SC puts DDA in dock for hiding data on tree-felling

The Supreme Court on Thursday pulled up the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for “taking them for a ride” by suppressing material facts on the cutting of trees in the Delhi Ridge area and initiated suo motu criminal attempt against the agency’s vice-chairperson for obstructing the administration of justice even as it directed that no further permission for tree felling in the Ridge shall be processed by the Ridge Management Board (RMB) without the court’s prior approval.

Directing stoppage of further road construction work by DDA at Satbari, the court directed the Dehradun-based Forest Survey of India (FSI) along with three independent experts – Pradip Krishen, Sunil Limaye and retired bureaucrat Ishwar Singh – to visit the site and assess the number of trees felled and its impact on the environment.

There was no accurate figure forthcoming on the number of trees felled as the DDA affidavit disclosing 642 trees was at variance with a Delhi high court order which recorded cutting of 1,100. The court directed DDA to furnish all relevant files to the committee, which will submit a preliminary report by June 20.

The bench was of the view that for every tree cut, 100 new trees should be planted even as it directed the Union ministry of environment, forests and climate change to enquire how trees were felled without mandatory forest clearance.

The court agreed to sit during the summer vacation on June 24 considering the seriousness of the issue.

The order of the court came while hearing a contempt petition against DDA vice-chairman Subhashish Panda, for undertaking cutting of 1,000-odd trees in Satbari, part of southern ridge, without approval of the court. While Panda was facing a civil contempt notice, his affidavit filed before a bench headed by justice AS Oka revealed shocking details about how 642 trees came to be cut in the ridge even before an application by DDA seeking permission for cutting was heard by the top court on March 4.

“I have never seen a public authority misleading the court like this in my 20 years as a judge,” justice Oka sad as a bench, also comprising justice Ujjal Bhuyan issued criminal contempt to Panda and said, “The conduct of felling of trees and completing the same before hearing by the court and suppressing this fact amounts to interference and obstruction with the course of administration of justice by this court.” The court directed DDA VC to name the officers involved and asked him to enquire lapses of his legal department for not conveying the fact about cutting of trees before the case hearing.

Panda stated in his response that the contractor awarded the road widening work began cutting trees on February 16, which continued for 10 days, after in-principle approval was obtained from the Delhi forest department on February 14, 2024. The bench said, “We are not prepared to believe that the contractor on his own volition undertook to cut trees. It has to be on a direction of an officer of DDA.”

Panda accepted the “mistake” on part of DDA and offered unconditional apology, but the court said termed it as mere “lip service”. In his affidavit, Panda admitted that permission of court was necessary which was not obtained and said that appropriate action is being initiated against DDA’s assistant engineer (civil) and junior engineer (civil) for failing to undertake site visit.

The court said that the “dishonesty” of DDA was evident as even after the March 4 order, it approached the Lieutenant governor (who is Chairman of DDA) for constituting a body of experts to ensure minimum trees are cut for widening of the road. “The highest authority of DDA was also misled,” the bench observed calling for the file of L-G’s approval and directed Panda to personally apprise LG through a letter abbout the suppression of facts.

“We hope LG will take the matter seriously not only as LG of state but as DDA chairperson.”

Attorney general R Venkataramani appeared in the matter to assist the court while senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani appeared for the DDA VC. Sending across a strong message, the bench said, “The government body should not create an impression that only courts are interested in protecting trees... Action should be taken against the public authority (DDA). This is gross misleading of the court. They are taking the court for a ride. Felling of trees without permission of this court (as mandated by a 1996 decision in MC Mehta case) is wilful breach of orders of this court.”

The court appreciated the presence of AG and said, “We are happy to note AG has appeared on his own to assist court. This is important as the issue is of tree cover of Delhi and ensuring at least in the Capital, laws related to environment and forests are scrupulously implemented.”

Although Jethmalani urged the court that criminal contempt be withdrawn, the bench said, it had not formed an opinion of guilt against him, realising that duriing the period trees were cut he was on medical leave. But the bench said, “If this had been done by a common citizen, what would have been the approach of this court. Even while responding to contempt notice, DDA has not come clean on all aspects.” The court found affidavit evasive on several aspects including restoration plan of the ridge site.

Senior advocates ADN Rao, Guru Krishna Kumar and Anitha Shenoy assisting the court as amici curiae (friends of court) said that permission from the RMB was obtained for the project in September 2023 but without waiting for Court’s nod and Stage 2 forest clearance, the trees were cut.

The petitioner Bindu Kapurea, on whose contempt plea the proceedings were initiated, was represented by senior advocates Huzefa Ahmadi and Madhavi Divan who said that DDA VC is part of the RMB which is sanctioning felling of trees. The court allowed them to add RMB and the Delhi forest department to the contempt proceedings and said, “We restrain the RMB from entertaining proposals for divergence of ridge forest land without permission of this court.”

The bench reminded the petitioners that this case is also an “eye-opener” on the functioning of court-appointed central empowered committee (CEC) which gave approval for felling of trees without visiting the site. The court directed the MoEFCC to initiate appropriate action for violation of Forest (Conservation) Act against its officers who failed to prevent cutting of trees based on Stage 1 clearance granted in March this year.

DDA was further directed to facilitate the working of the committee of FSI and independent experts by providing for their expenses and sharing all relevant files. The committee was also asked to indicate which species of trees to be replanted and said, “Tentatively we are of the view apart from statutory regulation of compensatory afforestation, 100 new trees per tree felled has to be planted by DDA.”

Panda had stated in his affidavit that DDA has earmarked a space of 55 acres for utilising it as urban forest.

The court said that the hearing during the vacation will be subject to approval from the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and asked the registrar (judicial) to take instructions from the CJI in this regard.