Mumbai: The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) on Monday tried to justify before the Bombay high court its decision to call suggestions and objections for cutting of 177 trees at Aarey Colony, claiming that the Supreme Court (SC) order, permitting the Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Limited (MMRCL) to approach the civic body’s Tree Authority for cutting 84 trees was based on 2019 tree population, which has gone up thereafter.
The civic body claimed that after the SC order additional trees and shrubs have grown in the area earmarked for constructing the Metro car shed ramp and hence the Tree Authority had included the same in the list of trees to be felled.
However, the HC said that the MMRCL should have got a clarification from the SC in regards to the additional trees and directed the petitioner to include the MMRCL as a party to the petition.
The division bench of acting chief justice S V Gangapurwala and justice S V Marne was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by environment activist Zoru Bhathena, seeking quashing and setting aside of the January 12 notice issued by the Three Authority inviting objections and suggestions to fell 177 trees.
During the hearing, senior advocate Aspi Chinoy for the BMC informed the bench that the authority’s list included the 84 trees which the MMRCL had sought to cut. He said as the MMRCL had approached the SC in 2019 and by the time the order was passed in November 2022, additional trees and shrubs had grown and those were not part of the original proceedings. The Authority had included it in the list after the MMRCL approached it following the SC order.
{{/usCountry}}During the hearing, senior advocate Aspi Chinoy for the BMC informed the bench that the authority’s list included the 84 trees which the MMRCL had sought to cut. He said as the MMRCL had approached the SC in 2019 and by the time the order was passed in November 2022, additional trees and shrubs had grown and those were not part of the original proceedings. The Authority had included it in the list after the MMRCL approached it following the SC order.
{{/usCountry}}However, advocate Zaman Ali appearing for Bhathena argued that the MMRCL should have approached SC for permission to cut additional trees, but as they had not done so, the notice was illegal and in contravention of the apex court order. The court was then shown photographs of the foliage that had grown in the vicinity of the 84 trees.
After seeing the photographs, the court noted that the foliage did not look like shrubs but rown trees. “It is better you get clarification from the SC,” the bench said and directed Bhathena to add the MMRCL as a party to the petition.
The bench also permitted the BMC to file an affidavit in reply to the petition and posted the hearing to next week.
Meanwhile, advocate Grishma Lad also filed a PIL seeking direction to the BMC to protect and preserve the trees required to be felled for road widening project at Matunga East undertaken by the civic authority. The project will see the road being widened near the Hindu Colony, Indian Gymkhana playground and the Five Gardens area in Dadar from 8.22 metres to 13.71 metres. Around 90 trees could face the axe.
Advocate Tejas Dande for Lad informed the bench that it was noticed that the stems of the trees that were coming in the way of road widening had been gagged thereby completely blocking the stem which can be hazardous for the survival of the trees.
However, after justice Marne recused from hearing the PIL, the petitioner was told to approach an alternate bench.
Stay updated with all the Breaking News and Latest News from Mumbai. Click here for comprehensive coverage of top Cities including Bengaluru, Delhi, Hyderabad, and more across India along with Stay informed on the latest happenings in World News.
Stay updated with all the Breaking News and Latest News from Mumbai. Click here for comprehensive coverage of top Cities including Bengaluru, Delhi, Hyderabad, and more across India along with Stay informed on the latest happenings in World News.