New Delhi, April 17 The Supreme Court on Monday observed that the Mumbai Metro has made an attempt to overreach its jurisdiction and directed it to pay Rs 10 lakh fine within two weeks for attempting tree felling in Aarey forest, beyond permission granted. However, the apex court allowed Mumbai Metro to remove 177 trees from Aarey forest.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud said Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Limited's (MMRCL) was not correct in moving the tree authority for felling of any trees in excess of 84. Pulling up MMRCL, the Chief Justice told the counsel, "You people think, you can take the Supreme Court for a ride. You cannot overreach the court... Ask the CEO of MMRCL to be present in court."
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing MMRCL, submitted that while there was lacuna on the authorities' part, it was bona fide and there was no intention to override the court, and added that there should be an unconditional apology.
The bench, also comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and J.B. Pardiwala, said, "It would be necessary for the court to penalise MMRCL for its conduct... the issue is that the permission which has been granted on March 15, 2023, be stayed by this court at present stage..."
However, the bench permitted the company to remove 177 trees from Aarey forest, noting that bringing a public project to standstill is not desirable. It also directed MMRCL within a period of two weeks to deposit Rs 10 lakh with chief conservator forest. It further added that the conservator should ensure all afforestation as directed is completed and also ensure that planting of trees direction is followed.
The top court asked the director of IIT Bombay to depute a team for the purpose of verifying compliance and report should be submitted to the apex court in three weeks.
Mehta contended that instead of monetary penalty, reforestation of 3,000 trees can be directed and added that this can serve a larger cause.
During the hearing, the bench questioned, how can the superintendent allow the felling of trees when there was a stay by this court and pointed that the court had allowed "to move tree authority for 84 trees felling". The MMRCL had sought permission to fell 185 trees instead of 84.
The top court noted that moving to the authority to fell 185 trees and they give the permission without seeking court's permission, then both superintendent and authority are in contempt.
Senior advocate C.U. Singh, representing one of the petitioners, submitted that the permission to trim has been used to chop trees and claimed that the company is lying through its teeth. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing one of the petitioners, said complete fraud had been played on the court.
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