Bombay HC asks MMRCL not to fell 177 trees at Aarey Colony until SC decides

The bench observed, “There is no doubt that the metro project involves public interest and public purpose. There cannot be any debate in the proposition that the balance has to be struck between sustainable development and ecology.”

The HC noted that the apex court was seized of the matter and it is likely to be heard on April 11. “It was not a matter of debate that SC had allowed MMRCL to approach Tree Authority to the extent of 84 trees,” the bench added. “However, the impugned permission is for 177 trees. The same is beyond the liberty granted by the November 29, 2022 judgment of the Apex Court. In light of that, it will not be possible for the High Court to accept the contention that the Tree Authority could permit the MMRCL to fell trees beyond 84.”

The HC noted that MMRCL has already filed the documents related to the matter including the impugned approval of Tree Authority before the SC.

“In light of above, propriety would require that the MMRCL shall not fell the trees pursuant to the impugned order until it seeks clarification/order from the Apex Court.”

The bench said that until the Apex court decides on the permission to fell trees, the PIL before it will remain pending and posted it for further hearing on April 27

Refusing to stay the Maharashtra government’s decision to allow the car depot of Metro Line 3 in Aarey, the apex court in November 2022 allowed MMRCL to pursue its application before the Tree Authority for felling 84 trees to construct a ramp for the project.

The PIL said due to the non-existence of Tree Authority and the municipal council being vacant, the BMC Commissioner Iqbal Singh Chahal wrongly used his powers to act as Tree Authority, in breach of the April 2018 HC order that restrained him from exercising them in a “routine manner.”

Senior advocate Venkatesh Dhond, appearing for the petitioner, also claimed that BMC’s approval was in violation of the 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.

Dhond also argued that the notice issued by Tree Authority inviting objections to grant permission for felling incorrectly called them “dead/dangerous trees” and not “wild trees”, an allegation denied by the Tree Authority’s counsel.

Senior advocate Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, appearing for MMRCL, opposed the plea and submitted that shrubs and smaller plants that had grown over the years had been rightly included in the list of trees that need to be felled, in an application filed by it in January 2023 before the Tree Authority. The MMRCL added that until all trees are not felled, the project cannot move forward.

However, the petitioner said the additional 93 trees under question are not shrubs, as claimed by MMRCL, but fully grown trees, and said even if they are assumed to be shrubs they are still protected under the 1975 law as they qualify as ‘trees’. The petitioner called the approval ‘illegal’ and demanded it be set aside.
Senior advocate Milind Sathe, representing the BMC’s Tree Authority, justified its decision.