National Green Tribunal
Prof Dr Sanjev Bagai vs Department Of Environment Gnctd on 5 December, 2023
Item No. 5 (Court No. 2)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI.
(Through Physical Hearing with Hybrid VC Option)
Original Application No. 911/2022
I. A. No. 14/2023 and I. A. No. 16/2023
Prof. Dr. Sanjeev Bagai & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
Department of Environment, GNCTD & Ors. ...Respondents
Date of hearing: 05.12.2023
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER.
HON'BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER.
Applicant: Mr. Shobhit Sharma, Mr. Paritosh Dhawan and Ms.
Mahima Arora Advocates for Applicant.
Respondents: Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta Advocate for Respondent No. 1, 3
& 5.
Ms. Latika Malhotra & Ms. Kritika Gupta Advocates for
respondent no. 6-DDA.
Mr. Virendra Singh Proxy Counsel for Ms. Puja Kalra
Advocate for Respondent No. 7 MCD.
Ms. Zainab Khan Advocate for Respondent No. 18.
Application under Section 14 and 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
ORDER
1. The Applicants have filed application for withdrawal of OA No. 911 of 2022 titled as Prof. Dr. Sanjeev Bagai and others. Vs. Department of Environment, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and others with the following prayer:-
O.A. No. 911/2022 Prof. Dr. Sanjeev Bagai & Ors. Vs. Department of Environment, GNCTD & Ors.2
"a) Allow the Applicants to withdraw the Original Application No. 911/ 2022; and
b) Pass such other further orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may feel appropriate in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience."
2. The application for withdrawal has been filed on the grounds that above said OA was filed by the Applicants under Section 14 and 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, seeking direction from this Tribunal to take action against the Respondents for allowing and/ or engaging into cutting, felling and pruning of trees, in Vasant Vihar New Delhi in violation of Section 8 read with Section 2(h) of the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994, along with other reliefs. After filing of the OA, order dated 19.01.2023 passed by this Tribunal was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by way of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2317 of 2023, titled as "Prof. Dr. Sanjeev Bagai & Ors. Vs. Department of Environment, GNCTD & Ors". The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its judgement dated 29.05.2023 was pleased to strike down the guidelines issued by the Respondent No. 1 bearing no. F. No. 8(193)/CF/TA/07- 18/Part file/18-19/8473-80 dated 01.10.2019 for pruning of trees and grant other reliefs to the Applicants. Since all the reliefs sought and issues raised in the OA by the Applicants have been dealt/ addressed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, liberty was granted to the Applicants vide the said judgment dated 29.05.2023 to withdraw the OA. Since all the reliefs sought and issues raised in the OA by the Applicants have been dealt/addressed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi under Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2317 of 2023, the OA has become infructuous and the same may be allowed to be withdrawn.
O.A. No. 911/2022 Prof. Dr. Sanjeev Bagai & Ors. Vs. Department of Environment, GNCTD & Ors.
3
3. We have learned Counsel for the Applicants and learned Counsel for the respondents No.1, 3 and 5, 6, 7 and 18 and gone through the relevant report.
4. The learned Counsel for the applicants has reiterated the factual averments and the prayer made in the application.
5. On due consideration of the matter we are of the considered view for the reasons hereinafter mentioned that this OA having been filed for protection of public interest cannot be dismissed as withdrawn although the applicants can be allowed to withdraw from the same.
6. The Applicants filed OA No. 911 of 2022 titled as Prof. Dr. Sanjeev Bagai and others. Vs. Department of Environment, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and others under Sections 14 and 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 with the following prayer:-
"In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to pass the following orders:
A. Direct the Respondent Nos. 1-6 to take appropriate remedial and penal action against Respondent Nos. 12-17 for illegal act of cutting/ felling/ pruning of trees in Vasant Vihar in accordance with the applicable laws;
B. Direct the Respondent Nos. 1-6 to take appropriate remedial and penal action against Respondent Nos. 7-8 for giving permission to cut/ fell/ prune the trees to Respondent Nos. 12- 18 beyond jurisdiction;
C. Prohibit Respondent Nos. 12-17 from further cutting, felling, and pruning of trees in Vasant Vihar in future without any prior written approval of the concerned authority;
D. Direct the Respondent Nos. 10 and 11 to take action/ launch a probe with immediate effect against the Respondent Nos. 12- 17 (being managing committee members of Respondent No. 18) involved in the illegal act of pruning of trees;
E. Impose environmental compensation on the Respondent Nos. 12-17 for violating the provision of DPT Act, the said Guidelines and causing environment damage;
F. Direct the Respondent Nos. 12-17 to pay the aforesaid environmental compensation (as prayed in prayer 'E') from their O.A. No. 911/2022 Prof. Dr. Sanjeev Bagai & Ors. Vs. Department of Environment, GNCTD & Ors.
4 personal funds/ income and NOT from the account of Respondent No. 18; and G. Pass such other further order(S) as this Hon'ble Court deem fit to pass in the fact and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."
7. Vide order dated 20.12.2022, this Tribunal took cognizance as prima facie the averments made in the application raised questions relating to environment arising out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I to the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 and in the course of hearing ordered issuance of notices to concerned respondents. This Tribunal passed interim order dated 21.12.2022 permitting further pruning of the trees as mentioned therein and the relevant part of said order reads as under:-
"8. In the meanwhile further pruning of the trees, if considered necessary, be carried out by the concerned civic authorities, MCD/DDA as the case may be strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Delhi Preservations of Trees Act, 1994 and Guidelines dated 01.10.2019 issued by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, (HQ)/Member Secretary, Tree Authority for Pruning of Trees under the Delhi Preservations of Trees Act, 1994. The Deputy Conservator of Forest, West Forest Division (Tree Officer); Deputy Director, Department of Horticulture, MCD and Deputy Director, Department of Horticulture, PWD are directed to ensure that such pruning takes place strictly in compliance with the statutory provisions and guidelines."
8. The matter came up for hearing on 03.01.2023. Replies on behalf of Respondent No. 2-MCD and Respondent No. 18-Vasant Vihar Residents Welfare Association were filed vide emails dated 02.01.2023. Learned Counsel for the Respondents No. 1, 3 and 5 and learned Counsel for Respondent No. 6 sought time to file replies/response on behalf of Respondents No. 1, 3 and 5 and Respondent No. 6, respectively. Learned counsel for the applicants also sought time to file photographs and copies of relevant documents to show pruning of trees by Respondents No. 12 to O.A. No. 911/2022 Prof. Dr. Sanjeev Bagai & Ors. Vs. Department of Environment, GNCTD & Ors.
5 18 in violation of the guidelines/environmental norms. This Tribunal ordered that reply/response on behalf of Respondents No. 1, 3 and 5 and Respondent No. 6 and photographs and copies of relevant documents on behalf of applicants be filed within ten days. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that pruning has been done and is being done by respondents no. 12 to 18 without requisite permission and in violation of statutory provisions/norms and such pruning may result in killing of about 7000 trees in Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. Learned counsel for the Respondents No. 12 to 18 refuted the allegations and submitted that scientific pruning of trees being essential for their growth was required to be carried out by the concerned Civic Authorities in accordance with the guidelines issued in this regard. Mr. Gurpreet Singh Bindra, President of Vasant Vihar Residents Welfare Association also submitted that on earlier occasions also pruning was done on the requests made by the residents as per decision taken in the meetings of office bearers of the above said association including applicant no. 3 and expenses for the same were borne by the above said association. In response thereto, even learned Counsel for the applicant did not dispute the requirement of scientific pruning of the trees but reiterated that pruning of the trees had been and was being carried out in violation of the guidelines endangering the very life of the trees in question. This Tribunal passed interim order dated 03.01.2023 permitting pruning of trees and relevant part of the order reads as under:-
"11. Undisputedly, in the present case, Vasant Vihar Residents Welfare Association has approached the Civic Authorities for pruning of the trees in question in view of the request made by the residents of the locality. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the concerned Civic Authorities cannot be restrained from carrying out scientific pruning of the trees, which may be required for proper growth and health of the trees, in O.A. No. 911/2022 Prof. Dr. Sanjeev Bagai & Ors. Vs. Department of Environment, GNCTD & Ors.6
accordance with the provisions of the Delhi Preservations of Trees Act, 1994 and Guidelines dated 01.10.2019 issued by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, (HQ)/Member Secretary, Tree Authority for Pruning of Trees under the Delhi Preservations of Trees Act, 1994. In case of any unscientific pruning of the trees in violation of the guidelines, the applicants may avail the equally efficacious remedy of making complaints to the Deputy Conservator of Forest, West Forest Division (Tree Officer) who is directed to take appropriate action in accordance with law in case of making of any such complaint to him. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any impropriety in the Civic Authorities associating the Vasant Vihar Residents Welfare Association in carrying out scientific pruning of the trees. In fact, the environmental problems can be properly resolved with active participation of the members of the public/residents of the locality for protection and improvement of environment. The concerned instrumentalities of the State are required not only to create awareness amongst the members of public/residents of the locality but also to ensure their participation in plantation, protection, maintenance and management of trees by providing men-power/financial resources. In the facts and circumstance of the present case, it will be appropriate if the concerned Civic Authorities allow the office bearers of the Vasant Vihar Residents Welfare Association and residents of the locality including the applicants to participate, by voluntarily providing men- power/financial resources as the case may be, in carrying out scientific pruning of the trees in question as may be considered to be necessary in accordance with the guidelines under proper monitoring/supervision by the officials of the concerned Civic Authorities and Deputy Conservator of Forest, West Forest Division (Tree Officer) and the concerned Civic Authorities may for this purpose also constitute a Tree Management Committee (TMC) with concerned officials and office bearers of the Vasant Vihar Residents Welfare Association and residents of the locality including the applicants volunteering for plantation, protection, maintenance and management of the trees and other vegetation in the concerned area.
12. List for further consideration on 19.01.2023.
13. In the meanwhile, further pruning of the trees, if considered necessary, be carried out by the concerned Civic Authorities, MCD/DDA as the case may be strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Delhi Preservations of Trees Act, 1994 and Guidelines dated 01.10.2019 issued by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, (HQ)/Member Secretary, Tree Authority for Pruning of Trees under the Delhi Preservations of Trees Act, 1994 by associating office bearers of the Vasant Vihar Residents Welfare Association and other residents of the locality including the applicants volunteering for the purpose by providing the men-power/financial resources.
14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we also consider presence of the concerned Deputy Directors (Horticulture), MCD, DDA and PWD respectively and the Deputy O.A. No. 911/2022 Prof. Dr. Sanjeev Bagai & Ors. Vs. Department of Environment, GNCTD & Ors.7
Conservator of Forest, West Forest Division (Tree Officer) before this Tribunal on the date fixed to be essential for assisting this Tribunal in just and proper adjudication of the questions involved in the case and accordingly, they are directed to remain present before this Tribunal on the date fixed."
9. The Applicants filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2317 of 2023, titled as "Prof. Dr. Sanjeev Bagai & Ors. Vs. Department of Environment, GNCTD & Ors before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi with the following prayer:-
"In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased pass the following orders:
A. Set aside the order dated 19.01.2023 passed by the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench in Original Application No. 911 of 2022;
B. Decide the issue that whether pruning of trees on government land can be undertaken by any person (i.e. private individual) other than the land owning agencies; and whether guidelines bearing no. F.no.8(193)/CF/TA/07-18/Part file/18- 19/8473-80 dated 01.10.2019 (especially clause 5 of the same) are in conformity with the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994; C. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the concerned land- owning agencies/ civic agencies (viz. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi Development Authority and Public Works Department, etc.) to carry out pruning on their own (without taking/ seeking any man-power/financial aid from the residents of Vasant Vihar);
D. Expunge the observations of the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench 'casting aspersions' on the bonafide of the Petitioners in paras 18, 19 and 26 of the order dated 19.01.2023; AND E. Direct the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench to pass a reasoned order after hearing the application under Section 340 of the CR.P.C. a fresh by taking into consideration the complete record;
AND Pass such order further order (s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and necessary in the interest of justice."
10. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2317 of 2023, titled as "Prof. Dr. Sanjeev Bagai & Ors. Vs. Department of Environment, GNCTD & Ors was disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its judgement dated 29.05.2023. The relevant part of the judgment reads as under:-
O.A. No. 911/2022 Prof. Dr. Sanjeev Bagai & Ors. Vs. Department of Environment, GNCTD & Ors.8
"Conclusion:
14. Under the Act there is no sanction for the 15.7 cms girth of a tree branch to be cut. Therefore, this figure is incongruous with the statutory requirements as mandated under sections 8 and 9 of the DPT Act. The so-called permission granted under the Guidelines seek to over-reach the statute. The Guidelines, are in conflict with the DPT Act, they are arbitrary and illegal. Consequently, the permission for pruning, presumed to be or granted under the Guidelines would be of no consequence and shall always be non- est. Therefore, the Guidelines permitting regular pruning of branches of trees with girth upto 15.7 cm without specific prior permission of the Tree Officer are hereby set aside. The only permission that can be granted for pruning, etc. is under section 9 of the Act.
15. In view of the above, no pruning of trees will be permitted in Delhi except in accordance with the DPT Act. It will be open to the respondents to frame guidelines and/or rules as may be requisite.
16. As regards, the petitioner‟s reservations apropos the personal observations about him in the impugned order, the court is of the view that in the light of substantive orders having been passed in this petition, the personal observations stand superseded and would be of no relevance. They stand expunged. The learned counsel for the petitioner says, upon instructions, that in view of the above, he would seek to withdraw his petition before the NGT. The petitioner would always have the liberty to pursue all remedies as may be available to him in law.
17. As regards the complaints and specific grievances in this case, the learned counsel for the Tree Officer submits that he has received instructions as well as copies of the record of the proceedings on various dates before the Tree Officer. He assures the court that the matters will be expeditiously proceeded with in accordance with law.
18. In W.P (C) 12271/2022 titled Rajiv Dutta vs. GNCTD & Ors., this court had directed that complainants and public spirited persons who bring to the notice of the Tree Officer, DCF, any harm to trees or breach of statute or would be "required to be heard apropos complaint made or otherwise be kept informed throughout the proceedings...". There should be no denial of natural justice in proceedings initiated before the Tree Officer. Therefore, apropos the conduct of quasi-judicial proceedings, imparting of refresher courses, to the Tree Officers, DCF would be of some assistance. The GNCTD is directed to arrange refresher training courses as maybe requisite, which would also cover the conduct of hearings through hybrid mode, e-filing of petitions, replies, etc., for the benefit of Tree Officers, DCF and other Officers of the Department, at the Delhi Judicial Academy, within four weeks of receipt of this order.
19. The petition stands disposed-off in terms of the above."
O.A. No. 911/2022 Prof. Dr. Sanjeev Bagai & Ors. Vs. Department of Environment, GNCTD & Ors.
9
11. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi set aside the Guidelines permitting regular pruning of branches of trees with girth upto 15.7 cm without specific prior permission of the Tree Officer and directed that no pruning of trees will be permitted in Delhi except in accordance with the DPT Act and that it will be open to the respondents to frame guidelines and/or rules as may be requisite. As regards, the petitioner's reservations apropos the personal observations about him in the impugned order dated 03.01.2023 passed by this Tribunal, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi expressed the view that in the light of substantive orders having been passed in the petition, the personal observations stood superseded and would be of no relevance and expunged the same.
12. It may be observed here that the Applicants did not challenge the validity of the Guidelines before this Tribunal and challenged the same for the first time in the writ petition filed before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi set aside the Guidelines and expunged the remarks but Hon'ble High Court of Delhi did not completely set aside the impugned order dated 03.01.2023 passed by this Tribunal and also did not grant all the reliefs claimed in the OA particularly the relief for imposition and recovery of environmental compensation and the OA cannot be said to have become completely infructuous and is not liable to be dismissed as having become infructuous. It may also be added here that even Hon'ble High Court of Delhi also did not observe that the OA has become infructuous and merely observed as under:-
"16. ...The learned counsel for the petitioner says, upon instructions, that in view of the above, he would seek to withdraw his petition before the NGT. The petitioner would always have the liberty to pursue all remedies as may be available to him in law."
O.A. No. 911/2022 Prof. Dr. Sanjeev Bagai & Ors. Vs. Department of Environment, GNCTD & Ors.
10
13. Since the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi did not grant all the reliefs claimed in the OA, did not completely set aside order dated 03.01.2023 and did not observe the OA to have become infructuous, this Tribunal has to proceed with the OA and has to adjudicate upon all environmental questions involved in the case.
14. In Sheela Barse vs. Union of India ;AIR 1988 SC 2211: (1988) 4 SCC 226 Law Finder Doc Id # 89691 the main public interest litigation petition was filed by Sheela Barse to highlight the gross violations of the constitutional and statutory rights of a large number of children in the country who were suffering custodial restraints in various parts of the country and for the protection and enforcement of their rights. Sheela Barse filed Miscellaneous Petition for leave to withdraw the main public interest litigation on grounds which were held by Hon'ble Supreme Court to be untenable. The question agitated related to the aspect whether a public-minded person who brings such an action is entitled, as of right, to withdraw the proceedings from the court. The Applicant contended that not only that leave for withdrawal cannot be refused but also that the main petition cannot be continued by any other citizen or organisation. Hon'ble Supreme Court noticed that the prayer, if granted, would frustrate the important issues the main petition had served to highlight in the matter of the status and enforcement of the laws enacted for the protection and welfare of the children in the country. The proceedings espoused the cause of a large number of suffering children who, on account of the traditional inertia against reform, the bureaucratic and official apathy, insensitivity to and lack of human consideration for the lot O.A. No. 911/2022 Prof. Dr. Sanjeev Bagai & Ors. Vs. Department of Environment, GNCTD & Ors.
11 of the suffering children and the lack of proper perceptions of the values and ideology of the legislation concerning children even on the part of law enforcing agencies, were being denied the protection of their constitutional and statutory rights. Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the proceedings in a public interest litigation are, therefore, intended to vindicate and effectuate the public interest by prevention of violation of the rights, constitutional or statutory, of sizeable segments of the society, which owing to poverty, ignorance, social and economic disadvantages cannot themselves assert - and quite often not even aware of - those rights and the "rights" of those who bring the action on behalf of the others must necessarily be subordinate to the "interests" of those for whose benefit the action is brought. Acknowledgement of any such status of a Dominus- Litis to a person who brings a public interest litigation will render the proceedings in public interest litigations vulnerable to and susceptible of a new dimension which might, in conceivable cases, be used by persons for personal ends resulting in prejudice to the public-weal. Hon'ble Supreme Court also noticed that in the proceedings Hon'ble Supreme Court had already gone through and had initiated an elaborate exercise as indicated in the orders excerpted earlier and held that the petition could not be permitted to be abandoned at that stage and only a private litigant could abandon his claims. Accordingly, Hon'ble Supreme Court refused permission for the withdrawal of the petition and directed that the applicant be deleted from the array of parties in the proceedings and the proceedings be proceeded with a direction to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee to prosecute the petition together with the aid and assistance of such persons or agencies as the Court may permit or direct from time to time.
O.A. No. 911/2022 Prof. Dr. Sanjeev Bagai & Ors. Vs. Department of Environment, GNCTD & Ors.
12
15. Observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned case are also relevant and applicable to the question of withdrawal of application by the Applicants in the present case. The right of the Applicants to withdraw application filed for serving public interest in protection and improvement of environment must necessarily be subordinate to the "interests" of those for whose benefit the action was brought. According status of a Dominus-Litis to the Applicants, who filed application for serving public interest of protection and improvement of environment, will render the proceedings vulnerable to and susceptible of a new dimension of use thereof for personal ends resulting in serious prejudice to the public interest of protection and improvement of environment. In the present proceedings this Tribunal has already initiated an elaborate exercise and the present proceedings cannot be permitted to be withdrawn at this stage. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Applicants cannot be permitted to withdraw the application and request for dismissal of the application as withdrawn is declined due to the same having been filed in public interest for protection and improvement of the environment.
16. Moreover, this Tribunal has been conferred power to take suo motu cognizance in discharge of its functions under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. In Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha (SC) : AIR 2021 Supreme Court 5147 : Law Finder Doc Id # 1890858 Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the question whether this Tribunal has the power to exercise Suo Motu jurisdiction in discharge of its functions under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 and held that this Tribunal is vested with suo motu power in discharge of its functions O.A. No. 911/2022 Prof. Dr. Sanjeev Bagai & Ors. Vs. Department of Environment, GNCTD & Ors.
13 under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. The relevant extracts from the conclusion in that case are reproduced as under:-
"30. The NGT Act, when read as a whole, gives much leeway to the NGT to go beyond a mere adjudicatory role. The Parliament's intention is clearly discernible to create a multifunctional body, with the capacity to provide redressal for environmental exigencies. Accordingly, the principles of environmental justice and environmental equity must be explicitly acknowledged as pivotal threads of the NGT's fabric. The NGT must be seen as a sui generis institution and not unus multorum, and its special and exclusive role to foster public interest in the area of environmental domain delineated in the enactment of 2010 must necessarily receive legal recognition of this Court.
31. The environmental impacts on climate change are gaining increasing visibility in the shape of uncertain rains, species extinction, loss of natural habitat and so on. These also have the propensity to diminish fresh water resources, reduce agricultural yields and impact public health, particularly in the cities. The flooding and erosion in riverine and coastal areas are matters of serious concern. Governmental assessment of India's increased vulnerability to such changes in the near future also exists[41*] with many countries declaring climate emergencies and many others being urged to follow suit[42*].
[41* Indian Network for Climate Change Assessment, Climate Change and India: A 4X 4 Assessment - A sectoral and regional analysis for 2030s, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, 16 November 2010] [42* Secretary-General's Remarks at the Climate Ambition Summit. United Nations. United Nations, December 12, 2020.]
32. Therefore, the nature of ecological imbalance which is visible even in our own times may cascade, and the unforeseen injustice of the future may not be capable of being handled within the frontiers set forth today. The long term and very often irreparable environmental damage which are expected to be arrested by the NGT, urge this Court to advert to what is termed as the `Seventh Generation' sustainability principle, or the `Great Law of the Iroquois' (as it originates from the Iroquois Tribe) which requires all decision making to withstand for the benefit of seven generations down the line.
33. It is vital for the wellbeing of the nation and its people, to have a flexible mechanism to address all issues pertaining to environmental damage and resultant climate change so that we can leave behind a O.A. No. 911/2022 Prof. Dr. Sanjeev Bagai & Ors. Vs. Department of Environment, GNCTD & Ors.14
better environmental legacy, for our children, and the generations thereafter.
34. In circumstances where adverse environmental impact may be egregious, but the community affected is unable to effectively get the machinery into action, a forum created specifically to address such concerns should surely be expected to move with expediency, and of its own accord. The potentiality of disproportionate harm imposes a higher obligation on authorities to preserve rights which may be waylaid due to such restrictive access. It is also noteworthy that the "global impacts of climate change will fall disproportionately on minority and low-income communities". Thus, an affirmative role, beyond mere adjudication at the instance of applicant, is certainly required for serving the ends of environmental justice, as the statute itself requires of the NGT. We cannot validate an argument which furthers uncertainty to justify the role of a spectator, if not inaction, and would most assuredly result in injustice.
35. The NGT, with the distinct role envisaged for it, can hardly afford to remain a mute spectator when no-one knocks on its door. The forum itself has correctly identified the need for collective stratagem for addressing environmental concerns. Such a society centric approach must be allowed to work within the established safety valves of the principles of natural justice and appeal to the Supreme Court. The hands-off mode for the NGT, when faced with exigencies requiring immediate and effective response, would debilitate the forum from discharging its responsibility and this must be ruled out in the interest of justice.
36. It would be procedural hairsplitting to argue (as it has been) that the NGT could act upon a letter being written to it, but learning about an environmental exigency through any other means cannot trigger the NGT into action. To endorse such an approach would surely be rendering the forum procedurally shackled or incapacitated.
37. When the Registry of the NGT does indeed receive a communication or letter, including matters published in media, it may cause to initiate suo motu action by inviting attention of NGT to such matters in the form of office report. Such circumstances would however require a notice to be given to the sender of the communication or author of the news item, as the case may be, to assist the NGT in the course of hearing and to substantiate the factual matters. It must also be said that the exercise of suo motu jurisdiction does not mean eschewing with the principles of natural justice and fair play. In other words, the party likely to be affected should be afforded due opportunity to present their side, before suffering adverse orders.
38. One could admit to the argument of danger of suo motu jurisdiction, if the NGT was acting outside its domain. But when it is legitimately working within the contours of its statutory mandate and with procedurals safeguards clarified above in play, the nature of the trigger itself viz. a letter or a `suo motu' initiation, cannot be the basis to curtail the role and responsibility of the specialized O.A. No. 911/2022 Prof. Dr. Sanjeev Bagai & Ors. Vs. Department of Environment, GNCTD & Ors.15
forum.
39. Institutions which are often addressing urgent concerns gain little from procedural nitpicking,which are unwarranted in the face of both the statutory spirit and the evolving nature of environmental degradation. Not merely should a procedure exist but it must be meaningfully effective to address such concerns. The role of such an institution cannot be mechanical or ornamental. We must therefore adopt an interpretation which sustains the spirit of public good and not render the environmental watchdog of our country toothless and ineffective.
40. Let us now hark back to the dialogues of the two protagonists, in Waiting for Godot, the play written by Samuel Beckett with which, we started this judgment. At the end of the deliberations, we find ourselves saying that the National Green Tribunal must act, if the exigencies so demand, without indefinitely waiting for the metaphorical Godot to knock on its portal. The preceding discussion advises us to answer the pointed question in the affirmative. It is accordingly declared that the NGT is vested with suo motu power in discharge of its functions under the NGT Act."
17. Consistent with its statutory obligations under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, this Tribunal has to respond to the duly verified factual position in the present case with requisite remedial/ameliorative measures for protection of environment and this Tribunal cannot take refuge under any technical dispensation by dismissal of application as withdrawn.
18. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the Applicants are allowed to with draw from the application and the application can be further proceeded with in exercise of the powers of this Tribunal to take cognizance of civil cases involving issues relating to environment arising out of enforcement of enactments specified in Schedule I to the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. Mr. Rahul Khurana, Joint Secretary of National Green Tribunal Bar Association has stated that National Green Tribunal Bar Association is ready to join the proceedings as applicant and may be substituted for the Applicants. The National Green Tribunal Bar O.A. No. 911/2022 Prof. Dr. Sanjeev Bagai & Ors. Vs. Department of Environment, GNCTD & Ors.
16 Association is accordingly allowed to join the proceedings as applicant and substituted for the Applicants and the names of the Applicants be deleted and the name 'the National Green Tribunal Bar Association' be substituted for them in the array of parties. Memo of parties be amended accordingly.
19. It may be observed here that Hon'ble High Court of Delhi relied upon order dated 13.03.2017 passed by Western Zone Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. no. 157/2016 titled as Mr. Pradeep Indulkar Vs. Municipal Corporation for the City of Thane and others which analyzed a similar provision of law regarding pruning of trees under the Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection and Preservation of Trees Act, 1975 as upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8946/2017. For brevity relevant part of the Judgment is not extracted and reproduced herein as the same can be referred to therein.
20. While setting aside the Guidelines Hon'ble High Court of Delhi directed that no pruning of trees will be permitted in Delhi except in accordance with the DPT Act and that it will be open to the respondents to frame guidelines and/or rules as may be requisite. The question of framing of such guidelines and/or rules has to be considered by the concerned authorities in the light of observations made by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. We are of the considered view that the matter needs to be examined by a Committee of Experts from the relevant fields with respect to all relevant aspects as to permissibility of pruning of trees and the modalities for carrying out the same.
21. In the course of hearing of this case and of similar matters coming up for hearing before this Tribunal it has come to our notice that there is O.A. No. 911/2022 Prof. Dr. Sanjeev Bagai & Ors. Vs. Department of Environment, GNCTD & Ors.
17 no enactment similar to the Delhi Preservation of Tree Act, 1994, the Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection and Preservation of Trees Act, 1975, the Uttar Pradesh Protection of Trees Act, 1976 in the States of Haryana, Punjab and Himachal Pradesh besides others and the aspects of illegal cutting and pruning of trees are being ignored or remain un- remedied due to absence of statutory frame work and requisite guidelines. Protection of trees is of utmost importance for protection and improvement of environment and remedial measures are also required to be taken under the Environment Protection Act, 1986 and the matter also calls for intervention by this Tribunal in exercise of powers under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
22. We widen the scope of present proceedings in exercise of powers to take suo moto cognizance of the cases involving substantial question relating to environment arising out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I to the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 as upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its Judgment passed in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai V/s. Ankita Sinha and others reported at 2021 SSC Online SC 897.
23. In view of the nature of the environmental questions involved in the matter having national ramifications, we consider presence of Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India through the Secretary, Central Pollution Control Board through the Member Secretary, and States of Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and NCT of Delhi and Union Territories of Chandigarh, Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh through the Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary/Secretary, Environment, as the case O.A. No. 911/2022 Prof. Dr. Sanjeev Bagai & Ors. Vs. Department of Environment, GNCTD & Ors.
18 may be, and Pollution Control Boards/Pollution Control Committees thereof through their Member Secretaries, in the first instance, to be necessary for just and proper adjudication of the questions involved in the case. Accordingly, they are impleaded as respondents. The Registry is directed to amend memo of parties and issue notices to them requiring them to file their reply/response with respect to the aspects of protection of trees against illegal felling and pruning of trees and all related aspects and framing of guidelines/rules regarding the same. The CPCB is also directed to obtain and compile the information with respect to the above mentioned aspects from all the States and Union Territories and include such compiled information in its reply/response. The reply/response as directed above be filed on or before 03.02.2024 through E-filing portal (not through E-mail) in the form of searchable PDF/OCR Support PDF (not in the form of Image PDF).
24. It may be observed here that this Tribunal vide orders dated 21.12.2022 and 03.01.2023 directed the concerned Civil Authorities- MCD/DDA to carry out pruning of the trees as mentioned therein in accordance with the Delhi Preservations Trees Act, 1994 and Guidelines dated 01.10.2019. The guidelines were set-aside by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 29.05.2023. We consider it appropriate to seek response from MCD and DDA regarding orders passed/permissions granted for pruning of trees in Delhi and also carrying out of pruning of trees in Vasant Vihar by them before and after 29.05.2023 and response from DCF, West Forest Division regarding complaints made to him and action taken by him in respect of illegal cutting/pruning of trees. Replies by Commissioner, MCD, Vice Chairman, DDA and DCF, West Forest Division, Delhi be filed on or before 03.02.2024 through E-filing portal O.A. No. 911/2022 Prof. Dr. Sanjeev Bagai & Ors. Vs. Department of Environment, GNCTD & Ors.
19 (not through E-mail) in the form of searchable PDF/OCR Support PDF (not in the form of Image PDF).
25. List for further hearing on 06.02.2024.
26. In view of the facts and circumstance of the case, we also consider personal appearance of the officers duly authorised by the Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, the Member Secretary, Central Pollution Control Board, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the Vice Chairman, DDA physically or through VC on the next date of hearing to be essential for producing the relevant record and assisting this Tribunal in just and proper adjudication of the questions involved in the case. Accordingly they are directed to remain present before this Tribunal on that date with the relevant record.
27. A copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, the Member Secretary, Central Pollution Control Board, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the Vice Chairman, DDA by email for requisite compliance.
Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM December 05th, 2023 N