Uttarakhand High Court Continues Stay On Tree Felling In Sahastradhara

By filing the Public Interest Litigation ('PIL'), the petitioner had sought a writ of mandamus against the respondents to stop cutting of trees for the purpose of widening of road from Jogiwala/Ladpur/Sahastradhara Crossing/ Krishali square/Pacific golf estate in which approximately 2,057 trees were earmarked for felling. The Court while issuing notice in May, had put an interim stay on tree felling.

Subsequently, the respondents filed their counter affidavit, wherein they stated that widening of the road is absolutely necessary for the proper development of communication and tourism in the State of Uttarakhand and in alternative, they proposed to transplant the precious trees and fruit-bearing trees. However, they particularly stressed to eliminate certain trees which are not very ecology friendly, e.g., eucalyptus.

Mr. Abhijay Negi, counsel for the petitioner had raised objections to the proposed felling of eucalyptus trees, relying on a report which stated such trees to be good for the ecology, having cooling effect. However, the Court did not agree with the findings of that report, acknowledging the universal fact that eucalyptus trees have adverse effect on soil conservation and soil texture and have also negative effect on the water table of the concerned area.

The Court, after giving consideration to this serious issue of conflict between the requirement of development and protecting ecology and environment, had accepted the proposal submitted by the State of Uttarakhand through Executive Engineer, PWD, Rishikesh with certain modifications.

Accordingly, it modified its earlier order dated 06.04.2022 with the following directions:

"a) That widening of the road shall continue but, out of 2057 trees that is proposed to be felled, only 1006 eucalyptus trees are allowed to be felled by the authorities in the widening of road. As far as 79 trees are concerned, as per the counter affidavit they shall remain, as is where is basis and they shall not be cut or harmed in any way. Regarding the rest 972 trees, which include valuable fruit bearing trees belonging to the precious flora of Sub-Himalayan region shall be transplanted to a suitable place as undertaken by Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State as well as by Mr. Dhirendra Kumar, Executive Engineer, PWD, Rishikesh Division.

b) We further direct that the respondents shall also plant appropriate trees, in addition to construction of the road and transplantation of trees existing thereon, as per the recommendations of DFO, Mussoorie on both sides of the proposed road. Not only such trees shall be planted but appropriate steps shall be taken in the next five years for their protection, watering and manure/ fertilizer etc. and then in every six months State Government will submit a report regarding it."

With such observations, the matter was directed to be listed after six months awaiting the report of the concerned authorities. The first report was ordered to be submitted in the second week of December, 2022.

However, in the meanwhile, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court seeking its intervention. On 1^st August, a Division Bench of the Apex Court comprising Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia had remanded the matter back to the High Court observing,

"All questions are kept open to be urged before the High Court. We also grant liberty to the petitioner to raise all appropriate issues before the High Court in the pending proceedings, including on the feasibility of transplantation and the need for felling of trees. Since the writ petition is pending before the High Court, the issues which have been raised before the High Court are left open for being addressed before the High Court."

Subsequently, the High Court had stayed its previous order dated 22^nd June 2022 and put a halt to the proposal for felling of trees. Now, the same stay has been ordered to be continued till further orders. The matter has been listed for next hearing on 22^nd August 2022.

Case Title: Ashish Kumar Garg v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.

Case No.: Writ Petition (PIL) No. 68 of 2022

Order Dated: 17^th August 2022

Coram: S.K. Mishra, ACJ. & R.C. Khulbe, J.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Abhijay Negi & Ms. Snigdha Tiwari, Advocates

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. S.N. Babulkar, Advocate General & C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel

Click Here To Read/Download Order