Bombay High Court To Hear PIL Challenging Cutting of 177 Trees In Aarey Next Week
The counsel for MMRCL informed the court that the application was essentially for 84 trees but over a period of time the number of trees has grown.
A division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Acting Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep V Marne will hear the case pertaining to the feeling of tress at Aarey in Mumbai next week.
Last Week, the Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Limited (MMRCL) raised concerns before the court regarding the issues caused by the delays resulting from legal cases pertaining to the construction of the car depot at Aarey.
The MMRCL indicated that as a result of these delays, more trees may need to be cut down for the car depot's construction since many plants and saplings have matured into trees during the pending legal matters.
Senior Advocate Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, representing MMRCL, informed the Court that the initial application was for the felling of 84 trees, but due to the passage of time, the land now has a larger number of trees that have grown on it.
During the hearing of the public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Zoru Bhathena, challenging the notice issued by the tree authority of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to remove 177 trees at Aarey, the statement was made.
The PIL claimed that the notice was based on an application by MMRCL, which was filed after a Supreme Court order in November 2022, allowing the corporation to request the felling of only 84 trees for the project.
Advocate Zaman Ali, representing Bhathena, requested an adjournment to seek clarification on the additional shrubs and trees. He objected to the statement saying it was not informed to the Supreme Court during the hearing and should have been clarified.
Last week, the division bench of Acting Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep Marne granted Ali time and postponed the matter for further consideration after a week.
Bhathena challenged the notice issued by the tree authority, claiming that it violated the Supreme Court's order, which only allowed the felling of 84 trees. He filed the present PIL after the authority refused to withdraw its notice.
When the matter came up today, one of the counsels was engaged in another case and therefore the court kept the matter for next week.