Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Mumbai Railway Vikas Corporation Ltd vs Mr. Purshottam Lilaram Khanchandani ... on 28 August, 2024

Author: Amit Borkar

Bench: Amit Borkar

                                                                                        6-ia-17616-2023

                       Shabnoor

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                INTERIM APPLICATION NO.17616 OF 2023
                                                  IN
SHABNOOR
AYUB                          PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.155 OF 2016
PATHAN
Digitally signed by
SHABNOOR AYUB
PATHAN
Date: 2024.08.28
18:19:55 +0530
                       Mumbai Railway Vikas
                       Corporation Limited                             ... Applicant
                                 In the matter between
                       Purushottam Lilaram Khanchandani                ... Petitioner
                                  V/s.
                       State of Maharashtra & Ors.                     ... Respondents


                       Mr. Atharva A. Dandekar for Applicant.
                       Ms. Ronita Bhattacharya Bector a/w Ms. Sejal Khan and
                       Ms. Savita Purushottam Khanchandani for Petitioner in PIL.
                       Mr. Suresh M Kamble for Respondent No.2.
                       Mr. P. P. Kakade, Government Pleader a/w Mr. O. A.
                       Chandurkar, Additional Government Pleader with Ms. G. R.
                       Raghuwanshi, AGP for State-Respondent Nos.1, 9, 10, 11
                       and 12.


                                    CORAM            : DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ
                                                       & AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                    DATED            : AUGUST 28, 2024

                       P.C.:

                       1.      Heard Mr. Atharva A. Dandekar, learned counsel for the

                       applicant, Ms. Ronita Bhattacharya Bector, learned counsel

                       representing PIL petitioner and Mr. Suresh Kamble, learned

                       counsel representing respondent No.2 - Ulhasnagar Municipal

                       Corporation.




                                                            1
                      ::: Uploaded on - 28/08/2024                ::: Downloaded on - 29/08/2024 10:57:17 :::
                                                                 6-ia-17616-2023


 2.      The instant interim application has been moved by the

 applicant, which is Mumbai Railway Vikas Corporation Limited,

 seeking permission of the Court to fell 53 trees which have

 been described more appropriately in Annexure 'A' appended

 to the interim application. The permission of the Court is

 being sought as according to the applicant these 53 trees

 need to be cut for laying 3 and 4 railway lines between Kalyan

 and Badlapur railway lines.


 3.      Learned counsel       for the applicant       has     drawn        our

 attention to the order dated 18 July 2018 passed in the

 petition, whereby it was directed by this Court that till further

 orders, the Tree Authority of the Corporation shall not

 exercise its powers of granting permission for felling of trees.

 The Court, however, by the said order, also directed that it

 would be open to the Corporation to apply for modification of

 this order after the Tree Authority is lawfully constituted.


 4.      The order was passed on 18 July 2018; however, it

 appears that till date the Tree Authority in terms of provisions

 contained in the Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection and

 Preservation of Trees Act, 1975 (1975 Act) has not been

 constituted by the respondent-Corporation. The Court has




                                    2
::: Uploaded on - 28/08/2024              ::: Downloaded on - 29/08/2024 10:57:17 :::
                                                                           6-ia-17616-2023


 recorded the said fact in its order dated 3 February 2023. This

 Court in the order dated 3 February 2023 also records that it

 appears that the Commissioner is exercising the powers of the

 Tree Authority, who certainly cannot be considered to be an

 expert.


 5.      On being asked as to why the Tree Authority has not yet

 been        constituted,        learned        counsel       representing            the

 respondent-Corporation              submits      that       in    terms        of    the

 requirement of Section 3 of the 1975 Act, in a Municipal

 Corporation a Tree Authority is headed by the Commissioner

 of the Corporation as its Chairman, and it consists of not less

 than 5 and not more than 15 persons from amongst the

 members of the Corporation and since there are no elected

 members of the Corporation for the reason that the State

 Government has appointed an Administrator, as such the

 constitution of the authority is not possible. He has also stated

 that in terms of the provisions contained in the proviso to

 sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the 1975 Act, since at present

 Administrator is appointed, it is the Commissioner who is the

 Administrator, who shall act as Tree Authority. He further

 submits         that      efforts   were       made    by        the   respondent-

 Corporation to nominate the expert members in terms of sub-



                                            3
::: Uploaded on - 28/08/2024                        ::: Downloaded on - 29/08/2024 10:57:17 :::
                                                               6-ia-17616-2023


 section 3 of Section 3 of the 1975 Act, however, the

 Corporation could not find qualified experts to be nominated

 to the Tree Authority.


 6.      The proviso appended to sub-section 1 of Section 3 of

 the 1975 Act, makes it clear that where an Administrator is

 appointed for any Municipal Body, he shall act as the Tree

 Authority and exercise all the powers and perform all the

 duties of the Tree Authority during the period of his

 appointment. The Tree Authority, in terms of requirement of

 sub-section 3 of Section 3 of the 1975 Act needs to nominate

 the expert members as well and number of expert members

 to be nominated on the Tree Authority shall not exceed

 number of members under the provisions of Section 3 (1) of

 the 1975 Act.


 7.      On account of non-availability of elected members of the

 respondent-Corporation, a peculiar situation has arisen, where

 though in terms of proviso appended to sub-section 1 of

 Section 3 of the 1975 Act, the Administrator shall exercise all

 the powers and perform all the duties of the Tree Authority,

 however, he cannot ascertain the number of expert members

 to be nominated in terms of requirement of sub-section 3 of




                                 4
::: Uploaded on - 28/08/2024            ::: Downloaded on - 29/08/2024 10:57:17 :::
                                                                6-ia-17616-2023


 Section 3 of the 1975 Act.


 8.      Having regard to      the facts and circumstances                   as

 discussed above, and especially keeping in view of the non-

 availability of the elected members of the respondent-

 Corporation, and inability of the Municipal Commissioner to

 find expert members, invoking doctrine of necessity, we pass

 the following order for the reasons that the Municipal

 Corporation cannot be left with the Tree Authority being

 rendered non-functional:


                                ORDER

(a) Till the Tree Authority is constituted in terms of the requirement and mandate of Section 3 of the 1975 Act, an Ad-hoc Tree Committee shall be constituted, and the Municipal Commissioner shall be its chairman;

(b) The Ad-hoc Tree Committee to be constituted under this order shall consist of four experts, and since the Commissioner of the Corporation has expressed his inability to find the qualified experts, by the next date learned counsel representing the PIL petitioner, learned counsel representing applicant and the learned counsel 5 ::: Uploaded on - 28/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 29/08/2024 10:57:17 ::: 6-ia-17616-2023 representing the Corporation shall submit a list of such experts to the Court from amongst whom the Court shall nominate the expert members;

(c) The application moved by the applicant-Mumbai Railway Vikas Corporation Limited seeking permission to cut 53 trees shall be considered, and appropriate decision thereon shall be taken in terms and requirements of law by the Ad-hoc Tree Committee as expeditiously as possible;

(d) The prayer made by the learned counsel representing the respondent-Corporation for taking decision for cutting the trees in dangerous conditions, which are said to have been identified by one Mr. Nagesh Virkar, shall also be referred to and decided by the Ad- hoc Tree Committee which is to be constituted under this order.

9. Stand over to 4 September 2024. To be placed High on Board.

 (AMIT BORKAR, J.)                                                (CHIEF JUSTICE)




                                                6
::: Uploaded on - 28/08/2024                             ::: Downloaded on - 29/08/2024 10:57:17 :::