Deposit amount equivalent to losses to MMRDA for stay on tree felling on Mumbai Metro 4 line: Bombay HC to petitioner

In a setback to an NGO which had approached the Bombay high court seeking a stay on the permission granted by the Thane Tree Authority to Mumbai Metropolitan Region

In a setback to an NGO which had approached the Bombay high court seeking a stay on the permission granted by the Thane Tree Authority to Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA), to cut over 500 trees for the Metro 4 project, the HC asked the NGO to deposit the amount equivalent to the losses MMRDA would incur in the event of a stay. The NGO has withdrawn the stay application. The court has granted the NGO permission to file a fresh petition seeking similar reliefs, however, in the absence of any stay, MMRDA will be free to go ahead with cutting the trees.

HT Image

A division bench of justices KK Tated and GS Kulkarni while hearing the petition filed by Thane Nagrik Pratishthan, an NGO, was informed by advocate Ankit Kulkarni that an interim application was being moved in the petition that sought the Metro 4 line which will run between Wadala – Ghatkopar- Mulund- Thane- Kasarwadavali to be underground. Kulkarni submitted that the interim application was seeking a stay on cutting of the very trees which were sought to be saved through the original petition. The original petition had prayed for the Metro line to be constructed below the ground as it would save over 500 trees, which would otherwise have to be cut to make way for the elevated line.

While making submissions in the interim application on Monday, Kulkarni informed the court that the permission granted by the Thane Tree Authority on September 28, 2020, to MMRDA to cut the 500 plus trees was invalid as it had not followed the stipulated process of having the trees inspected and the order was passed in haste. He submitted that the inspection of trees by experts was mandatory as per the Act and would have a bearing on whether the trees could be transplanted or not, hence in the absence of the inspection, the NGO was seeking a stay on the implementation of the Thane Tree Authority’s order.

The interim application further stated that as the original petition on whether the Metro line was to go underground or overground was yet being heard, allowing the cutting of trees would defeat the purpose of the original petition.

However, senior counsel Dr Milind Sathe for MMRDA argued that the interim application was not maintainable as the cause of action was different from the original petition and hence the court could not pass any orders.

After hearing the submissions, justice Tated told the NGO that it was willing to allow the interim application if the NGO would deposit the amount equivalent to the losses which MMRDA would incur due to the stay on cutting of trees.

Justice Kulkarni, however, said that as issues in the interim application and the original petition were different, he suggested that the NGO file a fresh petition with specific averments opposing the Thane Tree Authority’s decision.

On being faced with the two options, the NGO decided to withdraw the interim application and file a fresh petition as suggested by the court. However, in the absence of any stay by the court, the MMRDA is in a position to go ahead with the felling of the trees based on the permission by the Thane Tree Authority.

Rohit Joshi, co-petitioner opposing tree cutting in Metro 4 project, said, “This is a sensitive issue and the courts have always taken a neutral stand. However we are surprised at the observation made by the court today. We are merely petitioners fighting for larger public interest and asking us to deposit huge amounts is discouraging.”

“It is disheartening to see that citizens and activists voicing their concerns through the justice system are deemed to be obstructing public projects. All good democracy functions with checks and balances. However these days the government seems to be reversing all laws to make projects happen without consideration for environmental impact or safety norms; both of which are the central contentions of our main PIL. Public agencies seem to be thinking of these projects as private investments and not public good services. Such actions by Government bodies are setting wrong precedents, paving way for future violations,” Joshi said.