Read Time: 05 minutes
The petitioners had challenged the order of High Court wherein 1006 eucalyptus trees were allowed to be felled as they were found not to be ecology friendly, 79 trees were directed not to be cut while 972 trees, which include valuable fruit bearing trees belonging were directed to be transplanted
A Supreme Court bench of Justices Chandrachud and Sudhanshu Dhulia today refused to stay the order of the Uttarakhand High Court allowing to cut down the eucalyptus trees to widen the Sahastradhara road in Dehradun for development and tourism.
The Apex Court has asked the petitioners to make their contentions before the High Court as it will not be appropriate for the Supreme Court, to take over the matter while the High Court is still hearing it.
Court has also directed the High Court, to deal with the matter within one week of receiving the order copy.
The High Court had passed the order, in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a writ of mandamus to stop the felling of trees for widening of road from Jogiwala/Ladpur/Sahastradhara Crossing/ Krishali square/Pacific golf estate in which approximately 2057 trees were earmarked for felling.
In May 2022, the High Court while issuing notice in the PIL directed that in the pursuance of the proposed road widening no trees shall be felled by the authorities.
However, the High Court, in June 2022, partially modified its earlier order restraining the State from cutting trees. Out of the 2057 trees earmarked for felling, 1006 eucalyptus trees were allowed to be cut as they were found not to be ecology friendly, 79 trees were directed not to be cut while 972 trees, which include valuable fruit-bearing trees were directed to be transplanted. The court adjourned the matter to December 2022 to enable the authorities to submit a status report.
When the matter came up for hearing today, Senior Advocate Sanjay Pareek, appearing for the petitioner, vehemently argued against the order of the High Court and urged that a stay be granted against the order of the High Court. He urged that the tree cutting has not stopped, despite the authorities being intimated about the instant plea having been filed in the apex court. He submitted that trees would not survive the transplantation.
The bench, upon hearing the submissions, observed that it would not be appropriate to take over the proceedings from the High Court at this point in time. Court, thus, directed the High Court to deal with the matter in one week and directed the parties to raise their grievance before the High Court. The High Court has also been directed to consider the submissions.
Case Title: Ashish Kumar Garg vs. The State of Uttarakhand and Another
Please Login or Register
