Complete Non-Application Of Mind By LG Before Directing Felling Of Trees: Supreme Court Says That Everyone Including Delhi Govt Committed Mistake

The Court was hearing the contempt petition against Delhi Development Authority's (‘DDA’) vice-chairman Subhasish Panda for allowing the large-scale felling of trees in the southern Ridge's Satbari area to construct a road from Chhattarpur to South Asian University. The Apex Court said it proposes to issue directions for a massive tree plantation drive in the entire National Capital Territory of Delhi and asked the DDA and Attorney General R Venkataramani to assist it in the matter.

The Bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan ordered, “We have perused two affidavits filed by the Vice Chairman of DDA filed on 3rd and 11 July. We also pursued the affidavit filed by the Principal Secretary of, the Environment and Forest Department. Prima facie, it appears to us that there was reluctance on the part of all concerned authorities to bring on the record what exactly transpired, including the visit of Honourable LG. Now the truth has come out. The note sheet of the Chief Secretary dated 2^nd July 2024 has been placed on the record by the Vice Chairman of DDA and most importantly Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta, who has filed an affidavit as an officer of the court, has explicitly stated what exactly transpired at the time of the visit of LG…It appears that Honourable LG stated that Tree Feeling under the Tree Act has been already permitted on the basis of approval granted by him and therefore DDA should be informed about the approval. The most unfortunate part is that though all senior officers of the state government such as the chief secretary, principal secretary of the environment and forest department, and officers of the forest department were present, it appears from the affidavit of Mr Gupta that none of them pointed out to Honourable LG requirement of obtaining permission of this Court for failing the trees from Ridge area.”

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appeared for the Petitioner while Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani appeared for the LG, Senior Advocate Maninder Singh appeared for the DDA and Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi appeared for Delhi Government.

The Court said that any officer may feel free to file an affidavit if they have tried to inform LG about the requirement of permission from the Apex Court. Further, the Court also issued notice to the Contractor who felled the trees as he has the information about the felled trees. The Court further directed all the authorities to come up with a modern technology by which the felling of trees can be monitored.

"The Delhi Government must take the blame for granting permission to fell 422 trees though there was no statutory power...Delhi Govt must tell the Court in what manner they will compensate the damage caused to the environment…We hope and trust that the Delhi Government will immediately stop exercising non-existing powers of granting permissions for felling of trees.", the Court ordered.

The Court perused the Affidavit of the Vice Chairman, DDA and said “What we said that there was a cover-up is now coming up in reality. We have seen the Affidavit very carefully…Somebody should have told us that LG has issued the directions.”

Justice Oka said, “First date we should have been told, yes, the Governor said expedite the project. Cover-up went on for 3 days, what is this happening?... We realised that there was a role played by LG, the day the Attorney General appeared on his own. That was sufficient indication…See paragraph 6, now you seek permission from the Governor to cut the trees.”

“There is complete non-application of mind by LG also, he assumed that Delhi Government has the power of a Tree Officer…why it was not brought to notice of LG that this Court’s permission is required?”, Justice Oka said.

“This is a very sorry state of affairs…why it was not brought to our notice, immediately, yes that LG visited, LG was worried that the project was getting delayed, the road had to be constructed for the colony of some CBI officers and LG said to it immediately…LG was naturally worried about CBI Officers’ colony so therefore he said expedite the work.”, the Court said.

Justice Oka to Sr Adv Maninder Singh, “You are vehemently defending LG you may continue to do it…we will draw our inference…what is this going on You are appearing for DDA, you are an officer of the Court. You should come clean…Notice can be issued to LG”.

Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for LG said that he is a constitutional authority and the Court should not jump to any conclusions.

To this Justice Oka replied, “Mr. Jethmalani, even if you make the allegation that we jump to the conclusion, we will accept it. For the last 21 years, I heard only allegations against me, I am used to it. I don’t get provoked because somebody openly says that we are jumping to a conclusion. I am very much used to it. I don't get provoked by all this. For 21 years I've been in the constitutional court…Good that you are appearing for LG.”

He continued, “We are not saying we are issuing notice, but if you are seriously saying that before issuing notice proposed contemnor should be heard, please show us the law. We are prepared to learn that law from you…You said principles of natural justice require you to be heard before notice.”

On the issue of the proposal placed before the LG, it was told that the Delhi Government placed the proposal before the LG. The Court asked whether there is any note that permission of the Court is required. The Court took note of the fact that the LG was not informed about the requirement of permission of the court.

“Even when Hon’ble CM signed it, he was not told that the permission of this Court is required?”, the Court asked Singh.

After arguments, the Court said, “Your officer says that nothing has happened. That e-mail is fabricated. A specific statement is there that on 3rd February LG visited, he directed cutting of the trees now that stand taken by you appears to be false.”

Singh said that there were two contemporaneous e-mails. The Court perused the e-mail dated February 3, 2024, where a direction was issued that all land cases under ROW should be clubbed.

To which, the Bench said, “The Governor directs that all the cases should be clubbed together as if he is the Court.”

Justice Oka also remarked, “Will it be correct for us to say that on directions of the Hon'ble Governor, the work started?”

Singh replied, “I will file an affidavit.”

Justice Oka sternly said, “ What troubles is…everybody has committed a mistake. Cover-up goes on goes on goes on…”

The Court also remarked, “It is such a simple matter. Everyone has committed a mistake, including the Hon'ble Governor".

Further, the Court asked the Delhi Government as to why they had cut the trees and under what provisions, but the Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi replied, “There is no such power vested in the officer...I am conceding.”.

The Court also directed the Delhi Government to compensate for the loss to the environment.

On the last date of the hearing, the Court had issued notice against the Delhi Government to explain the permission granted for the felling of trees for the construction of a road, without any power under the Delhi Preservation Of Trees Act, 1994 ('1994 Act') and observed stern remarks on the failure of the authorities as to the information of the location of timber which was obtained after felling of trees.

The Court, prima facie, observed that the DDA failed to produce a report of the site visit of the Lieutenant General of Delhi and whether he had given any suggestion regarding cutting of trees. The Court issued notice to the Member Engineer Ashok Kumar Gupta, who was present there and directed him to file an affidavit not in the capacity of his post but in the capacity of the Officer of the Court.

The Court had also perused the report of the Committee of Experts and directed the DDA to implement the recommendations. "Green cover has been lost in these years...there has to be a concentrated effort by all authorities.", the Bench said.

The Court had also issued notice to all the authorities of Delhi like NDMC, DMC, etc. to convene a meeting to implement the recommendations given by the Committee of Experts and to find out officers responsible for the illegal activities pertaining to felling of trees.

On June 24, 2024, observing that brazen acts of tree felling in the National Capital Territory of Delhi cannot be brushed aside lightly, the Supreme Court had sought a "clear" statement from the Vice President of the DDA about whether trees in the ridge area were cut on the orders of the lieutenant governor without its permission. The Bench had said it proposes to hold a detailed enquiry into the acts of the DDA which resulted in the destruction of several valuable trees and consequentially degradation of the environment. The Apex Court said it was very shocking that the trees were cut despite knowing that it cannot be done without the permission of the Apex Court.

Cause Title: Bindu Kapurea v. Subhasish Panda (Dairy No. 21171 of 2024) and In Re Subhasish Panda Vice Chairman, DDA (SMC(Crl) No. 2/2024)