Judgment : K. CHANDRU, J. This writ petition is filed by the Tamilaga Girama Vivasayigal Sangam, Pongalur Union in public interest seeking to challenge the action of the respondents from carrying on the project of expanding the road on the National Highway No. 67 between the stretch of Karur and Coimbatore without cutting the trees on either side. 2. Accordingto the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the respondents 1 and 2, i. e. National Highways Authorities, have decided to expand Highway No.67 running between Karur and Coimbatore providing for a width of 1.5 meters on either side of the Highway and for this purpose, tenders have been called for. According to them, the fifth respondent was the contractor selected by the first respondent and they had already commenced the work as per the plan of the first respondent. During the process of widening the Highway, the sub-contractors of the fifth respondent have started cutting the trees on both the sides and the petitioner came to know that this is the handiwork of some timber merchants and the farmers of that area have also conducted dharna and other agitations and protested against the cutting of the trees on either side of the Highway. Apart from this, the petitioner had sent various telegrams to prevent them from cutting the trees. The project itself is only for providing two lane traffic and in the guise of expanding the road, if they are allowed to cut the trees, it will badly affect the bio-sphere and ecology. It is also paradoxical that on the one side the State is propagating for planting more trees and on the other side, in the name of expanding the road, the trees are cut mercilessly without any public interest. 3. We have heard the arguments of Palani Selvaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, P. Wilson, learned Additional Solicitor General representing the respondents 1 and 2 and Raja Kalifulla, learned Government Pleader representing the respondents 3 and 4 and have perused the records. 4. This Court, by an order dated 8.11.2006, directed the respondents to file a counter and also injuncted the respondents from felling any trees on the Karur - Coimbatore Highways (NH 67) until further orders. 5. 4. This Court, by an order dated 8.11.2006, directed the respondents to file a counter and also injuncted the respondents from felling any trees on the Karur - Coimbatore Highways (NH 67) until further orders. 5. In response to the notice, a counter affidavit dated 28.11.2006 was filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 and paragraphs 4 and 5 of the same are extracted below : “ 4. I respectfully submit that based on the detailed project report the National Highways Authority of India, PIU has carried out on spot tree survey in the stretch of NH-67 from Karur to Coimbatore and assessed the various types of trees getting affected in the project area. The assessment revealed that both sides of the present NH-67 of the Project corridor the main species found which include neem, tamarind, palmyra and Veial. The distance, of these trees from the edge of the existing road varies from 1 to 8 meters. 5. I respectfully submit that as the project is only for construction of paved shoulders on either side and strengthening of existing 2 lane road from km 218/200 to km 332/600 Karur-Coimbatore road on NH-67 the land acquisition process is also restricted to the extent necessary. The Project work has also been awarded to SRC Projects Private Limited and the construction activities have also been commenced and going on in this stretch. Hence the live trees which are found hindrance to the project alone to be cut and removed. Necessary permission to cut the live trees has also been obtained from the respective Revenue Divisional Officers. It is therefore submitted that the trees which are not required to be cut are allowed to remain. Further it is also submitted that according to the terms and conditions of the State Pollution Control Board and the Ministry of Environment and Forest, the forestation cost will also be borne by the National Highways Authority of India in lieu of the loss of trees owing to the implementation of the project and action will also be taken at the end of the implementation of project to maintain avenue forestation at the rate of 1:3. The well grown saplings will be planted @ 1:3 ratio in lieu of the trees cut with the assistance of State Forest Department. The well grown saplings will be planted @ 1:3 ratio in lieu of the trees cut with the assistance of State Forest Department. Hence every efforts has been taken by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways to preserve the biosphere and ecological effect in the stretch. I further submit that the grounds adduced by the Petitioner is baseless and saplings will also be planted at the suitable places”. 6. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the learned Asst. Solicitor General appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, this Court, by an order dated 8.12.2006, appointed a Committee of Experts to inspect the stretch of the road from Km 218/200 and Km 332/600 in the Karur - Coimbatore Road and also directed them to ascertain the feasibility of the afforestation as well as re-allocation of the existing trees. The following are the experts constituting the committee : Thereafter on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, a statement pertaining to the number of trees that are to be felled was furnished by the respondents. • 1. TheChief Conservator of Forests, Chennai - 6. • 2. Dr. V. Ramakrishna, Principal, State Forest Service College, Coimbatore. • 3. Dr. Mayilvakanan, M.D.S. Dental Surgeon (Tamil Nadu Medical Service), Yercaud, Salem District. 7. Accordingly, the Committee, on direction from this Court, visited the place and submitted a report dated 17.12.2006. The Committee in its report stated that many of the trees proposed to be cut can be retained without compromising the objectives of the National Highways Authority. They also examined the feasibility of the afforestation as well as relocation. After making a thorough study, the committee came to the conclusion that the field conditions offer a bright chance for afforestation work. However, taking a pragmatic view, the committee did not recommend relocation of the trees that are marked for felling, but made recommendation to retain many of them by adopting the methods suggested by them. In its opinion, the Committee stated that a slight shift of the central line of the road can save many trees, while in reality, such a shift helps further smoothening of the curve in many instances and that such a shift in the centre of the road only in places might entail acquisition of private barren lands and does not cause any damage to the infrastructure. They also gave the details of the stretches of the proposed road in which the slight modification in the central line of the road, which would help the trees standing in one side of the road without any sacrifice to the alignment or the geometry. The Committee gave the following specific recommendations : “As trees have already been felled on both sides of the road between km 223/00 and 256/00 further felling of trees in the rest of the stretch of the road should be carried out only after proper enumeration of the trees on both sides of the proposed road. Certain yellow round patch on many trees by the road side could be misleading and hence such paint marks should be erased. Between km 284 and 285 the central line of the Highway could be shifted in such a way that the 48 trees on the right hand side (RHS) can be saved. Between km 282 and 283 (Near Kadalakattpudur), 12 trees are marked to be felled on the RHS. As they fall outside the proposed toe or the working area, they should not be felled. Between km 280/900 (Kuduvai Road Junction) 4 trees (one Albizzia lebbek and 3 Tamarind trees) falling on the LHS marked for felling need not be felled. In this junction trees that are to be removed have already been felled. At 280/350 a Tamarind tree on LHS of the road marked for felling is admitted by NHA that it does not fall within the requirement of road formation - it should be retained. At 280/900 on the RHS one big Neem tree and one Albizzia lebbek tree fall on the berm of the road, and they can be retained. At 278/500, three tall Ficus bengalensis trees and one Tamarind can be saved by shifting the central line by one meter to the left. On the LHS one Delonix elata should be felled instead. This also helps smoothening of the curve as conceded by the concerned engineers. 277/050, one Thespesia pupulnea (Poovarasu) can be saved on the LHS. 277/00 Tamarind tree is beyond the berm or the working area of the road, and hence should not be felled. Between km 273/600 and 273/400, both sides of the roads trees are marked for felling. There are no infrastructure on either side. Hence, on only one side of the road trees can be felled. 277/00 Tamarind tree is beyond the berm or the working area of the road, and hence should not be felled. Between km 273/600 and 273/400, both sides of the roads trees are marked for felling. There are no infrastructure on either side. Hence, on only one side of the road trees can be felled. Trees can be retained preferably on the RHS. There will not be much sacrifice in the alignment or geometry. This would save about 50 Neem and Tamarind trees. Between km 272/650 and km 272/700 trees on the RHS could be retained. Between km 272/250 and 271/950 (near Veeranam Palayam Junction) tree felling can be done only on the RHS saving about 12 Neem trees and 2 Tamarind trees. At km 271/750 only trees on the LHS could be felled. The trees on the RHS can be retained. At km 270/550 two Neem trees that were far beyond the road width are erroneously marked for felling and hence should not be felled. At km 270/050, One Neem tree, one Borassus flabellifer and a Tamarind tree are erroneously marked for felling. Between km 268/050 and km 267/900 trees on the LHS could be retained as trees on the RHS can be felled. This could save about 10 trees. Between km 267/460 and km 267/550 and between 267/350 and 267/450 because of the ‘S‘ curve, trees should be felled alternatively on the LHS and RHS. Together, 16 trees could thus be saved. Between km 266/900 and km 267/00 trees on the RHS could be retained. Between km 266/650 and km 265/550 trees on the RHS could be retained. Eight trees thus can be saved. Between km 266/250 and km 266/350 trees on the RHS could be retained. This could save 10 Neem trees.” 8. To this report, we directed the respondents 1 and 2 to take a positive approach and not to insist on their own earlier stand and that ultimately, the public interest must prevail. Accordingly, the objection statement dated 7.2.2007 was filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2. 9. With reference to changing the alignment, the respondents maintained that it is not feasible however, with the specific consensus they agreed that several trees can be saved and they agreed with the Committee in this regard. Accordingly, the objection statement dated 7.2.2007 was filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2. 9. With reference to changing the alignment, the respondents maintained that it is not feasible however, with the specific consensus they agreed that several trees can be saved and they agreed with the Committee in this regard. According to the respondents 1 and 2, while the total number of trees agreed to be felled by the Expert Committee was 62, the National Highways Authorities figure came to 134. Therefore, the difference of felling between the Expert Committee and the Highways authorities is only 72. However, a detailed sketch map including the plan showing the change of alignment to avoid cutting of trees was filed by P.Wilson, Asst. Solicitor General appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. He also suggested that while felling of some other trees are inevitable, but the Highways Authorities are also concerned about the ecological impact due to tree felling and that they are willing to re-plant more number of trees than what has been felled down. While he pointed out to the counter affidavit dated 28.11.2006 wherein it is stated the saplings will be planted at the rate of 1:3 ratio but, however, informed this Court that they are willing to abide by any direction issued by this Court to plant more saplings including slightly grown up trees. 10. In the light of the stand taken by the respondents 1 and 2, we direct the respondents 1 and 2 to abide by the plan and the drawing filed before this Court on 6.2.2007 with reference to the retention of the trees. We further direct that the respondents 1 and 2 will plant saplings at the rate of ten saplings per one tree felling. But the saplings must be slightly grown up varieties and also maintain the same for a sufficient period so that they are not destroyed by vandalism or being eaten by the straying cattle. 11. The writ petition shall stand disposed of with the above directions. Injunction granted on 8.11.2006 stands vacated. M.P.No.1 of 2006 will also stand closed. We record our appreciation to the help rendered by the Committee of Experts to this Court with the short notice. We also appreciate the willingness of the National Highways Authorities for the concern shown by them in accepting the recommendations made by the Expert Committee.