cut 84 trees. However, on January 2, the MMRCL sought permission to cut 185 trees.
On March 15, the Superintendent of Gardens and Tree Officer, Mumbai, under the sanction of the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM), granted permission to fell 177 trees by the MMRCL. On account of the permission granted to fell trees in excess of the Supreme Court's permitted number of trees, on March 31, the Bombay High Court stayed the order of the Tree Authority to cut more than 84 trees until further clarification or order was sought from the Supreme Court.
During the hearing of the present application on Monday, the CJI emphasised that the operating order of status quo, which was passed by the then CJI Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde, was lifted on November 29, 2022 to permit the MMRCL to fell 84 trees. He questioned the MMRCL on moving the Tree Authority for felling a number of trees of more than 84, without seeking prior permission from the Supreme Court.
"You are in contempt of our order," the CJI told the MMRCL. He also addressed the advocate representing the MCGM and said, "The Superintendent of Gardens should be sent to jail. You think you can take the Supreme Court for a ride." The Bench also observed that the MMRCL had made an attempt to overreach the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, representing the MMRCL, argued that since a period of over three years and ten months had elapsed since the date of the previous inspection, which took place in March 2019, a fresh survey was directed by the Tree Authority. Accordingly, during a joint inspection that took place in December 2022 by officers of the MCGM and the MMRCL, some trees were found missing or dead or fallen, and some plants and trees had grown since the date of the previous inspection. This required a number of trees larger than 84 to be cut, he argued.
The applicants submitted that the reforestation of 1,533 trees would be undertaken.
On behalf of the respondents to the application, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued that the order of the Supreme Court to cut only 84 trees is unequivocal and has no ambiguity that requires clarification. Providing a background, Sankaranarayanan explained that on July 6, 2018, the Tree Authority granted its permission to the MMRCL to remove 307 trees. Thereafter, on February 11, 2019, the MMRCL filed an application to the Tree Authority, Mumbai for permission to cut 84 more trees, for the purposes of the shunting neck area in Aarey Forest, he emphasised.
Sankaranarayanan reiterated that on November 9, 2022, the MMRCL filed an interim application before the Supreme Court, seeking permission to enable it to move its 2019 proposal before the Tree Authority for felling 84 trees only. Further, before the Bombay High Court, the MMRCL argued that the number "84" appearing in the order of the Supreme Court, dated November 29, 2022, was merely "incidental" to the permission granted by such order, he submitted.
Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh, appearing on behalf of the respondents, argued that the survey conducted in 2022 was based on the permission sought by the MMRCL to prune certain trees and to fell 84 trees. In view of the specific averments, the court had granted permission to the MMRCL to approach the Tree Authority to fell the 84 trees.
The Bench observed in its instant order that it was not proper on the part of MMRCL to move the Tree Authority for the felling of any trees in excess of 84. Hence, if circumstances had transpired that led to a variation in the number of trees being cut, the only correct action was to move the court, the order stated.
Noting that staying the order of the Tree Authority would result in stalling the public project, the court remarked that such a stay would not be "desirable". It also noted that substantial steps had already been taken by felling over 2,000 trees for the purpose of the project.
The court, thus, permitted the MMRCL to act in compliance with the order of the Tree Authority dated March 15.
Penalising the MMRCL for its conduct, the court directed it to pay an amount of ₹10 lakh to the conservator of forest within two weeks. Further, the conservator of forest was directed to ensure that the previous orders of the Tree Authority with respect to afforestation are complied with, and to submit status reports of plans with regard to the directions issued in respect of planting of trees.
The order also issued directions for the Director of the Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay to depute a team to verify compliance with regard to afforestation, and to submit a report.
Interlocutory applications (IAs) were filed by an Adivasi agriculturist, who prayed to be allowed to intervene and argue his objections as the prayers to cut the trees by the MMRCL shall, according to him, directly impact his livelihood and life. The applicant, who belongs to the Kokna Scheduled Tribe, claims to have been cultivating varieties of fruits and vegetables in the Prajapur Pada hamlet within the Aarey Colony forests in Goregaon, Mumbai for decades.
In his IAs, he urges that he made several applications to State authorities for the recognition of his status as a 'forest dweller' under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, since his application to be recognised as a 'forest dweller' under the Act is pending before the Bombay High Court. He urges that under Section 4(5) of the Act, he cannot be evicted or removed from forest land under his occupation till the recognition and verification procedure is complete. The IAs emphasise that out of the 177 trees that the MMRCL seeks to cut, 75 trees are grown by the applicant.
Further, the applicant alleged in his IAs that on the Supreme Court permitting the MMRCL to move the Tree Authority for cutting 84 trees, the applicant submitted his objections to the Tree Authority and also sought a physical hearing. However, the tree authority granted permission on March 15 to fell trees without giving any notice or reply to him, and his various written objections and legal notices were overlooked.
The applicant also raised the allegation in his IAs that the MMRCL did not follow due process as per the Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection and Preservation of Trees Act, 1975, which mandates that a tree officer be deputed to physically inspect the trees to fell, hold an enquiry into the application for felling of trees, and nominate members, with representatives of non-official organisations that have special knowledge or practical experience in the field of planting and preservation of trees, within the Tree Authority to consider the application.