PIL seeks stay on felling of 177 trees for Metro car shed in Aarey

Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation’s (BMC) notice to cut the trees is to make way for a ramp, which the Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Limited (MMRCL) wants to construct for the Metro car shed.

Mumbai: A public interest litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Bombay high court against the notice issued by the civic authority announcing the cutting of 177 trees for the Metro car shed at Aarey.

Mumbai, India - Sept. 15, 2019:People protest for making metro car shed inside Aarey colony in Mumbai, India, on Sunday, September 15, 2019. (Photo by Satyabrata Tripathy/Hindustan Times) (Satyabrata Tripathy/HT Photo)

Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation’s (BMC) notice to cut the trees is to make way for a ramp, which the Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Limited (MMRCL) wants to construct for the Metro car shed.

The PIL has claimed that while the Supreme Court had permitted the MMRCL to apply for permission to cut only 84 trees, which were identified before the apex court, the Tree Authority of BMC has issued a notice to cut more trees. And hence, the PIL seeks a restraint on the civic corporation from going ahead with the cutting. The PIL is expected to come up for hearing on January 30.

The PIL filed by environment activist Zoru Bhathena has stated that on January 12, the tree authority had invited suggestions and objections for removing 177 trees at Aarey after it received an application from MMRCL. He has stated that the notice was in violation of the order by SC which had allowed MMRCL to pursue their application for felling of 84 trees for the metro project.

The SC had passed the order on November 29, 2022 while hearing a petition seeking a stay on the state government’s decision to allow the car shed for Line 3 of Mumbai Metro to be located in Aarey.

According to Bhathena, after the Tree Authority issued the notice, he had approached it and asked it to withdraw the notice as it was in violation of the SC order. However, after it refused to do so, he had approached the HC.

The PIL stated that Bathena had made the request the tree authority has asked citizens to make their objections and suggestions known. “The notice dated January 12, 2023, issued by the Tree Authority is for removal of 177 trees, having a different set of tree ID numbers in comparison to MMRCL’s application which was for only 84 trees. The public notice was issued without any authority of law as it stands qua Aarey Forest,” states the PIL.

The PIL further stated that as the public notice was issued by the TA without MMRCL having first taken appropriate directions from the SC, the notice was null and void. Considering these, the PIL has sought directions to quash and set aside the public notice and pending hearing of the PIL sought a stay on the effect of the notice till further orders.