Aarey Metro car shed: Activist files PIL in HC challenging Tree Authority nod to fell 177 trees

After the plea was mentioned before a division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjay V Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep V Marne on Tuesday, the bench posted it for hearing on Friday, March 31.

On March 9, the bench had disposed of an earlier PIL filed by Zoru Bhathena, seeking to set aside a notice issued by the Tree Authority, inviting suggestions and objections for felling over 170 trees at Aarey Colony.

Refusing to stay the Maharashtra government’s decision to allow the car depot of Metro Line 3 in Aarey, the SC, on November 29 last year, had allowed MMRCL to pursue its application before the Tree Authority for felling 84 trees to construct a ramp for the project.

The petitioner has said that the notice and subsequent permission given by the Tree Authority was in breach of a Supreme Court order. However, the MMRCL had argued that the delay in constructing the ramp was causing a daily loss of Rs 5.87 crore. The MMRCL had added that shrubs and smaller plants that had grown over the years had been included in the list of trees that need to be felled.

The court had suggested that the petitioner raise grievances and objections before the SC or the Tree Authority.

Bhathena, in his fresh PIL, said the permission was granted after BMC Commissioner Iqbal Singh Chahal’s sanction on the same dated March 13.

“At present, the Municipal Council/House is vacant and the Tree Authority is not in existence. The Tree Act, 1975, grants the Municipal Commissioner powers to act as the Tree Authority when the Tree Authority is not functioning. However, as per HC order of April 23, 2018, the Municipal Commissioner has been restrained from exercising such powers in a routine manner. Hence, impugned permission based on Municipal Commissioner’s Sanction is in breach of the orders of HC,” the PIL reads.

The petitioner also claimed that BMC’s approval was in violation of Trees Act, 1975, as the Commissioner granted permission without uploading his prior sanction on the civic body’s website and without issuing any newspaper notice, in violation of the law laid down by HC.

Bhathena said the additional 93 trees under question are not shrubs, but fully grown trees and said even assuming them to be shrubs, they are still protected under the 1975 law as they qualify as ‘trees’ and therefore the impugned approval was illegal and the same has to be quashed and set aside.