The Delhi High Court on Friday rebuked South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) on the issue of concretization of trees in the capital, and said it is the worst kind of human rights abuse as it changes the whole environment of people. The court had sought response SDMC and Delhi Police on concretizing hundreds of trees.
The bench of Justice Najmi Waziri noted, “This is not a joke anymore. The symbiotic relationship is far too extensive. We cannot do without it. We don’t want you to concretize the trees that you can’t take care, you tell us. Resident Welfare Association will take care of it. Any number of RWAs are ready to take it up, I am confident about that,” while hearing a petition which highlighted the inaction of the authorities for preservation of trees in Vasant Vihar.
The court told Sanjeev Sabharwal, counsel appearing for SDMC that they are changing the neighboiurhood of the people and people are becoming alien in their own environment, which happens to be the worst form of human rights abuse. Constitutional rights are living document. Just because the corporation is not working, does not mean the citizens will be pushed back.”
Justice Najmi Waziri went on to explain the importance of trees in our environment and asked if the SDMC is aware about the value of a fully grown tree. According to report filed in the Supreme Court the value of a fully grown tree is 1 crore rupees, a tree which has a 100 year life .While further giving an example he said, if a lady has lived in a colony for about 50 years, where she used to get up and look at that one tree, and suddenly if its chopped off or it becomes ill because of MCD contractors concretizes it to the tree trunk then there will be no air, water, nitrogen for the tree and eventually it dries up. And some day due to heavy winds or storms it will come down. Then that particular neighborhood will never be the same nor for the lady neither for her children.
“Is there no sense of urgency for a citizen’s right? said the bench. The counsel replied, “Today is the Constitution day. I am appearing for so and so.” The bench interrupted and remarked,” For what? Kya kehne ke liye aaye hai app. It is not for the court. Please respect the citizens. Their rights come first that is why I said there have to be separate counsels for both the parties as there will be conflict of interest. Aapko citizen dikhta hi nai hai.”
The bench while showing disapproval over the whole incident said,
“Look at the condition? Do you have no concern for your immediate neighbors, elderly gentleman who would want to go for a walk? How will they go for a walk? Seedhe chalna mushkil hota hain. Look at the condition of the footpath. Their lives are endangered. Look at this mushkil. Every portion, it has been just concretized.”
The court inquired about the situation on the site form Aditya N Prasad, counsel appearing for the petitioner.
To which Prasad submitted,
” Because of gag orders the work is going on intermittently and now there is a Supreme Court order stopping all the constructions and even if the civil work doesn’t go on, the horticulture is doing whatever they can by removing wires, nails and spraying insecticides. The survey representative is constantly present there.”
During the hearing of the present matter the court pulled up Delhi Police regarding the car parking on pavements which was shown in photographs brought on record. And asked about the affidavit of DCP and what does the order say ?, also asked to make pathways free of any and every obstacle.
The bench threatened to discharge the vakalatnama of the counsel stating,
“You are in contempt today. Do you not understand simple things? This is simply just making statement here and there. Kya kiya hai abhi tak? I will discharge your vakalatnama now. Give me an answer which is worthy of making a submission in this court. Kya kiya hai tabse aap ne. You have done nothing, therefore you are in contempt. Do you understand that? You are officer of the government? Law officer? Is this the answer you want to give us that we will not comply with the court’s orders.”
On a previous occasion, the bench observed that the constitutional guarantee of citizens’ freedom of movement as enshrined in the Constitution should not be edged in by the lack of civic amenities.