3 min readNew DelhiMay 24, 2023 04:56 PM IST
First published on: May 24, 2023 at 04:56 PM IST
The Delhi High Court has stayed a provision of the Delhi government’s guideline which permits pruning of tree branches of girth sizes up to 15.7cm without reference to the tree officer and observed that it would be “a creeping legalised genocide of trees and Delhi would soon resemble nothing but a mass of concrete”.
A single judge bench of Justice Najmi Waziri in its May 10 order said, “With each redevelopment of a house or building, abutting city streets, if applications are moved by the land-owning agency such as the PWD, DDA, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Cantonment Board, etc. for cutting of trees in front of private houses, in order to facilitate construction of new building/houses, and permission to cut the trees is granted simply on the averment that the trees were coming in the way of reconstruction, then sooner or later the city will be bereft of tree lined avenues and a large part of its green cover.”
The order further read, “In a way this would be a creeping legalised genocide of trees and Delhi would soon resemble nothing but a mass of concrete. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the aforesaid guidelines are ex facie incongruent with the provisions of the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994.”
The High Court was hearing a plea moved by Sanjeev Bagai who had challenged a January 19 order of the NGT which allowed for “further pruning of the trees” to be carried out by civic authorities DDA and MCD in strict accordance with Delhi Preservations of Trees Act, 1994 and the guidelines issued by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, (HQ)/Member Secretary, Tree Authority for Pruning of Trees under the Act.
Justice Waziri observed that if there is an exigency for cutting down trees for large public projects or if it is absolutely necessary to cut down trees on a private entity’s application, “it will require the Tree Officer to personally inspect the site, assess the situation, apply his mind and if required, permit the cutting of a tree but only after having first exhausted all possibility of saving the tree and ensuring its transplantation, along with compensatory afforestation”. Advocate Aditya N Prasad has been appointed as amicus curiae in the case.
Noting that guidelines are only a “handbook, a course of action, process, practice for the authorities and the people to comply with the law” the court observed that the guidelines cannot “dilute the strict mandate” of the statute.
The High Court thereafter directed, “Clause 5 which permits the regular pruning tending of branches of girth size upto 15.7cms without reference to the Tree Officer, does not find any approval in the Act. Prima facie this part of the Guidelines is incongruous with the statutory requirements, as mandated in sections 8 and 9 of the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994.”
It added, “Therefore, to ensure that there is no felling of trees for the asking or of chopping of large branches of trees at will to reduce them to a mere pole-like entity (as noted in the photograph at page 15 supra), clause 5 of the Guidelines shall not be given effect to till the next date. It is hoped that the Tree Authority will respond to the notice by then.”
Appearing for the minor wrestler, senior advocate Narender Hooda submitted before a single judge bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma that one of the complaints has been moved on behalf of the minor wrestler. (File) 
Share
