New Delhi, Oct 16 The Supreme Court on Wednesday called for a personal affidavit from Delhi Lt Governor V.K. Saxena, who functions as Delhi Development Authority (DDA) Chairman ex-officio, over felling of trees in the national capital's Ridge area in violation of the apex court's order.
A Bench headed by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud asked the Delhi Lt Governor to file an affidavit before October 22, detailing the steps taken to attribute accountability to the officials who acted in breach of directions of the apex court.
The Bench, also comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, was dealing with a contempt plea alleging that a large number of trees on the ridge had been felled by the DDA without seeking the top court's leave.
The apex court said that the DDA Chairman should set in action disciplinary proceedings or criminal prosecution against the erring officials without awaiting for its direction.
Earlier, the Supreme Court had categorically asked if the Lt Governor had visited the site and directed the felling of trees.
It had remarked that it "will not hesitate" to implead the DDA Chairperson as a party to the pending contempt proceedings, adding that the L-G, being the statutory head of the DDA, is amenable to judicial review and
Before this, the top court has issued notice to DDA Vice Chairperson and asked why he should not be prosecuted for criminal contempt of court for wilful breach of its orders prohibiting the felling of trees.
"We are not prepared to believe that the contractor entrusted with the work of widening the road has indulged in cutting trees of his own volition. Obviously, it has to be on the basis of the instructions from the officers of the DDA," it had said.
It had observed that the DDA Vice Chairperson misled the L-G by forwarding a proposal to set up a committee of experts to minimise the trees felled.
"We hope and trust that the Lt Governor will take this issue very seriously, not only in his capacity as the Lt Governor of Delhi but also in his capacity as the Chairman of the DDA," the Supreme Court had added.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor