Talk to a lawyer @499

News

Bombay HC Prevents The Mumbai Metro Corporation From Cutting Down 177 Trees In Aarey, Mumbai, Until Clarification From The SC

Feature Image for the blog - Bombay HC Prevents The Mumbai Metro Corporation From Cutting Down 177 Trees In Aarey, Mumbai, Until Clarification From The SC

Last Friday, the Bombay High Court ruled to prevent the Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd (MMRCL) from cutting down 177 trees in Aarey, Mumbai for the metro rail project until it seeks clarification from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had previously authorized MMRCL to approach local authorities to cut down the trees.

The decision was made after a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Zoru Bhathena, who contested the tree authority of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation's (BMC) ruling permitting the felling of 177 trees. MMRCL stated that the Supreme Court order allowed for the cutting of trees to clear land for the shunting area.

The Acting Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep Marne Division Bench noted that the case was still pending before the Supreme Court and would be heard on April 11. The Bombay High Court directed MMRCL to seek clarification from the Supreme Court on the tree authority's decision, and until then, MMRCL was prohibited from felling any trees.

During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Venkatesh Dhond representing the petitioner informed the Court that the Supreme Court had only allowed parties to approach relevant authorities for the felling of 84 trees. Furthermore, he added that there was a general restriction on cutting down trees. Senior Advocates Ashutosh Kumbhakoni (representing MMRCL) and Milind Sathe (representing BMC) justified the tree authority's decision and stated that it complied with the Supreme Court order.

Kumbhakoni argued that the Supreme Court permitted the lifting of the tree-cutting ban only because the project was crucial for the public, and without the clearance of trees, it would come to a standstill. However, the Court expressed its reluctance to interpret or clarify the Supreme Court's order, particularly since the matter was still pending before it.