The Delhi High Court has held two government officials guilty of contempt for failing to comply with earlier judicial directions governing permissions for felling or transplanting trees.
Justice Jasmeet Singh observed that a Tree Officer cannot grant permission to fell or transplant trees merely because they obstruct the entrance or exit of a proposed building. The Court stressed that authorities must properly examine each case, consider transplantation and record reasons before permitting removal of trees.
Background Of The Case
The contempt proceedings arose after two fully grown trees located on a pavement in Greater Kailash-II, Delhi, were cut pursuant to permission granted for their transplantation.
The permission stated that the trees were situated in front of the proposed main entrance and exit of a building.
The Court examined whether such a reason was sufficient to justify permission for removal of the trees.
Earlier Directions Of The High Court
The Court noted that its earlier orders dated April 28, 2022 and May 19, 2022 required Tree Officers to:
- Inspect trees proposed to be felled or transplanted;
- Consider whether transplantation was possible;
- Apply their independent mind before granting permission;
- Record reasons for granting or refusing permission; and
- Maintain appropriate photographic documentation.
Building Entrance Not Sufficient Reason For Tree Felling
The High Court found that the permission issued on February 28, 2023 did not contain adequate reasons or photographs of the trees.
The only justification given was that the trees came in front of the main entry and exit of the proposed building.
The Court held that this could not constitute sufficient justification for permitting the trees to be removed, particularly since the trees were located on the pavement and outside the property’s boundary wall.
Court Warns Against Gradual Loss Of Trees
The Court expressed concern that permitting trees to be felled whenever they obstruct entrances to buildings could have serious consequences for Delhi’s urban environment.
It observed that if such permissions were routinely granted, there could eventually be very few trees remaining in residential colonies, as many trees are planted along pavements outside property boundaries.
Officials Held Guilty Of Contempt
The Court found Tree Officer Mandeep Mittal and Principal Chief Conservator of Forests C.D. Singh guilty of contempt for disobeying the earlier directions concerning the grant of tree-felling or transplantation permissions.
The Court has directed both officials to show cause as to why they should not be punished for contempt. The matter is listed for September 2.
Significance Of The Judgment
The ruling reinforces that:
- Tree-felling permissions cannot be granted mechanically.
- Authorities must record proper reasons before permitting removal of trees.
- The possibility of transplantation must be considered.
- Obstruction of a building entrance, by itself, is not sufficient justification for removing trees.
- Government officials must comply strictly with binding judicial directions.
- Environmental protection must be considered while permitting construction-related activities.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s order underscores that urban development cannot automatically take precedence over the protection of trees. Tree Officers are required to exercise their statutory powers carefully, apply their mind, consider alternatives such as transplantation and provide adequate reasons before permitting trees to be removed. The Court’s contempt proceedings also highlight that failure to comply with judicial safeguards can result in personal accountability for public officials.
