The Supreme Court on Wednesday found the inability of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), an autonomous body under the Central government, to unearth information or official records to shed light on whether Lieutenant Governor (L-G) of Delhi V.K. Saxena ordered the cutting of valuable trees in the protected ridge area as sheer disingenuity.
A Vacation Bench of Justices A.S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said the DDA’s request for more time to collect details about the February 3 visit of the L-G to the site where the trees were later felled was rather hard to believe. The L-G is also DDA Chairman.
On June 24, the Bench had directed DDA Vice-Chairman Subhasish Panda, who is facing contempt for felling the trees, to go through official records about the L-G’s visit and collect details of the officers who were present at the time to help the court know if “the felling of trees was done under the directions issued by the L-G on February 3, 2024. We expect the DDA to come clean on this aspect”.
However, the Vice-Chairman returned blank to the court on June 26.
“We do not think that this request for time [by the DDA] for such a simple information is bona fide,” the Bench reacted.
To file affidavit
Undeterred and firm to get to the bottom of the issue, the court turned to Ashok Kumar Gupta, Member (Engineering), DDA, who was present at the L-G’s February 3 visit to file an affidavit in 10 days, as an officer of the court, making a clean breast of what happened on the occasion.
Justice Oka termed the cutting of the protected trees a “brazen act which showed a complete lack of understanding of the importance of the environment”.
The court said the DDA Vice-Chairman, who was present in court, on asking, did not even know where the timber and parts of the felled trees were whisked away to.
“When we made a query to the Vice-Chairman where the timber of the felled trees could be found, the DDA officer had no answer,” the Bench recorded.
The court directed the DDA to immediately ascertain the whereabouts of the felled trees and its parts and communicate the information to the Tree Officer concerned under the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994.
The court recorded its “impression” that “many more than 633 trees were felled”.
The Bench found it even more “shocking” that the Delhi government chose to “usurp” the powers of the Tree Officer to permit the DDA to cut the trees. Section 9 of the 1994 Act requires mandatory permission from the Tree Officer for felling, cutting, removing or disposing of trees.
The court said the Delhi government has “many questions to answer” and issued notice to it.
The Bench directed Delhi’s Principal Secretary of Forest and Environment Department to file an affidavit by July 11, explaining how the State government had granted permission to fell trees by exercising the powers of the Tree Officer.
‘Gross violation’
“The government has to also explain why action was not taken against the DDA notwithstanding the fact that the Forest Department of the Delhi government was fully aware of the gross violation of the DDA,” the court ordered.
It asked whether the Delhi government had taken any steps to ensure that criminal law was set in motion against the perpetrators of the illegality.
The Vacation Bench further asked the Delhi government to state in the affidavit if the ‘Tree Authority’, to be constituted under Section 3 of the 1994 Act, was extant and functional.
The court further issued notice to the Tree Authority while directing the Tree Officer concerned to file an affidavit, also by July 11, explaining lack of action against the “gross violation” of the DDA.
“The Tree Officer has to immediately initiate action by seizing the felled trees and parts… The DDA has to render full cooperation to the Tree Officer for the seizure and forfeiture,” the court directed.
