WWW.LIVELAW.IN 1 WPL 290716 @ WPL 36517.doc2 & 3
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Mrs. Pervin Jehangir & Ors.
]
Versus ]
… Petitioners
… Respondents
ig h
Union of India and Ors.
C ou
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.2907 OF 2016
rt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ALONG WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.365 OF 2017
Versus
H
Mrs. Nina Deepak Verma.
]
ba y
Tree Officer, Municipal Corporation of ] Greater Mumbai and Ors. ]
… Petitioner
… Respondents
B
om
Mr. Robin Jaisinghani a/w Jacinta D'Silva for Petitioner in WPL 2907 of 2016. Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Advocate, a/w Mr. Raj Patel & Mr Saeed Mulani /b Mulani & Co. for Petitioner in WPL 365 of 2017. Ms. Kiran Bagalia i/b Mrs. Chitra Phadke for MMRDA. Ms. Trupti Puranik for Corporation. Ms. G. R. Shastri, Addl.G.P. for State. Mr. Ashish Kamat a/w Ms. Manik Joshi & Ms. Aditi Shukla i/b M/s. Chitnis & Co. for Intervener Mr. Sanjay Asher.
CORAM : DR. MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J., AND G. S. KULKARNI, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 09, 2017
URS
::: Uploaded on - 09/02/2017
::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2017 20:09:38 :::
WWW.LIVELAW.IN 2 WPL 290716 @ WPL 36517.doc2 & 3
rt
P. C. : Writ Petition (L) No.2907 of 2016 is pertaining to the
C ou
1.
larger issue with regard to Metro Line No.3 within Mumbai. Writ Petition (L) No.365 of 2017 pertains to the areas of Churchgate, Hutatma Chowk and Cuffe Parade. The main grievance at the moment seems to be cutting of age old trees indiscriminately without
ig h
applying mind to the provisions of the special enactment applicable so far as relocating or replanting or saving the existing trees. The Act concerned is the Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection And Preservation of Trees Act, 1975. According to Mr. Dwarkadas, learned
H
Senior Advocate appearing for petitioner Mrs. Nina Deepak Verma, the Tree Officer who has to give permission, is not applying the norms
ba y
or the procedure or precaution to be taken before granting permission for cutting a particular tree. According to him, the list of trees identified to be cut for the purpose of Metro Line No.3 contains wrong information with regard to the age of the trees, nature of the trees as
om
well as girth of trunk of the trees. According to him, there is manipulation in the preparation of the details in the list indicating the
B
trees to be removed. In that view of the matter, prima facie, we see that there has to be a serious concern regarding the latest problem placed before us since the trees approximately to be cut for Metro Line No.3 seem to be more than 5000. An affidavit is placed before us today along with the photographs by Mrs. Nina Deepak Verma indicating the details of trees proposed to be cut for Metro Line No.3, along with the photographs where already, according to the
URS
::: Uploaded on - 09/02/2017
::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2017 20:09:39 :::
WWW.LIVELAW.IN 3 WPL 290716 @ WPL 36517.doc2 & 3
rt
petitioner, 100 or more trees are cut, which amounts to massive
C ou
destruction. 2.
The learned Counsel for the Corporation as well as Metro
seek time to respond to this since the Court expressed a desire to create an independent committee to oversee the removal of the trees.
Stand over to tomorrow i.e. 10 February 2017.
4.
In the meantime, we make it clear that none of the parties
ig h
3.
ba y
H
would proceed to cut any tree till further orders.
(G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
B
om
(CHIEF JUSTICE)
URS
::: Uploaded on - 09/02/2017
::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2017 20:09:39 :::
