Metro shed in Aarey: HC asks petitioners to challenge BMC’s decision on cutting additional trees

HC disposed of the PIL challenging the notice of the Tree Authority (TA) inviting suggestions and objections for cutting 171 trees in Aarey Colony, granting liberty to the petitioners to challenge whatever decision is taken by the authority pursuant to the Supreme Court order which permitted the Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Limited (MMRCL) to cut only 84 trees.

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court while disposing of a PIL challenging the notice of BMC’s Tree Authority inviting suggestions and objections for cutting 171 trees in Aarey has directed the petitioners to challenge whatever decision is taken by the authority after it goes through the Supreme Court order which permitted the Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Limited (MMRCL) to cut only 84 trees.

“As the MMRCL claimed that the additional foliage, which had grown around the 84 trees, were shrubs and could not be considered as trees, it was for the TA to decide the objections of the petitioners who claimed that the shrubs were full-grown trees and cutting them would violate the SC order,” HC observed. (Getty Images)

“As the MMRCL claimed that the additional foliage, which had grown around the 84 trees, were shrubs and could not be considered as trees, it was for the TA to decide the objections of the petitioners who claimed that the shrubs were full-grown trees and cutting them would violate the SC order,” HC observed.

The division bench of acting chief justice SV Gangapurwala and justice SV Marne while hearing the PIL filed by activist Zoru Bathena was informed by advocate Zaman Ali that even when the SC had directed MMRCL to approach the TA for cutting 84 trees, the foliage which has now grown into trees was present at the time of the MMRCL application. Ali submitted that SC had permitted only the cutting of 84 trees and hence the notice of the TA was void ab initio (null from the beginning).

However, senior advocate Ashutosh Kumbhakoni for MMRCL argued that the growth around the 84 trees were wild trees that had grown since the suo motu petition was filed in the SC, hence the TA was justified in issuing the notice for cutting 171 trees.

After hearing the submissions, the bench held that as the matter was sub-judice before the apex court it could not be expected to interpret the order for cutting 84 trees passed and the petitioners could approach the SC for clarification.

The bench further noted that as petitioners had submitted their objections to the TA, it was likely that the same would be considered and hence petitioners should await the decision of the TA and approach the HC after a decision was taken and disposed of the PIL.