IN RE FELLING OF TREES IN AAREY FOREST (MAHARASHTRA) versus IN RE FELLING OF TREES IN AAREY FOREST (MAHARASHTRA)

Citation: [2022] 14 S.C.R. 435 · Decided: 29-11-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
435
[2022] 14 S.C.R. 435
435
IN RE FELLING OF TREES IN AAREY FOREST
(MAHARASHTRA)
(IA No. 169860 of 2022 )
In
(Suo Moto Writ (Civil) No. 2 of 2019)
NOVEMBER 29, 2022
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI AND
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]
Metro Projects: Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Limited
(MMRCL) – Aarey car depot for Metro Line – Court to consider as
to whether it ought to permit the Tree Authority to decide application
filed by MMRCL for felling of 84 trees or alternatively, whether no
part of the Aarey car shed should be allowed to proceed pending
the final disposal of the proceedings – Held: In projects involving
large outlay of public funds, the Court cannot be oblivious to the
serious dislocation which would be caused if the public investment
which has gone into the project were to be disregarded –
Considerations pertaining to environment are of concern because
all development must be sustainable – Having regard to the entirety
of the material before it, if the State Government has come to the
conclusion that the original decision to allow the Metro car depot
for Metro Line-3 be located at Aarey has to be restored, it would
not be possible for the Court at the interim stage to stay the decision
– Moreover, a substantial number of trees pertaining to the area
which falls within the segment of the car shed and the ramp have
already been felled – 2,144 trees were felled in executing the work
pertaining to car depot, while, 212 trees were felled in connection
with the work of the ramp – What is now sought is permission to
apply to the Tree Authority for the felling of 84 trees pertaining to
the ramp – Without a ramp the work which has already been
completed would be of no consequence and would be wholly
ineffective – Hence, having due regard to the circumstances, MMRCL
should be permitted to pursue its application before the Tree
Authority for the permission to fell 84 trees for the purpose of the
ramp – However, the Tree Authority would be at liberty to take an
independent decision on the application and determine what
conditions, if any, should be imposed if it decides to grant its
permission.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
436
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 14 S.C.R.
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: IA No. 169860 of 2022 in
Suo Moto Writ (Civil) No. 2 of 2019.
(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
With
IA Nos. 104736, 104886 of 2022 and 178233 of 2019 in SMW
(Civil) No. 2 of 2019, IA No. 105220 of 2022 in SLP (Civil) No. 14933 of
2019 and IA Nos. 107131 and 50314 of 2022 in SLP (Civil) No. 31178 of
2018.
Chander Uday Singh, Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Sr. Advs., Ms. Srishti
Agnihotri, Ms. Sanjana Grace Thomas, Ms. Mantika Vohra, Ms. Namrata
Sarah Caleb, Amjid Maqbool, Ms. Prerna Priyadarshini, Advs for the
Petitioner.
Tushar Mehta, SG, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, Maninder Singh,
Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Advs., Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Chirag Shah, Kanu
Aggarwal, Utsav Trivedi, Ms. Soumya Priyadarshini, Ankit Ambasta,
Amit Kumar Srivastava, Amlaan Kumar, Vishal Prasad, Ms. Ruchi Kohli,
S. S. Rebello, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Ms. Deepabali Dutta, Siddhanth
Kohli, Ishaan Sharma, Arvind Kumar Sharma, G. S. Makker, Siddharth
Dharmadhikari, Chirag Shah, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Akshay Shinde,
Abhikalp Pratap Singh, Bharat Bagla, Ms. Kirti Dadheech, Ashish Wad,
Mrs. Tamali Wad, Sidharth Mahajan, Ajeyo Sharma, Shyam, Ms.
Anupama, M/s. J S Wad and Co, Tanmaya Agarwal, Ms. Pooja Dhar,
Pratul Pratap Singh, Shree Pal Singh, Advs. for the Respondent.
By Courts Motion.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI
1. On 15 April 2019, this Court, while considering Petition for
Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No 31178 of 2018, declined to grant
interim relief in IA No 33819 of 2019. The reliefs which were sought in
the application for interim relief were in the following terms:
“a)
… stopping all activities being carried out by the Respondent
No-4 on the land in question inside Aarey Colony;
b)
… directing the Respondents to carry out the activities for
setting up Metro Car depot at the alternative sites referred
to in paragraph 3 of the present application;
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
437
c)
… staying the operation of the observations made at page
92 of the impugned order to the effect that Aarey Milk
Colony area cannot be referred to as forest; and
d)
… any other order or further order or orders as this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the
case.”
2. Subsequently, on 7 October 2019, this Court,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.