Delhi High Court slams officials for excessive concretisation after trees fall in thunderstorm

Read Time: 04 minutes

The Delhi High Court on Thursday expressed its anguish over the damage caused to the city's trees due to the callousness of the city authorities. 

A Single Bench of Justices Najiz Waziri while dealing with contempt cases regarding preservation of trees in Mira Marg and Vikas Nagar observed that the roots of the trees had weekend due to construction and concretisation of the earth. 

Court said, "Who is responsible for what Delhi has witnessed over the last three days? The officers. It is because of their callousness that the city has lost hundreds of trees in the heart of the city. These trees are 40-50 years old! What is happening?PWD has encroached upto the neck of these trees. There is no space to breathe, no air going in, no water going in, the roots have dried up! Everything toppled in one storm!"

Justice Waziri noted that the court would hold the concerned officers responsible in the present proceedings. 

Advocate Aditya Prasad, appearing for the petitioners, highlighted an instance of a tree that fell in the storm and was subsequently cut down and the court sought an explanation from the authorities with respect to its status.

“The city has witnessed extensive devastation to its vegetation caused by a thunderstorm. Majestic old trees have succumbed to the strong winds because the roots had weakened courtesy largely to the agencies owning the roads or permitting concretisation of the earth around it and indeed, callously disregarding care, upkeep of the trees,” observed Justice Waziri.

On May 19, the court had passed an interim order in the matter and stayed any further felling of trees in Delhi. Court had opined that there was no other way to mitigate the ecological and environmental degradation in the city while noting that over 29,000 trees were cut down in the past three years in the national capital and questioned if Delhi has the “luxury” to bear such numbers.

Cause Title:- Neeraj Sharma v Vinay Sheel Saxena (Cont. Cas (C) 851/2022)