THE SUPREME Court Wednesday told the A Revanth Reddy government in Telangana that it will have to come up with a specific plan to restore the 100 acres of land abutting the University of Hyderabad, on which the state carried out tree felling, if it wanted its Chief Secretary “to be saved from severe action”. The court said it would “go out of the way if needed” to protect the environment. Following protests over the felling of trees, the Supreme Court, taking suo motu cognizance, had on April 3 stopped the clearing of trees in the Kancha Gachibowli forested area near the university, and asked the Chief Secretary to explain the “compelling urgency” to remove the trees. On Wednesday, a bench of Justices B R Gavai and A G Masih said, “Under Article 142, we can do anything. For protection of environment and ecology, we will go out of the way if needed.” Appearing for the state, Senior Advocate A M Singhvi said all activities had been stopped. He said there may have been some errors, but these were “bonafide and unintentional”. Justice Gavai asked, “Do you have permission from the tree authority for felling the trees?” Singhvi replied, “Yes, except a small number of trees.” Senior Advocate K Parameshwar, who is also amicus curiae in forest-related matters before the court, said the state government had adopted a self-certification mode and “self-declared that these species are exempt”. Expressing surprise, Justice Gavai cited the court's 1996 order which said that “forest” has to be understood as per its dictionary meaning, and asked if the state authorities are above the court orders. He also referred to instances of the Centre and Maharashtra government having had to fight legal battles over felling of trees for important projects, and added that if there is any such self-certification in Telangana, it is in contravention of the 1996 judgment. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said people came to the Supreme Court to fight against clearing trees for the Mumbai Metro project. Justice Gavai told the Telangana counsel, “We will not go by the interpretation of either the bureaucrats or the Ministers. let the state justify as to how it overcame the 1996 order.” “If you want (your) Chief Secretary to be saved from severe action, you have to come out with a plan as to how you would restore those 100 acres. Otherwise, we do not know how many of your officers will have to go to a temporary prison.” Singhvi said the Chief Secretary is only a coordinating person and is retiring soon. Parameshwar said the Central Empowered Committee “has given a disturbing finding” in its report. “They have mortgaged land to a private party for 10,000 crore but the the Chief Secretary does not mention that in the affidavit, and today there is grandstanding that they will seek instructions on restoration,” he submitted. He highlighted the CEC’s apprehension that pursuant to the mortgage, private parties may assert claims over the area. Justice Gavai pointed out that dozens of bulldozers had gone to the site. He said the court was surprised to see videos of herbivorous animals running for shelter and being bitten by stray dogs. The judge told the state that instead of justifying, the better way out would be to give a plan for restoration. “What was the tearing urgency to do it in 3 days? Bulldozers were brought in (during) those holidays only.” “We are here to protect the environment. We are concerned with the damage done to the environment,” Justice Gavai said. The court directed the state wildlife warden to explain on the next date of hearing what is being done to protect the animals which became shelterless following the tree felling. The court will hear the matter next on May 15.
