Previously, the Supreme Court had explicitly directed the DDA to refrain from any further tree cutting activities in the designated area, which includes the forest ridge near Delhi University.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court rebuked the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for chopping down trees in specific regions, including the forest ridge near Delhi University, contrary to an earlier court directive to maintain the status quo [Bindu Kapuria v. Subhasish Panda].
During the May 14 session, the Vice-Chairman of the DDA appeared before the Court and acknowledged that trees were indeed felled both on DDA-owned land and within forested areas.
A Bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan remarked that the DDA’s actions seemed to constitute criminal contempt of court, but stated that they would address this matter on May 16.
The Court said “Prima facie, this conduct may amount to criminal contempt. However, we will pass appropriate order in this regard on the next date.”
The Court directed the Vice-Chairman of the DDA to appear in court for the upcoming hearing and submit a personal affidavit outlining steps to restore the trees that were cut down despite previous orders to refrain from doing so.
Additionally, the affidavit must provide information regarding the officials responsible for authorizing the tree felling, as mandated by the Court.
“We expect Shri Subhasish Panda, Vice-Chairman of the DDA, to come out with at least approximate figure of the trees felled and names of the officers of the DDA who authorised felling of trees. He will also tell us the names of the officers who permitted the contractor to fell the trees. He will also point out when the process of felling of trees commenced … The personal presence of Shri Subhasish Panda, Vice-Chairman of the DDA will be mandatory,“ the Court’s May 14 order said.
The Supreme Court was addressing several contempt petitions expressing alarm over extensive tree felling conducted by the DDA.
On May 9, the Supreme Court issued a notice regarding one of these contempt petitions and instructed the authorities to cease any further tree felling in the region.
On Tuesday, the Court prolonged the enforcement of this interim relief measure.
“In the meanwhile, the interim relief granted earlier by this Court to continue,” the Court said.
In a connected contempt petition, the Supreme Court expressed dissatisfaction with a counter-affidavit submitted by the DDA on May 13 and instructed it to file an additional counter-affidavit within a fortnight.
Among other specifics, the Supreme Court requested the DDA to clarify in this affidavit whether any expert opinion was sought prior to the removal of “dead vegetation and dried stems” from the area where tree felling occurred. This case is scheduled for the next hearing on July 9.
The petitioners were represented by senior advocates Huzefa Ahmadi and Madhavi Divan, along with advocates Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Nikhil Rohatgi, Ankit Shah, and Manan Verma.
The DDA’s representation included Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, among other legal counsel.
Read the order here
Share your news, articles, deals, columns, or press releases with us! Click the link to submit and join our platform today.
