Bombay HC dismisses PIL against tree cutting for coastal road project

The Bombay high court (HC) paved the way for continuation of the work on the interchange at Tata Gardens in South Mumbai in the ₹12,000-crore coastal road project by dismissing the public interest litigation (PIL) filed by an NGO which had secured a stay from HC on May 20 against the January 6 order of the tree authority which had permitted cutting and transplanting of 140 trees

The Bombay high court (HC) paved the way for continuation of the work on the interchange at Tata Gardens in South Mumbai in the ₹12,000-crore coastal road project by dismissing the public interest litigation (PIL) filed by an NGO which had secured a stay from HC on May 20 against the January 6 order of the tree authority which had permitted cutting and transplanting of 140 trees.

HT Image

The PIL was dismissed after the NGO submitted that it did not have ₹60 crore to deposit in the court towards the security deposit decided by the judges based on the stipulation of Rule 7A of the Bombay High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules. Rule 7A stipulates that a petitioner has to make a security deposit of the amount decided by the judges if the PIL is to be heard on merits. On Wednesday the judges asked the NGO to deposit 0.5% of the total cost of the project as security deposit.

The division bench of chief justice Dipankar Datta and justice Girish Kulkarni, while hearing the PIL filed by Society of Improvement of Greenery, was informed by advocate Ankit Kulkarni that the January 6 decision of the tree authority was not proper as the decision was taken without considering the views of experts. Kulkarni submitted that no study was conducted while passing the order of felling 61 trees and transplanting 79 trees.

He added that the tree authority did not even take into consideration the survival rate of trees which had been transplanted for the Metro project, and hence the decision would result in most of the trees not surviving. In view of this, the NGO challenged the January 6 order of the TA.

However, senior advocate Aspi Chinoy and advocate Joel Carlos for the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), which is responsible for the coastal road project, opposed the objections and said that the tree authority had not only uploaded the order on January 19 on its website but had also conducted a public hearing, but the NGO had not raised any objection then. Chinoy added that the NGO had not pursued the issue and woke up to it during the vacation and had secured a stay on the order on May 21, as a result of which work on the interchange had come to a halt, causing huge losses to the civic authority. In light of these submissions, BMC sought dismissal of the PIL.

After hearing the submissions, the court sought to know from the NGO as to why it had come to court belatedly though its PIL was filed in March 2020. Kulkarni informed the bench that praecipes had moved for urgent hearing from time to time and the PIL got listed as well, but could not be heard due to paucity of time.

The bench, however, was not satisfied and the chief justice observed that all praecipes were allowed and matters were listed, however he had not heard any request for urgent hearing of the PIL, hence he was putting the NGO to terms and sought to know whether it was willing to deposit an amount as stipulated in Rule 7A of PIL rules.

“We will hear the PIL on merits only after you deposit the amount or else we will dismiss it,” the bench said.

When Kulkarni responded that the members of the NGO were a mix of people who walked in Tata Garden and could not afford to deposit the amount, the court dismissed the PIL.

The bench also clarified that in light of the dismissal, the May 21 stay was vacated and work on felling and transplanting of trees could continue as per the tree authority order.