The Bombay High Court has directed that the Tree Authority of the Municipal Corporation of Nashik while considering any prayer seeking permission to fell trees shall be guided exclusively by the provisions of the Trees Act, 1975 and public interest.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL):-
“a) That the entire record in respect of permissions granted by Respondent No.2 since May 2022 for cutting/ transplantation / trimming of trees in the city of Nashik may kindly be called for;
b) After considering the legality, validity and propriety of the same, writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature of certiorari, or order or direction in the like nature may kindly be passed thereby quashing and setting aside the public Notice dated 25.01.2023 issued by Respondent No.2 or any consequential order passed pursuant to public Notice dated 25.02.2023 by Respondent No.2;
c) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to hold and declare that all previous permissions in respect of cutting/transplantation/trimming of trees granted by the Respondent No.2 in the city of Nashik, in absence of tree authority are null and void and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside;
d) That after considering legality, validity and propriety of the same, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the like nature thereby directing the Respondent Corporation to comply, follow and adopt the recommendations and Directions, in its letter and spirit, as laid down by this Hon’ble Court in para 1(c), (h) and (I) of its Judgment and Order dated 08.05.2015 passed in Civil Application ……. of 2006 in respect of protecting and preserving the trees, before grant of any permission in respect of cutting/ transplantation/cutting of trees in the city of Nashik;
e) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to restrain the Respondent Nos.2 and 3, its officers, representatives or any other persons, from granting any permission in respect of cutting, transplantation, and trimming of the trees in the city of Nashik, without seeking any prior permission of this Hon’ble Court;
f) Pending the hearing and final disposal of present Public Interest Litigation, the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 may kindly be restrained from granting any permission in respect of cutting, transplantation, and trimming of the trees pursuant to public notice dated 25.02.2023;
g) Pending the hearing and final disposal of present Public Interest Litigation, all previous permissions in respect of cutting/transplantation/trimming of trees granted by the Respondent No.2 in absence of tree authority in the city of Nashik, may kindly be stayed;
h) Pending the hearing and final disposal of present Public Interest Litigation, the Respondent Nos.2 and 3, its officers, representatives or any other persons, may kindly be restrained to grant any permission in respect of cutting, transplantation, and trimming of the trees in the city of Nashik, without seeking any prior permission of this Hon’ble Court;
….”
The Court vide order dated July 3, 2024 required the respondent-Corporation to file an affidavit bringing on record the fact as to whether final decision pursuant to the impugned notice dated 24th January 2023 has been taken, or not. In response to the said order, an affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the respondent-Corporation stating therein that no final decision has been taken by the competent authority of the Corporation in respect of proposed tree cutting pursuant to the notice dated 24th January 2023.
The Counsel for the petitioner has filed an additional affidavit bringing on record various other notices issued under Section 8(3) of the Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection and Preservation of the Trees Act, 1975. He has also enclosed with the said additional affidavit an order dated 4th December 2023 whereby the Tree Authority of the Corporation has granted permission to fell certain number of trees. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that he may be permitted to amend the PIL petition to incorporate challenge to all the notices issued under Section 8(3) of the Trees Act, 1975 and the orders passed on the applications received by the Tree Authority seeking permission for felling of trees.
“As it is, a PIL petition praying for an omnibus prayer as made in the writ petition, in our opinion, cannot be entertained. The petitioner has inter alia prayed that all the permissions granted by the respondent-Corporation for felling trees or trimming trees or transplantation of trees in Nashik city may be quashed since May 2022. Certain other nature of prayers which are general in nature have also been made,” the Court noted.
The grievance of the petitioner appears to be the Court that according to him the Municipal Corporation of Nashik has been granting indiscriminate permissions for felling the trees without appropriately following the provisions contained in the Trees Act, 1975. However, in absence of pleadings in relation to either any specific notice issued by the respondent Corporation under Section 8(3) of the Trees Act, 1975 or any such order granting permission to fell trees, it is very difficult for the Court to ascertain the facts in specific cases.
“It is needless to say that for the said purpose it is always open to the petitioner to take any legal recourse for challenging any specific notice issued under Section 8(3) of the Trees Act, 1975 or to challenge any final order granting permission to fell or trim the trees.”
The Court reiterated that the respondent-Corporation is under legal obligation to comply with the directions issued by the Court in an earlier judgment dated 8th May 2015 passed in Public Interest Litigation of 2006.
The provisions contained in the Trees Act, 1975 are equally binding on the respondent-Corporation. The public notice to be issued by the Tree Authority under Section 8(3) of the Trees Act, 1975 has to clearly inter alia specifically mention if the tree to be fell is a heritage tree, and it is also required to determine the age of the tree being fell as per the criteria and method as may be notified by the Government. It is generally seen that the procedure as provided under the Trees Act, 1975 are not being followed by the Tree Authorities or the Tree Authorities are sometimes not aware of the exact procedure to be followed before granting permission to fell tree, the Bench noted.
For the reason that the instant PIL petition lacks a specific prayer in respect of specific permission or specific notice under Section 8(3) of the Trees Act, 1975, the Court disposed of the PIL petition with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the notice under Section 8(3) of the Trees Act or challenge the final order granting permission to fell the trees by the Tree Authority by taking recourse to the legal remedy which may be available to the petitioner, including filing of a public interest litigation.
“However, we also direct that the Tree Authority of the respondent-Corporation while considering any prayer seeking permission to fell trees shall be guided exclusively by the provisions of the Trees Act, 1975 and the public interest. Any deviation from any of the provisions of the Trees Act, 1975 or any deviation by the Tree Authority from addressing the public interest while granting permission seeking felling of tree, may be viewed seriously by the Court,” the order reads.