The court also ordered maintaining status quo with respect to the ridge area and stayed any further felling of trees.
Representational Image
The Supreme Court on Thursday ordered no more cutting down of the trees in South/Central ridge forest area of the national capital and directed the personal presence of the Vice Chairman, Delhi Development Authority (DDA), and the Director General, the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) in the court on May 14 for allegedly defying its (top court) order.
Besides the presence of the Vice Chairman, DDA, and the Director General, CPWD, a bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan also asked the Director General of Forest and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Delhi, to remain present before it on May 14, 2024.
The court also ordered maintaining status quo with respect to the ridge area and stayed any further felling of trees.
Advertisement
The top court’s direction came in the course of hearing a petition by the New Delhi Natural Society seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the DDA/CPWD officials responsible for the cutting down of a large number of trees in the ridge forest area.
The petitioner – New Delhi Natural Society – has stated that the ridge forest area of Delhi has been subjected to illegal felling of trees by the DDA to construct 10.525 km-long approach roads from the main Chhatarpur Road to SAARC University, CAPFIMS and other establishments at Maidan Garhi, Sayurpur, and the Sat Bari areas of Delhi.
The petitioner, New Delhi Natural Society, has said the Lt Governor had issued a gazette notification on February 14, 2024, and relying on it, the authorities fell the trees. However, the petitioner Society has pointed out that nowhere does the notification allow the cutting of the trees located in the ridge area.
Earlier on March 4, 2024, the top court had rejected the DDA’s previous applications seeking permission to fell/ translocate 1051 trees.
The New Delhi Natural Society told the top court that the DDA did not inform it (the court) that the cutting down of trees had already taken place even before the court could pass any order on such applications seeking permission to fell/ translocate 1,051 trees.
Advertisement
