The Bombay High Court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed assailing the public notice dated 12.01.2023 issued by the Tree Authority.

The contention of the Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Respondents had filed Interim Application in Suo Moto Writ (Civil) of 2019 before the Apex Court and the Apex Court only permitted the Respondents to cut 84 trees. Now the public notice is issued by the Tree Authority inviting objections on the application of the Respondents for cutting 171 trees.

According to the counsel, the Respondents cannot be permitted to cut 171 trees. The Apex Court had only permitted the Respondents to apply for permission to fell 84 trees.

According to the Respondents, the trees are only 84 in number and the remaining are the shrubs which have grown in 3 to 4 years and they have become wide trees. In an Interim Application filed by MMRCL in Suo Moto Writ Petition before the Apex Court, the Apex Court has passed the following order:

“22. Moreover, it must also be noted that 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. Consequently, this Court was apprised on 7 October 2019 and 5 August 2022 that no further trees were required to be felled. As already noted earlier, 2144 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. It needs no emphasis that 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 above circumstances, we have arrived at the conclusion that 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. We clarify that 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.

23. The order of this Court, which has the effect of directing the preservation of status quo on the felling of trees, shall accordingly stand modified to the above extent thereby permitting the MMRCL to move the Tree Authority on its application for felling of 84 trees. The state government would be at liberty to proceed further.”

Public Notice has been issued by the Tree Authority. The Petitioner has already raised objection before the Tree Authority. The Petitioner can bring it to the notice of the Tree Authority, the order of the Apex Court. No final order has been passed by the Tree Authority. It is for the Tree Authority to consider whether those trees beyond 84 were shrubs or otherwise. The Apex Court is already seized with the matter. It is for the parties to take appropriate steps , the Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice S.V.Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep V. Marne observed.

The Supreme Court today modified its status quo order on the Aarey metro car shed project and allowed the Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd (MMRCL) to pursue its application before the Tree Authority for the felling of 84 trees for the ramp at Aarey region in Mumbai for its metro car shed project.

The Court observed that Maharashtra Government’s fresh decision to restore the location of the car shed at Aarey, after changing its earlier decision to relocate the same to Kanjurmarg, was based on relevant considerations and that it would be ‘impossible’ for this Court to stay the decision at the interim stage.

The order was passed by a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha, which noted that, prima facie, there was a view of the Bombay High Court which holds as valid the felling of trees as well as the decision to locate the metro car shed at Aarey. The Bench also noted that the Supreme Court had earlier declined interim relief against the project.

The Court said that the tree authority will be at liberty to take an appropriate decision on MMRCL’s application by imposing suitable conditions. 

During the hearing today, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta had presented the map of Aarey project in the court and said that the government was seeking permission to cut 84 trees to build a shed in the metro project.

the CJI asked the SG, whether the authority was waiting for permission to cut trees?

The SG replied in yes and said that out of the total project cost of Rs 23,000 crore, Rs 22,000 crore had been invested. Due to the same litigation, the cost of the project has increased to Rs 37,000 crore.

The SG also told the court that 95 percent work of this project has been completed and if the entire project was stopped because of 84 trees, then a wrong message will be sent to the public.
The SG said that this project will help in reducing the carbon emissions and due to the metro track, the movement of vehicles will be reduced. No one will gain anything if this project is closed.
Regarding the trees, he said they will be transported from the project site and replaced with new trees.

On August 24, the Supreme Court had directed the MMRCL to extend its previous undertaking on no felling of trees for the construction of Aarey Metro Shed, till August 30.

The direction was given by a Bench comprising then CJI U.U. Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, which also granted the state government two more days as the last opportunity to place on record the additional documents in the case.

Appearing for Maharashtra government, Advocate Chitnis had contended that there were 29 additional documents, for which, he needed time to collate. the Court gave him time till August 26.
Advocate Rukmini Bobde, representing MMCL, contended that it has already filed an affidavit that no tree has been cut after the Court’s order of October 7, 2019 and will not be cut in any manner till further orders.
The Court ruled that the undertaking given by Mr. Charudas, Director of MMRCL, has been taken on record already and that MMRCL needs to be ‘strictly’ bound by the undertaking.

Representing the petitioners, Senior Advocate Anitha Shenoy alleged that despite the SC order, MMRCL was continuing with the “levelling” work.

She sought an order from the Court that no development work be undertaken by MMRCL, after which the Court directed the Corporation to abide by its previous undertaking. The Counsel for MMRC assured the Court that no trees will be cut till the next hearing (August 30).

The Bench further said that it was a matter of a few days and that if MMRCL violated the undertaking, the Court will take a serious view.

On its previous hearing, the Apex Court had noted the statement made by SG Mehta that MMRCL did not cut any tree after the Court’s order of October 7, 2019 and the status quo will be maintained till the next hearing.

The Court had directed the parties to file a convenience compilation.
The Supreme Court had taken suo motu cognisance of the issue on October 7, 2019 on the basis of a letter petition by law student Rishabh Ranjan against cutting of trees for the construction of a Metro Shed in Aarey Forest Area, Mumbai.

The cutting of trees in Aarey Forest had led to protests by environmental activists and residents of the area. Earlier, a Bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Ashok Bhushan had ordered that a “status quo be maintained with respect to cutting of trees”.

In August 2019, Mumbai Civic Body Tree Authorities had approved a proposal to cut 2,185 trees from Aarey for construction. A series of pleas were filed in the Bombay High Court, but they were all dismissed. In the meanwhile, MMRCL had started cutting the trees.