Tuesday, December 24, 2024
154,225FansLike
654,155FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe

Tree felling by DDA: CJI transfers case to his Bench from Justice Oka’s Bench

A Bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud will now hear the contempt case filed against the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for felling of trees in ridge forest area of Delhi.

The case has been listed before a Bench of CJI Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra for hearing on August 29.

The matter pertained to a suo motu contempt case initiated against DDA Vice Chairman Subhasish Panda for violation of the orders passed in the MC Mehta batch of cases.

The felling of trees was ordered by Delhi Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena for the road widening project from Main Chhattarpur Road to SAARC Chowk, Gaushala Road Row, and from SAARC Chowk to CAPFIMS (Hospital) Row.

The Bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan had observed during the previous hearings that the official correspondences indicated that the trees were cut following the oral instructions given by the LG, who was also the Chairman of the DDA, during his site visit on February 3.

The top court of the country had earlier warned that it would issue a contempt notice to the Delhi LG. It asked the Chief Secretary to explain whether the LG was told about the Court’s orders.

On July 12, the Bench noted that the truth regarding the LG’s visit came out through records after much ‘cover-up’ by the DDA. It demanded a specific answer on whether the tree cutting was ordered by him.

The Apex Court had earlier noted that the email records suggested that the tree felling was carried out as per the orders of the LG VK Saxena after he visited the site on February 3, 2024. However, DDA submitted that the LG’s visit was to the CAPFIMS. The Court then directed the DDA to “come clean” on this aspect.

On June 26, the Apex Court expressed its displeasure on the DDA’s first affidavit, which, it said, tried to protect the ‘higher-ups’. The Bench directed that a compliance report be filed by July 11 disclosing records of what transpired in the visit by the Delhi Governor.

On July 24, a Bench of Justice BR Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice KV Viswanathan took objection to Justice Oka’s bench taking up the contempt petition.

Justice Gavai pointed out that since his Bench had initiated the contempt proceedings against the DDA Vice-Chairman 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.

Halting the contempt proceedings initiated on April 24, Justice Gavai
referred the matter to the CJI for clarification. Noting that Justice Oka-led Bench did not adhere to judicial propriety on May 14, Justice Gavai 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.

After Justice Gavai’s order, the matter was not listed before Justice Oka’s bench on the scheduled date of July 31.

On July 30, Chief Secretary of the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi Naresh Kumar filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court saying that Delhi LG VK Saxena was not made aware of the necessity to obtain the Apex Court’s permission for felling trees in the southern Ridge.

The affidavit stated that the LG, at the time of the visit held on February 3, 2024, to the project site, issued directions to all the concerned officers/officials to expedite the completion of the project, since it was related to medical facilities for the Paramilitary Forces serving the nation, at a cost of approximately Rs 2200 crore.

To the best of the knowledge of the undersigned, none of the officers/officials present at the site brought to the notice of the LG the orders passed by the Apex Court and/or the requirement of obtaining permission from the Tree Officer. The directions issued by higher authorities during such visits, to expedite completion of the projects, cannot be considered as directions to either overlook or bypass the statutory provisions for expediting such works, it added.

spot_img

News Update