Uttarakhand High Court Vacates Stay On Cutting Of Trees For Construction Of Sahastradhara Road; Directs Govt To Transplant Trees

The Uttarakhand High Court has allowed the proposed cutting of '2057 numbers of trees' for road-widening project in the Sahastradhara passage leading to Mussoorie. While denying relief in the stay application filed by the petitioner to halt the move, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Ramesh Chandra Khulbe observed, "As to which road should be developed or expanded, is a matter of policy decision. Neither the petitioner has a vested right to claim that the respondent should formulate a policy which he thinks proper, nor is it for this Court to lay down the policy for the State Government. We are only concerned with the examination of the issue, whether the impugned actions of the State are illegal or unconstitutional, and, on that ground, whether they call for interference." Petitioner's Contentions: Mr. Abhijay Negi, counsel for the petitioner, argued vehemently against the proposed removal of the Eucalyptus trees. He placed reliance on an order passed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in Safal Bharat Guru Parampara v. State of Punjab & Ors., [Original Application No. 09 of 2014] dated 20.07.2015, to submit that the Tribunal has recognised the fact that Eucalyptus is not a harmful tree, and the myths about Eucalyptus tree consuming too much water, and causing dryness in the soil, have been shattered. He also contended that while claiming that the road in question is congested, the respondents have actually not undertaken any traffic assessment study before sanctioning, or starting the work under the project. He suggested that the respondents should construct elevated footpath, which should be 10-12 feet wide, on either side of the road. If this were to be done, about 70-80% of the trees proposed to be cut could be saved. He further submitted that the respondents are exceeding the norm of 3.5 metre width for each lane, by proposing the width of the lanes as 4.5 metre, just to axe the trees on either side of the road. He further submits that the respondents are unnecessarily proposing to create a median of 02 metre, which is not required, and, if its width is reduced, many of the trees proposed to be cut could be saved. He relied on the order of the Supreme Court in Association For Protection of Democratic Rights and another v. State of West Bengal & Ors., (2021) 5 SCC 466, to submit that it is essential to strike a balance between environmental conservation with right to development. He also argued that the manner in which the respondents are undertaking the process of transplantation, is completely unscientific. The petitioner has placed on record photographs of the trees, which the respondents have uprooted for the purpose of transplantation. He stated that all the branches and leaves of such trees have been cut, and only the trunks of the trees have been transported for translocation. Respondent's Contentions: Mr. S.N. Babulkar, Advocate General for the State, submitted that it is necessary to upgrade the road from the present two lanes to four lanes. He stated that in any four-lane project, as per the guidelines of the Indian Road Congress, the Central Verge (Divider) is necessary to be constructed for safer traffic movement. He highlighted, as per the Indian Road Congress – 73, 1980, the maximum traffic carrying capacity of a two-lane road is 10,000 Passenger Car Unit (PCU) per day. However, he pointed it out, the traffic census conducted on the Sahastradhara Road in the year 2019 shows that the total traffic count on the said road was 11,359 PCU per day, which is already higher than the traffic carrying capacity of the two-lane road. Assuming a 6% annual growth of traffic count over three years, the estimated PCU per day would be 13,500 PCU per day. Thus, the upgradation of four lanes from two lanes is needed. He vehemently contended that failure to upgrade the existing two lanes to four lanes would result in traffic congestion on the already busy road, which, in turn, would lead to higher consumption of petrol and diesel by vehicles, leading to emissions of highly polluting Green House Gases. He further submitted that sustainable development requires the balancing of the rights of the people to neat and clean environment, with the right of the people to reap the fruits of development. Neither of these two rights can be overlooked, and it is necessary to balance the two rights. To that effect, he placed reliance on observations made by the Apex Court in Jindal Stainless Limited and another v. State of Haryana & Ors., (2017) 12 SCC 1 and N.D. Jayal and another v. Union of India & Ors., (2004) 9 SCC 362. Mr. Babulkar also relied upon Vikram Trivedi v. Union of India, 2013 SCC OnLine Guj 5792, wherein the Gujarat High Court observed, "19. No development is possible without some adverse effect on the ecology and the environment but the projects of public utility cannot be...

Uttarakhand High Court Vacates Stay On Cutting Of Trees For Construction Of Sahastradhara Road; Directs Govt To Transplant Trees

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

Tags