A Bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice BR Gavai has halted the contempt proceedings initiated by them against the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) Vice Chairman over illegal tree felling. The decision to halt the proceedings was taken by the bench after noting that another Bench which was led by Justice AS Oka took up the same contempt case later.
An order was passed by the Bench of Justice Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice KV Viswanathan pausing the proceedings in the contempt matter initiated by it on April 24.
The bench also referred the matter to Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud for further clarification.
Justice Gavai pointed out that since his Bench had initiated the contempt proceedings against the DDA first on April 24, the Bench led by Justice Oka ought to have sought clarifications from the Chief Justice of India before initiating contempt proceedings against the DDA on the same cause of action as to which bench should continue with the said proceedings.
Noting that Justice Oka-led Bench did not adhere to judicial propriety on May 14, he said the appropriate course for any Bench would have been to refer the matter to the CJI. Ultimately, it was the Chief Justice who was the Master of the Roster, he added.
A situation has arisen wherein on the same cause of action, two contempt proceedings were pending – one on the basis of the notice issued by the Bench presided by Justice Gavai, and the other on the basis of order passed by Justice Oka, the Bench presided by Justice Gavai yesterday recorded in its order.
It said the Amicus Curiae has apprised the Apex Court that the contempt proceedings initiated by Justice Oka-led Bench have substantially travelled and various orders have been passed by the said Bench. In order to avoid conflicting orders, this Bench found it appropriate to keep in abeyance the contempt proceedings initiated by Justice Gavai-led Bench vide order dated 24 April, 2024, it added.
The matter pertained to a suo motu contempt case initiated against DDA Vice Chairman Subhasish Panda for violation of orders passed in the MC Mehta batch of cases. Lately, it has been suspected that the DDA was doing a cover-up to protect Delhi LG VK Saxena.
Justice Gavai made the observations on July 24, while hearing another contempt case relating to tree felling in the Delhi Ridge area. The case was related to DDA seeking the court’s permission to cut some trees for widening of the road leading to the Central Armed Police Forces Institute of Medical Sciences (CAPFIMS), a hospital planned for paramilitary forces.
Initially, Amicus Curiae K Parmeswar took to submissions and recapitulated that the Central Empowered Committee had given two reports – No 4 and No 5. Report No 4 was with respect to a project where trees were cut in violation of two Supreme Court orders – one passed in TN Godavarman (being dealt by Justice Gavai-led Bench) and another passed in MC Mehta (being dealt by Justice Oka-led Bench).
He referred to the order passed in 2023 in TN Godavarman, which stated that until the exercise of identifying the Ridge area (as well as areas having similar morphological features to it) was completed by the court-appointed committee, no tree-felling shall take place without leave of the court.
The Amicus apprised the Apex Court that in violation of the order, DDA allotted land and permitted felling of trees, for which contempt notice was issued to it on April 24, 2024.
He added that in parallel proceedings (MC Mehta case), DDA moved applications seeking permission to fell trees for the road-widening project, but the same were declined in March, 2024. It was highlighted that the applicants did not disclose in these proceedings the order passed in TN Godavarman, which restricted DDA from felling trees until report of the Committee came.
On May 14, 2024, contempt proceedings were initiated by a Bench presided over by Justice Oka in MC Mehta. On behalf of DDA, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh contended that CAPFIMS was ready but cannot be made operational without a 24m wide road.
Justice Gavai then observed that ambulances also travelled to villages.
Senior Advocate Singh replied that the volume of traffic near CAPFIMS, a 800-bedded super-specialty hospital, necessitated a 24m wide road. He claimed that in view of the contempt plea, CAPFIMS was getting lost.
He further argued that he expected the application seeking permission to fell trees (for the road-widening project) to be listed under TN Godavarman.
When Justice Gavai point out that the petitioner moved the Court the in MC Mehta case, Singh said that he made a mistake. He prayed that the contempt case may be allowed to continue in MC Mehta as TN Godavarman dealt with a national interest project -CAPFIMS.
Justice Gavai observed that the bench would not like conflicting orders.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayan, who appeared for the petitioner in the contempt case before J Oka, also addressed the court on behalf of contempt-petitioners.
He submitted that the same action was contempt of two separate proceedings (TN Godavarman and MC Mehta).
He argued that there was an order in Godavarman, there was a separate order in MC Mehta. For the violation of Godavarman, one contempt petition was filed. For the violation of MC Mehta, separate contempt petition was filed.
The Bench responded that it was only keeping the proceedings pending before it in abeyance.
Clarifying that no order was being passed on merits, the Bench placed the matter before the CJI to seek instructions.