Were trees cut on LG’s orders? SC seeks ‘clear statement’ from DDA

The Supreme Court on Monday warned it may issue a contempt notice to Delhi’s lieutenant governor as it hauled up the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) over the culpability for the felling of 1,100 trees for the widening of a road in south Delhi, a move the judges described as “brazen damage to the environment”.

Justices AS Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said the Capital’s land-owning agency must now include clauses making court permission necessary in future contracts for any development work.

Also Read: SC rebukes DDA for cutting trees in Delhi Ridge, says can’t trust it now

“Such brazen damage to environment cannot be ignored by courts. 1,100 trees have been felled. It is such a serious matter and you are taking it so casually. If statutory authorities do not perform their functions, courts will have to give a clear message to authorities that environment cannot be damaged in this fashion,” the bench said.

The case stems from a contempt petition filed by Delhi resident Bindu Kapurea, who alleged trees were cut despite a March 4 court order denying permission and the fact that the trees had been cut being suppressed from the judges.

“We are really pained at what kind of invaluable trees have been felled. The kind of trees felled, the FSI report indicates, has caused an irreparable damage,” the judges said, posting the matter for Wednesday. They indicated that they could direct a “massive afforestation and replanting drive” in the Capital to make up for the damage.

The court questioned DDA’s practice of employing serving judicial officers as legal advisors, calling it a violation of judicial independence.

The judges also came down hard on fixing responsibility within the agency over the tree-felling, warning that the LG Vinai Kumar Saxena, who is the chairperson of DDA, could be included in the case. This aspect refers to submissions by DDA in the past – the agency in an in-house inquiry identified three officers, executive engineer Manoj Kumar Yadav and two subordinate officers Pawan Kumar and Ayush Saraswat, as those who allowed the trees to be downed.

But the bench said they appeared to be made “scapegoats” since email communication attached with DDA vice chairman Subhashish Panda’s affidavit showed it was on the LG’s orders that the trees were felled. The inquiry identified a fourth officer – superintending engineer Pankaj Verma --- for suppressing the fact on felling of trees from the court.

The court asked Panda to give a “clear statement of facts” on who ordered the trees to be cut. “We have no option but to say it was done at the instance of LG. Now we have to issue contempt notice to LG in his capacity as chairman of DDA,” the bench observed.

The emails written by Manoj Kumar Yadav on February 7 and 14 showed the LG visited the site in question on February 3 and “directed to clear the trees coming in the right of way”.

“The way things have happened; the whole thing is highly suspicious. There is much to be said after having gone through the annexures attached with the affidavit (of DDA VC),” the bench said. Pointing to the emails, the court told the land-owning agency: “Let us face these two documents which shows it is LG who directed cutting of trees. If it is LG, he is chairman of DDA, we will not hesitate to make him a party.”

Focussing on what role, if any, the LG played, the judges said asked Panda to state in his affidavit whether any record was maintained of LG’s visit and what transpired following his visit. “We propose to hold a detailed enquiry into such a gross conduct by DDA resulting in felling of so many trees...If we implead all the (four) officers, the truth will be out and what happened after the visit of LG will come out.”

Senior advocates for DDA suggested the emails didn’t clearly implicate the lieutenant governor.

Senior advocate Maninder Singh and Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for DDA, said that on February 3, Saxena was visiting the hospital for central armed paramilitary forces which is near the site where trees were felled. They sought to rely on the enquiry report which held the officers concerned responsible for giving permission to the contractor for tree felling.

Jethmalani said the LG holds a constitutional office and it must be first verified whether he visited the site or gave such instructions. The court replied, “He is a constitutional authority but he is amenable to judicial review as statutory head of DDA.”

Attorney General R Venkataramani defended Panda, stating he was on medical leave when the felling occurred.

To this, the court added: “You are easily blaming the subordinate officers. But tell us if it is LG or someone else. The communication indicates it is done by LG and somebody has been made the scapegoat. Unless you do not disclose the person who issued, we will make LG a party as he is chairman of DDA.”

DDA said 642 trees were cut for a road-widening project and that it was willing to plant 100 trees for each one felled. The court said it will address contempt proceedings against DDA officials on July 10.

The larger issue regarding ridge area depletion and felling of trees in the Delhi ridge region is another issue pending before a separate bench of the top court.