High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP-PIL/4/2018dismissed

Jahangeet Singh v. Union Of India

2018-12-14Mr Justice Jaswant Singh,Mr. Justice Fateh Deep Singh4 pages

!"#$%& '( Date of Decision: 14.12.2018 Jahangeet Singh .....Petitioner versus Union of India and others .....Respondents ') * '

+, +'

- + * '

- Present :

Mr. Aalok Jagga, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.P.Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India with Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 6. **** , +'

- +&.( This public interest litigation has been filed seeking a writ to restrain the respondents and in particular respondents No.2 and 3 from cutting down the trees in Chandigarh without any basis which is detrimental to the environment and ecology. A further writ of mandamus has been prayed to command respondents No.2 and 3 to place on record the permission for removal of 42 numbered trees from Serial Nos. 395 to 519 and quash the same as healthy eucalyptus trees are being cut down without any rhyme or reason.

A written statement has been filed on behalf of respondents No.3 and 6 stating therein that during the census of trees in the year 2017 it was noted that some trees are standing in a very dangerous position and likely to fall at any time during high winds which may result in loss of property and human life. The said trees were identified by the concerned Sub Divisional Engineer and he sought permission to remove the same. The concerned Executive Engineer after examining the matter and inspecting the

site submitted its report dated 02.05.2017 for seeking permission for removal of the trees. Relevant part of the report reads as under:8

"#$ %$ !$ &

&&$ (

) * + $ , -

$ .

The report of the Executive Engineer was submitted before the Superintending Engineer who after approval forwarded the same for further approval to the Chief Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, who accorded approval to the same on 08.05.2017. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the Chief Conservator of Forest, Chandigarh Administration for arranging the necessary approval from the competent authority to remove the 42 trees which were found standing in a dangerous position. 4.

The matter was again examined by the officers of the Forest Department who after site inspection submitted its report dated 08.06.2017. The matter went up to the level of the Deputy Conservator of Forest, who got the entire issue re8examined by another Range Officer who also submitted a report that trees are shallow rooted trees and are dangerous to life and property and accordingly recommended their removal. Thereafter the proposal for removal of the trees was then forwarded to the Secretary,

Forest Department, Chandigarh alongwith the proposal that the concerned Department will have to plant five times of the trees which were to be felled. The proposal was finally accepted by the Advisor to the Administration on 14.08.2017 and on the basis thereof the permission was accorded for cutting down of 42 trees which were identified. It is also mentioned in the written statement that the work for removal of the trees is in progress and till date 24 out of 42 Eucalyptus trees have been removed. 5.

Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently urged before us that Eucalyptus trees are prone to falling because they have shallow spreading roots and these trees can be a particular hazard in high winds. He also submitted that report was also sought from the Forest Research Institute, Dehradun which appointed two Scientists, namely, Dr. Amit Pandey and Dr. Sudhir Singh, both working as Scientists in Forest Entomology, Forest Research Institute, Dehradun, who after inspection submitted a report, relevant part of which reads as under:8 -

4/$

$ +

0 6

+ + +

+ -

+ + /

4/$

In view of the facts discussed hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that since the trees in question were found to be standing in dangerous position and hazardous to human life and property, the permission for felling was accorded in accordance with the procedure prescribed and thus there is no illegality which may warrant any interference in the matter.

Petition accordingly fails and stands dismissed.

!"# Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No Whether reportable √Yes/No