Delhi High Court puts on hold NGT order on pruning trees in Vasant Vihar colony

The high court observed that a detailed assessment of the “activity done by the RWA [residents welfare association] needs to be carried out” and further pruning in the area concerned has to be “stopped right-away”. Justice Waziri thereafter appointed advocate Aditya N Prasad, who was present in the court at the time, as amicus curiae to assess the situation at the site and assist the court.

“Let the learned amicus curiae be assisted at the site by the tree officer, deputy director (horticulture) South Zone, SHO-Vasant Vihar, deputy director (horticulture), PWD, executive engineer, PWD, deputy director (horticulture), MCD of the area concerned, deputy director (horticulture) DDA along with the petitioners and/or their representatives on 05.03.2023 at 10:00 am at the MCD Office, Block-A, Vasant Vihar,” the high court directed. It further directed the MCD and the tree officer to file extensive photographs as well as a report.

The tree officer was further directed to file a fresh affidavit to state what he has noticed at the site and “further orders, as may be necessary, too shall be issued by the tree officer”.

Prasad at this stage submitted that the guidelines were framed by the Tree Authority, making them a necessary party, pursuant to which the court while issuing notice added the Tree Authority as a party in the petition. The high court further directed all the parties to file their response and also directed that the relevant records of the Tree Authority in terms of the guidelines be also submitted before the court. “In view of the above, further pruning in the area shall be kept in abeyance,” the high court directed, listing the matter on March 10.

Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate Vivek Sibal relying upon the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, which provides statutory protection to trees in Delhi, argued that the “essential part of the preservation is that a tree should not be damaged in a manner, which would impede its growth or otherwise severely affect its re-growth and re-generation impossible”.

Sibal referred to photographs to submit that quite a few trees have been “lopped-off” (cut away with a strong stroke) causing “extensive damage” and setting back the greenery by a “decade or a decade and a half” in certain areas of the colony.

Sibal argued that “approximately 800 trees” have been pruned in the colony and it is almost impossible for the tree officer to have inspected all of them or to have ensured that only trees with branches of less than “15.7 cms” in circumference have been cut. “There were no tools or equipment for the tree officer to have so measured or ensured,” the order records.

He further argued that the guidelines referred to by the tree officer and relied upon by the RWA-Vasant Vihar are “contrary to the Act itself”. Sibal said that the guidelines cannot undermine the statute and “insofar as they undermine the statute, they are ultra-vires”. Sibal said that there had been no occasion for measuring the tree branches for their circumference.

It was argued that as per the Act, any “woody plant” which has a height of 30 cm and a trunk diameter of not less than 5 cm is considered a ‘tree’ and is to be protected under the Act. The pruning would take place only with the “strict permission of the tree officer and not on general guidelines”, the order records.

Sibal argued that the entire process adopted for pruning trees was “illegal”, relying on the Act to state that once a ‘woody plant’ gets classified as a tree, any alteration to its body or being will have to be in terms of the procedure prescribed under the Act.

The high court noted that the genesis of the NGT order was the desire of the RWA-Vasant Vihar to prune certain trees in the colony. “They made representations to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the tree officer, but nothing worthwhile came forth, so they approached the NGT,” the order records.