In Re: Felling of Trees in Aarey Forest (Maharashtra) (IA No. 68608 of 2023 in Suo Motu Writ (Civil) No. 2 of 2019)

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2023 INSC 381Decided 17 Apr 2023
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2 of 2019
J.B. Pardiwala

Background

In an earlier order, the Supreme Court had permitted the Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Limited (MMRCL) to approach the Tree Authority for permission to fell only 84 trees at Aarey Colony for a Metro Car Shed. Instead, MMRCL later applied to the Tree Authority itself (without returning to the Supreme Court) for permission covering 185 trees, and the Tree Authority granted permission to fell 124 and transplant 53. The Bombay High Court, in public interest litigation challenging this, held that the expanded permission exceeded what the Supreme Court had authorised and that felling should not proceed without the Supreme Court's own clarification, prompting MMRCL to file this application seeking that clarification.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that MMRCL had acted improperly by going to the Tree Authority for more trees than the Court had authorised, instead of coming back to the Court itself when the numbers changed, and held that this conduct warranted being penalised. However, since more than 2000 trees had already been felled for the metro project and halting work at this stage would bring a public infrastructure project to a standstill, the Court declined to stay the 15 March 2023 permission. It instead allowed MMRCL to proceed, subject to conditions: depositing Rs. 10 lakh with the Conservator of Forests within two weeks, ensuring compliance with prior afforestation directions, filing compliance reports, and having IIT Bombay depute a team (at MMRCL's cost) to independently verify compliance with the afforestation/transplantation directions.

Lesson Learnt

Even when a court ultimately permits a public project to proceed for practical reasons, a party that oversteps the specific permission granted by a court, rather than going back to seek fresh authorisation, can still be penalised and subjected to added conditions and independent oversight for that overreach.