Tree-felling defence by LG VK Saxena fails to convince SC

Delhi lieutenant governor (LG) Vinai Kumar Saxena’s affidavit of October 22in the tree-felling case -- it said he did not know that the apex court’s permission was required for cutting trees, and that anyway, he only came to know on June 10 that the trees had been illegally felled minus the permission -- only served to highlight more inconsistencies in his claims during a hearing in the top court on Thursday.

The Supreme Court voiced its doubts as to whether the LG actually wasn’t aware about the felling of trees in the Ridge area of the Capital , particularly since a letter of the vice chairman of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), which is part of court records, mentions that information that the trees were illegally felled was shared with the LG on April 12 itself.

As the proceedings continued, this revelation made it difficult for Saxena to distance himself from the controversy, as he has consistently sought to do, including with the affidavit.

The court has now sought a further explanation from the LG (who is also chairman of DDA) and a separate affidavit from the then vice-chairman of DDA Subhashish Panda by November 4. It has specifically asked the two to provide information about the specific date when they came to know about the felling of trees. The court has also directed that the original records of this case to be produced before the bench on the next date of hearing on November 5.

The bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud passed the order after it considered the affidavit filed by the LG in his capacity as chairman of DDA by relying on the records and his personal knowledge. The court is hearing a contempt petition against the DDA vice chairman (VC) over the felling of nearly 1,100 trees from February 16 without seeking permission of the court. On October 16, it had directed Saxena to file an affidavit about whether he had any knowledge of this fact.

Interestingly, the LG’s lawyer sought to gloss over the inconsistency in his statement by claiming that while the LG was aware that the trees had been felled, it was only on June 10 that he came to know that they had been felled on February 16, days after a visit by him to the site of the construction during which he asked that the work be expedited.

The contents of the affidavit were, in court, disputed by senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the contempt petitioner, who pointed out that the same letter of June 10 also contained a reference to an April 12 meeting chaired by the LG where he desired that the exercise of working out an alternate alignment for the proposed road widening in the ridge be completed in a timebound manner.

While referring to the April 12 meeting, the VC’s letter said that he had made the LG aware on that date about the “blunder” committed by DDA officials of felling trees. This was done even before their application seeking permission from the court came to be heard on March 18.

The bench, also comprising justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said, “Prima facie, if this be so, the letter of VC that the fact pertaining to felling of trees was communicated to the chairman before April 12 could be borne out of records.”

Consequently, the court held, “The statement that it was only on June 10 that the chairman DDA was apprised of the fact that actual felling of trees commenced on February 16 would require further clarification.”

The LG was represented in court by senior advocate Vikas Singh, who said, “It is not that I did not know about the felling of trees. But as regards the fact that the actual felling of trees commenced on February 16 came to my knowledge on June 10. I cannot deny what has happened. It is just a question of who has done it.”

The bench told Singh, “It could be that the VC is wrong and you are right. But the VC’s letter says that he brought to your knowledge that the blunder of felling of trees had been committed.”

The court directed the original records to be produced before the next date while directing the LG and Panda, who has recently been transferred to the Prime Minister’s Office, to file separate affidavits before the next date. It said, “The disclosure by both LG and former VC will be on specific date when they obtained knowledge of the tree-felling.”

Sankaranarayanan, who was assisted by advocate Manan Verma appearing for the contempt petitioner Bindu Kapurea, referred to a Hindustan Times report published on May 10 carrying the news of the contempt notice issued to the DDA vice chairman in this matter. Prior to this, he pointed out that the Delhi high court too dealt with the same issue when it was widely reported. They argued that “it seems a little bit of stretch that he did not know that the DDA VC has been issued contempt notice in this matter”.

The petitioner alleged that the LG had visited the site of the road expansion project for creating access to CAPFIMS hospital, a multi-specialty hospital for paramilitary forces, on February 3 when permission for tree felling was issued.

The LG, in his affidavit said that his February 3 visit to the work site where the trees were later felled, only involved a generic instruction on expediting work. He added that 642 trees were felled, and the fact that it was done without the court’s nod, came to his knowledge only in June when the top court, while hearing a contempt petition against the DDA directed its vice chairman to apprise the LG in his capacity as chairman of DDA.

He further stated, “No one present at the site on the date of visit, brought to the notice...the legal requirement of obtaining permission from this court for felling of trees.” In any event, the affidavit added, “The direction (to expedite work) by no stretch of imagination was to bypass the mandate of law.”

Saxena said he was first made aware of the requirement of the top court’s permission on March 21 after the court dismissed the DDA application and directed it to constitute a committee of experts to reconsider the proposal.

The affidavit by the LG was in response to an order passed by the court on October 16 in a contempt petition on the felling of some 1100 trees in southern ridge area of Delhi for constructing a road near Satbari to provide better access to a multi-speciailty hospital for paramilitary forces, SAARC University , and other residential projects for the Delhi Police, CBI, NIA and CISF.

DDA claimed that its internal inquiry found that Manoj Kumar Yadav, the executive engineer wrote to the contractor for felling trees “on his own accord” and also blamed two assistant engineers , Pawan Kumar and Ayush Saraswat. for acts of omission. However, the top court observed that these officers seem to be “scapegoats” as permission for felling these trees could not have come without the knowledge and approval from the top.