ORDER : Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, J. 1. The issues involved in these petitions concern the provisions of the Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection and Preservation of Trees Act, 1975 (for short ‘the Trees Act'). As held by a Division Bench of this Court by the Judgment and Order dated 20th September 2013 in PIL No. 93 of 2009 (Deepak Balkrishna Vahikar and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others), the object of enacting the Trees Act is not to encourage destruction of trees but to encourage growth of trees in urban areas of the State. 2. In both the petitions, there is a challenge to the constitutional validity of the of the amendment to the Trees Act made by the Maharashtra Act No. XIII of 2017 by adding sub-Section (5) to Section 8 of the Trees Act. The name of the said enactment is the Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection and Preservation of Trees Amendment Act, 2016 (for short ‘the Amendment Act'). It is not in dispute that the said Amendment Act was brought into force with effect from 1st April 2017. 3. Before we reproduce the submissions made across the bar, we must note here that in both the petitions, Rule has been issued and the petitions have been admitted for final hearing. We have extensively heard the parties on the prayer for interim relief. As far as the PIL N. 119 of 2017 is concerned, there was an earlier order directing that the petition will be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. However, after the said order was passed, by amendment, the petitioner therein has incorporated a prayer for challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions introduced by the Amendment Act. In view of subsequent amendment, the petition cannot be heard finally at admission stage and therefore, we have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the prayer for interim relief. 4. Clause (a) of Section 2 of the Trees Act defines "preservation of trees" as including planting of new trees and other operations for survival and propagation of the trees. The definition of "tree" is very wide in clause (d) of Section 3. It means any perennial woody plant, whether in the seeding or sapling stage or fully grown stage, and includes shrubs whose branches spring from the ground level. The definition of "tree" is very wide in clause (d) of Section 3. It means any perennial woody plant, whether in the seeding or sapling stage or fully grown stage, and includes shrubs whose branches spring from the ground level. Therefore, the Trees Act is applicable to a plant in the seeding stage or at sapling stage and its applicability is not confined only to trees as understood in popular sense. Moreover, the definition of the phrase "to fell a tree" under clause (c) of Section 2 is wide enough to include burning, cutting or act of in any way damaging a tree. Thus, even if death of a tree is caused by use of a chemical, such act is covered by the definition and therefore, the restrictions on felling of trees imposed by the Trees Act covers such act as well. The Act provides for appointment of a Tree Officer. Firstly, we must refer to Section 3 of the Trees Act as it existed prior to the date on which Amendment Act came into force. Section 3 before coming into force of the Amendment Act reads thus: "3. Establishment and Procedure of Tree Authority (1) As soon as may be after this Act is brought into force in any urban area the urban local authority concerned shall constitute a Tree Authority, consisting of the Chairman and other not less than five and not more than fifteen persons from amongst its members appointed in such manner and for such period as that authority may determine: Provided that, where an administrator by whatever name called is appointed for any municipal corporation or municipal council, he shall during the period of his appointment, act as the Tree Authority and exercise all the powers and perform all the duties of the Tree Authority. (2) In the case of urban local authority specified in column (1) of the table below the Chairman of its Tree Authority shall be the person specified against it in column (2) thereof. Name of the urban local authority (1) Chairman of its Tree Authority (2) 1. A Municipal Corporation The Commissioner of the Corporation 2. A Municipal Council The President of the Council 3. A Special Planning Authority constituted under Section 40(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act,1966 The Chief Executive Officer of the Special Planning Authority 4. Name of the urban local authority (1) Chairman of its Tree Authority (2) 1. A Municipal Corporation The Commissioner of the Corporation 2. A Municipal Council The President of the Council 3. A Special Planning Authority constituted under Section 40(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act,1966 The Chief Executive Officer of the Special Planning Authority 4. A New Town Development Authority constituted under Section 113(2) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act,1966 The Chief Executive Officer of the New Town Development Authority 5. A New Town Development Authority declared under Section 113(3A) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act,1966 or a Special Planning Authority appointed under Section 40(1)(b) of that Act The Managing Director of the Corporation or company declared to be the New Town Development Authority. 4. A New Town Development Authority constituted under Section 113(2) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act,1966 The Chief Executive Officer of the New Town Development Authority 5. A New Town Development Authority declared under Section 113(3A) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act,1966 or a Special Planning Authority appointed under Section 40(1)(b) of that Act The Managing Director of the Corporation or company declared to be the New Town Development Authority. (3) Every Tree Authority may nominate representatives of non-official organizations who have special knowledge or practical experience in the field of planting and preservation of trees, as members of the Tree Authority but the number of such nominated members shall not exceed the number of members appointed under sub-Section (1). These members shall be nominated in such manner and for such period as may be prescribed. (4) Any vacancy in the Tree Authority shall be filled as soon as may be by the authority competent to appoint the member in whose place fresh appointment is to be made. These members shall be nominated in such manner and for such period as may be prescribed. (4) Any vacancy in the Tree Authority shall be filled as soon as may be by the authority competent to appoint the member in whose place fresh appointment is to be made. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-Sections (1) and (2) where, in respect of the area of a Municipal Corporation or, as the case may be, a Municipal Council, the Tree Authority is not constituted or is not able to function for any reason whatsoever, the Municipal Commissioner of such Municipal Corporation or, the Chief Officer of such Municipal Council, shall act as the Tree Authority and shall exercise all the powers and discharge all the duties of a Tree Authority in such area, till such Authority is duly constituted or is able to function: Provided that, every decision taken by the Municipal Commissioner or the Chief Officer under this Section, shall be placed before the general body of such Municipal Corporation or as the case may be, the Municipal Council in its immediately next meeting held after such decision." (underlines supplied) 5. Section 4 reads thus: "4. Meeting of Tree Authority. (1) The Tree Authority shall meet at least once every month at such place and time as the Chairman may decide but, forty-five days shall not intervene between its two consecutive meetings. (2) The quorum to constitute a meeting of the Tree Authority shall be one-third of the total number of its members including the nominated members, if any. (3) The nominated member shall have the right to vote at a meeting of the Tree Authority. (4) Save as otherwise provided by or under this Act, the rules of procedure for the meeting of the urban authority shall mutatis mutandis apply to the meetings of the Tree Authority. 6. The other relevant Section is Section 8. Before coming into force of the Amendment Act, Section 8 read thus: "8. Restrictions on felling of trees and liability for planting and preservation of trees. 6. The other relevant Section is Section 8. Before coming into force of the Amendment Act, Section 8 read thus: "8. Restrictions on felling of trees and liability for planting and preservation of trees. (1) On and after the date on which this Act is brought into force in any urban area, notwithstanding any custom, usage, contract or law for the time being in force, no person shall fell any tree or cause any tree to be felled in any land, whether of his ownership or otherwise, situated within that urban area, except with the previous permission of the Tree Officer. (2) If any person, including an officer of the urban local authority or an officer of the State Government or the Central Government, proposes to fell a tree, he shall apply in writing to the Tree Authority for permission in that behalf. The application shall be accompanied by the description of the tree and a site plan, indicating the position of the tree required to be felled and the reasons therefor. (3) (a) On receipt of such application, the Tree Authority shall cause the Tree Officer to personally inspect the tree and hold enquiry and submit a report to the Tree Authority and submit a report to the Tree Authority within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of such application. Adequate public notice shall be given by the Tree Officer by advertising in local newspapers as well as by affixing a notice on a conspicuous part of the tree that is required to be fell. Thereafter, the Tree Authority may give permission with or without conditions or refuse it within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of the application. However, no tree shall be fell until fifteen days after such permission is given: Provided that, no such permission shall be refused if, in the opinion of the Tree Authority, the tree is dead, or diseased or wind-fallen, or it constitutes a danger to life or property, or obstructs traffic; and if any objection is received against such permission, the matter shall be placed before the Tree Authority for reconsideration, and a decision shall be taken within two weeks after giving a hearing to the person who has raised the objection. (b) A report of permissions granted by the Tree Authority for felling trees shall be submitted at least once in six months to the concerned urban local authority in whose jurisdiction the Tree Authority is functioning. (4) If the Tree Authority fails to inform the applicant of its decision within sixty days, from the date of receipt of the application by it, or if the receipt of the application has been acknowledged by it within this period, from the date of acknowledgement of the receipt of the application, the permission applied for shall be deemed to have been granted. (5) Where permission to fell a tree is granted Tree Authority may grant it subject to the condition that the applicant shall plant another tree of the same or other suitable local species on the same site or other suitable place within thirty days from the date the tree is felled, or such extended time as the Tree Officer may allow in this behalf." (underlines supplied) 7. The constitution of Tree Authorities is dealt with in sub-Section (1) of Section 3 which provides that the Tree Authority shall consist of the Chairman and other not less than five persons and not more than 15 persons from amongst the members of the Urban Local Authority. In these two cases, the Urban Local Authorities are the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and the Municipal Corporation of City of Thane. In a case where the Urban Local Authority is a Municipal Corporation, the Municipal Commissioner is the Ex-officio Chairman of the Tree Authority. Sub-Section (3) of Section 3 empowers the Tree Authority to nominate representatives of non government organizations, who have special knowledge or practical experience in the field of planting and preservation of the trees, as the members of the Tree Authority. Only embargo on the appointment of the nominated members is that total number of such nominated members shall not exceed the number of members appointed under sub-Section (1) of Section 3. As provided in sub-Section (3) of Section 4, the nominated members so appointed under sub-Section (3) of Section 3 have a right to vote at the meeting of the Tree Authority and for calculating the quorum of the meeting, even the number of nominated members is required to be taken into consideration. 8. As provided in sub-Section (3) of Section 4, the nominated members so appointed under sub-Section (3) of Section 3 have a right to vote at the meeting of the Tree Authority and for calculating the quorum of the meeting, even the number of nominated members is required to be taken into consideration. 8. As far as the appointment of the nominated members under sub-Section (3) of Section 3 is concerned, there is a provision made in the Maharashtra Urban Areas Protection and Preservation of Trees Rules, 2009 (for short ‘the said Rules') framed in exercise of the rule making power under the Trees Act. Rule 3 thereof reads thus: "3 For being nominated as a representative of non-official organization on the Tree Authority, the person shall be an active member of a non-official organization registered with the Social Forestry Department of the Government, shall have an interest in tree plantation, tree conservation, tree protection, etc., and shall possess a rich experience of at least ten years in the field." (underline supplied) 9. Thus, in addition to the qualifications prescribed by sub-Section (3) of Section 3 of a nominated member being a representative of a non-official organization who has a special knowledge or practical experience in the field of planting and preservation of trees, Rule 3 prescribes additional qualifications. First of such additional qualification is that for being nominated as a representative of non government organization, a person has to be an active member of the organization and that the said organization must be registered with the Social Forestry Department of the State Government. Further, it is provided that the candidate should have an active interest in tree plantation, tree conservation, tree protection etc and should possess experience of 10 years in the field. In addition to the qualifications of the nominated members prescribed under sub-Section (3) of Section 3 of the Trees Act and Rule 3 of the said Rules, there are directions issued by this Court in the aforesaid decision in PIL No. 93 of 2009. The said decision in general deals with the provisions of the Trees Act, the constitution of the Tree Authority and the manner in which the Tree Authority will exercise its power. Paragraph 20 of the said decision is relevant for our consideration which reads thus: "20. The said decision in general deals with the provisions of the Trees Act, the constitution of the Tree Authority and the manner in which the Tree Authority will exercise its power. Paragraph 20 of the said decision is relevant for our consideration which reads thus: "20. That leaves the Court with two aspects to be considered namely (i) the Constitution of the Tree Authority; and (ii) the procedure to be followed. As regards the constitution of the Tree Authority, under Section 3(2), only the members of the urban local authority as defined in Section 2(g) can constitute the Tree Authority. For the constitution of the Tree Authority, the minimum required strength is five members while the maximum permissible is fifteen. PMC has stated that the total number of members should be fixed at seven and that those corporators who are Science Graduates would be preferred. A membership of seven non-official members is, in our view, fair and proper having regard to the need of making the functioning of the Tree Authority of manageable proportion. Under Section 3(3), total number of nominated members cannot be exceed the number of corporators, who constitute the Tree Authority. Hence, the nominated members would also be restricted to seven. The nominated members should belong to independent NGOs and PMC has stated that not more than one person shall be appointed from the same NGO. As regards the nominated members, wider representation needs to be given to diverse cross Sections of NGOs with a special knowledge or expertise in plantation and preservation of trees with a minimum experience of at least five years. Care shall be taken to obviate a situation which had occurred in the past whereby all the nominated members belonged to same NGO. While nominating the non-official members, preference shall be given to qualified persons with a degree or diploma in agriculture/forestry/horticulture with an expertise of five years in plantation/preservation/transplantation of trees and/or in environment protection. PMC has stated that preference would be given to those NGOs who have a national presence." (underlines supplied) 10. In paragraph 20, the Division Bench observed that all nominated members should not belong to the same NGO. The Division Bench also directed that while nominating the non-official members, preference should be given to qualified persons with a degree or diploma in agriculture/forestry/horticulture with experience of 5 years in plantation/preservation/transportation of trees and/or environment protection. In paragraph 20, the Division Bench observed that all nominated members should not belong to the same NGO. The Division Bench also directed that while nominating the non-official members, preference should be given to qualified persons with a degree or diploma in agriculture/forestry/horticulture with experience of 5 years in plantation/preservation/transportation of trees and/or environment protection. The said directions are binding as of today. 11. As there is a challenge to the provisions of the Amendment Act, it will be necessary to make a reference to the Amendment Act and in particular Section 3 of the Amendment Act which reads thus: 3. Amendment of Section 8 of Mah. XLIV of 1975. In Section 8 of the principal Act,- (a) in sub-Section (2), for the words "Tree Authority" the words "Tree Officer" shall be substituted; (b) in sub-Section (3),- (i) for clause (a), the following clauses shall be substituted, namely:- "(a) On receipt of such application, the Tree Officer shall,- (i) give public notice by advertising it in at least one local newspaper; (ii) affix such notice on the conspicuous part of the tree that is to be felled; (iii) personally inspect the tree; and (iv) hold an inquiry. The Tree Officer shall, after expiry of the period of submission of objections and suggestions which shall not be less than seven days, submit his report along with objections or suggestions, if any, received to the Tree Authority or an officer mentioned in sub-Section (6), as the case may be: Provided that, the Tree Officer shall submit his report within a period of twelve days from the date of receipt of the application: Provided further that, no personal inspection of the trees by the Tree Officer shall be required, if the applicant submits images and details of the trees to be felled, by using Information Technology enabled system developed by the urban local authority which suffices the requirement of submission of report by the Tree Officer: Provided also that, no such permission shall be refused if, in the opinion of the Tree Authority or the Officer, as the case may be, the tree is dead, or diseased or wind-fallen, or it constitutes a danger to life or property, or obstructs traffic; and if any objection is received against such permission, the matter shall be placed before the Tree Authority or the Officer, as the case may be, for reconsideration, and a decision shall be taken within two weeks after giving a hearing to the person who has raised the objection. (a-1) The Officer referred to in sub-Section (6) or the Tree Authority, as the case may be, shall allow the application, with or without conditions or, may refuse it, within a period of forty-five days from the date of receipt of the application."; (ii) in clause (b), for the words "six months" the words "three months" shall be substituted; (c) in sub-Section (4),- (i) for the words "If the Tree Authority fails to inform" the words "subject to the provisions of sub-Section (5), if the Tree Authority fails to inform" shall be substituted; (ii) for the words "sixty days" the words "forty-five days" shall be substituted; (d) for sub-Section (5), the following sub-Section shall be substituted, namely:- "(5) Where permission to fell a tree is granted or deemed to have been granted under sub-Section (4), the applicant shall plant twice the number of trees to be felled of the same or other suitable local species on the same site and if required at other suitable places as decided by the Authority. The number of trees to be planted on the same site and that on other suitable place along with location of such suitable place shall be mentioned in the permission to be granted by the Authority. The trees shall be planted within fifteen days from the date the tree is felled, or such extended time as the Tree Officer may allow in this behalf: Provided that such extended time granted shall not exceed fifteen days."; (e) after sub-Section (5), the following sub-Section shall be added, namely:- "(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, if the number of trees proposed to be felled is twenty-five or less, in such cases all the functions and powers of the Tree Authority shall be exercised by the Municipal Commissioner of Municipal Corporation or the Chief Officer of Municipal Council or the Chief Executive Officer of the Authority as the case may be.". (underlines supplied) 12. In substance, in both the petitions, the challenge is to the sub-Section (6) added in Section 8 of the Trees Act by the Amendment Act. In both the petitions, there is a challenge to the constitutional validity of the said provision on the ground of violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 13. On this background, we must make a reference to the submissions canvassed across the bar. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONERS PIL NO. 119 OF 2017 FILED IN RESPECT OF THE TREE AUTHORITY OF THE THANE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. 14. In support of PIL No. 119 of 2017, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the manner in which the Tree Authority has been constituted for the urban area of the Thane Municipal Corporation and in particular the manner in which nominated members under sub-Section (3) of Section 3 have been appointed. She invited our attention to various documents on record to show the kind of decision making process adopted by the Tree Authority for appointing nominated members. The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Tree Authority could not have appointed invitee members or special invitees. She invited our attention to various documents on record to show the kind of decision making process adopted by the Tree Authority for appointing nominated members. The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Tree Authority could not have appointed invitee members or special invitees. Her submission is that the appointment of nominated members under sub-Section (3) of Section 3 ought to have been made in accordance with the qualifications prescribed by sub-Section (3) of Section 3 and Rule 3 of the said Rules as well as the guidelines laid down in the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of this Court. Her submission is that the entire process is vitiated by illegality. 15. Her submission is that as the Tree Authority is not lawfully constituted, it cannot be allowed to function. She pointed out that in the meeting of the Tree Authority held on 17th October 2017, about 21 proposals for felling/transplantation of trees were considered and permissions were granted in the same meeting for transplantation of 3,789 trees and cutting of 1,537 trees. Her submission is that apart from the fact that the Tree Authority is not validly constituted, without application of mind, such large number permissions were granted only in one meeting. Her submission is that the proceedings of the meeting held on 17th October, 2017 stand vitiated. 16. She has also made extensive submissions on the appointment of the Tree Officer. She pointed out that the person who has been appointed as a Tree Officer is a Garden Inspector and he is one of the junior most officers in the hierarchy of officers working in the garden department. Her submission is that even going by the stand taken by the Municipal Corporation, the Tree Officer (third Respondent) is not qualified to hold the post as sub-section (2) of section 5 requires that he should not be below the rank of Assistant Municipal Commissioner. She invited our attention to Section 5 of the Trees Act. She urged that the third respondent's substantive post is not of the rank of an Assistant Commissioner. She invited our attention to Section 5 of the Trees Act. She urged that the third respondent's substantive post is not of the rank of an Assistant Commissioner. Her submission is that considering the important role assigned to the Tree Officer under the provisions of the Trees Act and considering the fact that the third respondent cannot hold said post, interim relief ought to be granted by directing appointment to be made of a person who is qualified to hold the post of Tree Officer. 17. As regards the power of the Municipal Commissioner under sub Section (4) of Section 3, she submitted that the power which is conferred on the Municipal Commissioner which could be exercised when Tree Authority is not functioning is not an unlimited or unfettered power. She submitted that such power is to be exercised only in exceptional cases, where there is an emergent situation. She submitted that when an application for grant of permission for felling of trees goes before the Tree Authority, it is considered by experts in the field who are its members and therefore, a decision is taken on the application after participation of the experts in the field. Whereas the Municipal Commissioner is not at all an expert in the field. She has made submissions in support of the said proposition by relying upon decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Kishansing Tomar V. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad & Ors. 2006 (8) SCC 352 and K.B. Nagur, M.D. (Ayurvedic) V. Union of India 2012 (4) SCC 483 . She also invited our attention to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. Vs. K. Shyam Sunder and Ors. 2011 (8) SCC 737 . She extensively relied upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court dated 28th September, 2013 to which we have already made a reference. 18. Referring to sub-Section (6) of Section 8 which is the subject matter of challenge in the Petition, she submitted the classification sought to be made by the said provision is arbitrary and it has no nexus with the purpose or object sought to be achieved. Her submission is that there is no difference between an application which seeks permission to cut more than 25 tress and one which seeks permission for cutting of less than 25 tress. Her submission is that there is no difference between an application which seeks permission to cut more than 25 tress and one which seeks permission for cutting of less than 25 tress. Her submission is that such a classification is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India being arbitrary. She relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Subramaniam Swamy Vs. Director of Central Bureau Investigation & Anr. (2014) 8 SCC 682 and Shayara Bano Vs. Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 1 . Her submission is that sub-Section (6) confers an unguided and arbitrary power on the Municipal Commissioner who by no stretch of imagination is an expert in the field. She submitted that there are no guidelines introduced along with introduction of sub-Section (6) of Section 8 laying down the parameters within which the Municipal Commissioner will exercise the powers. Her submission is that incorporation of such unfettered and unregulated powers without proper guidelines makes sub-Section (6) of Section 8 open to attack on the ground of violation of 14 of the Constitution of India. Her submission is that the exercise of power in such arbitrary manner by the Municipal Commissioner under sub-Section (6) of Section 8 will violate fundamental rights of the citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Her submission is that considering the object of enacting the Trees Act, sub-Section (6) of Section 8 is ultra vires the provisions of the Trees Act. She also pointed out that even rule making power has not been exercised providing for guidelines for exercise of the power under sub-Section (6) of Section 8. The petitioner is relying upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Dwarka Prasad Laxmi Narain Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. AIR 1954 SC 224 , S.G. Jai Singhani Vs. Union of India AIR 1967 SC 1247, and B.B. Rajwanshi Vs. State of UP and Ors. (1988) 2 SCC 415 . She also pointed out that there is a distinct possibility of gross abuse of the provisions of sub-Section (6). If a person wants to fell more than 25 trees, he can make two or more separate applications with a view to take undue advantage of sub-Section (6) of Section 8. State of UP and Ors. (1988) 2 SCC 415 . She also pointed out that there is a distinct possibility of gross abuse of the provisions of sub-Section (6). If a person wants to fell more than 25 trees, he can make two or more separate applications with a view to take undue advantage of sub-Section (6) of Section 8. She would, therefore, submit that the provision of sub-Section (6) of Section 8 cannot be allowed to operate and deserves to be stayed. PIL NO. 46 OF 2015 19. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner in support of Public Interest Litigation No. 46 of 2015 has made submissions confined to the challenge to sub-Section (6) of Section 8 as the challenge in this PIL is confined only to the validity of sub-Section (6) of Section 8 of the Trees Act. Her submission is that the classification sought to be made by sub-Section (6) by carving out a category of applications seeking permission to cut not more than 25 trees is not based on any intelligible differentia. Her submission is that such a provision which is very vague and ambiguous is open to misuse as there is a complete absence of guidelines. She submitted that the provision does not clarify whether such a proposal has to be in respect of entire stretch of road or entire project. Inviting our attention to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the State Government, she submitted that sub-Section (6) makes no difference between small projects and big projects. She pointed out that the power under sub-Section (6) of Section 8 is being misused. She submitted that when the Municipal Commissioner exercises the power of the Tree Authority under sub-Section (4) of Section 3, his decisions are required to be tabled before the General Body of the Municipal Corporation. She submitted that as far as sub-Section (6) of Section 8 is concerned, there is no such requirement. She also pointed out that the Tree Authority consists of the members of the Urban Local Authority (in the present case elected Municipal Councillors) who are aware about the local factual situation and who can express the views of the citizens. Moreover, the members of the civil society who are experts in the field are also a part in the Tree Authority. Moreover, the members of the civil society who are experts in the field are also a part in the Tree Authority. She pointed out that there is no remedy of appeal against the exercise of power under sub-Section (6) of Section 8. An order passed under the said provision permitting cutting of trees can be acted upon immediately. Inviting our attention to the statements of objects and reasons of the Amendment Act, she submitted that sub-Section (6) of Section 8 has no nexus to the objects sought to be achieved by the Amendment Act. She pointed out that before the Amendment Act, sub-Section (1) of Section 4 provided that the Tree Authority shall meet at least once in every month and 45 days shall not intervene between the two consecutive meetings. Inviting our attention to Section 2 of the Amendment Act, she pointed out that now there is a mandate that the Tree Authority must meet every fortnight and the period of 45 days has been brought down to 21 days. The submission is that now the Tree Authority will have to meet frequently once in a fortnight and therefore, sub-Section (6) of Section 8 serves no purpose at all. She also extensively relied upon the decision of this Court of 20th September 2013. She also invited our attention to the said Rules which prescribe additional qualifications for the nominated members under sub-Section (3) of Section 3. She pointed out that the Tree Authority consists of two sets of members, the first set represented by the elected Councillors and the second set is of the members of NGO who are the experts in the field. She also pointed out that there is no material placed before the Court to show that the tree cover in the urban areas of the State has improved during last two decades. She relied upon various decisions including the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and Another Vs. Khan Chand (1974) 1 SCC 549 .which holds that it is the duty of the Court to declare the provision of an enactment to be the unconstitutional when the Court is satisfied that the same is unconstitutional. She also relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Health for Millions Vs. Union of India (2014) SCC 496. She also relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Health for Millions Vs. Union of India (2014) SCC 496. She submitted that there is no possibility of any project being held up as the Tree Authority is supposed to meet once in every fortnight. She submitted that sub-Section (6) of Section 8 is liable to be struck down. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS 20. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State Government invited our attention to the objects and reasons of the Amendment Act and submitted that the provision of sub-Section (6) of Section 8 has been enacted to avoid unnecessary delay. He submitted that there is nothing arbitrary about the figure of 25. He submitted that before the Commissioner entertains an application under sub-Section (6) of Section 8, the procedure prescribed under Section 8 has to be followed in its entirety and only difference is that the report by the Tree Officer is placed before the Municipal Commissioner instead of the Tree Authority. He submitted that this Court can always pass an order directing that the permissions granted by the Municipal Commissioner under sub-Section (6) of Section 8 shall not be implemented for a reasonable time of about two weeks from the dates of its publication so that the citizens who are aggrieved by it can always challenge the same. He submitted that a power under sub-Section (4) of Section 3 conferred on the Commissioner can be used only to tackle an emergent situation. He submitted that in view of the presumption in favour of constitutionality of an enactment, no interim relief can be granted. 21. The learned senior counsel appearing for the Mumbai Municipal Corporation has submitted that a Municipal Commissioner has to work in various areas such as education, town planning, etc. He is able to deal with various subjects as the experts in the field are always available on the establishment of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation. He submitted that whenever the Commissioner exercises powers under sub-Section (6) of Section 8, he can always seek assistance of several experts in the field of horticulture/Botany who are available with the Municipal Corporation. He submitted that the procedure which is followed in the case of applications which are ultimately placed before the Tree Authority has to be followed in case of an application where the prayer relates to not more than 25 trees. He submitted that the procedure which is followed in the case of applications which are ultimately placed before the Tree Authority has to be followed in case of an application where the prayer relates to not more than 25 trees. He relied upon a chart showing the procedure followed for issuing a permission for removal of trees which is annexed to the affidavit dated 18th April, 2018 of Shri Sahebrao Panditrao Gavit, the Superintendent of Gardens. He submitted that instead of placing all the proposals before Tree Authority the proposals where the prayer is confined to 25 or less number of trees are being placed before the Commissioner. He stated that the Commissioner is bound to consult experts before taking any decision. A list of such experts is annexed to the same affidavit as Annexure 'B'. He invited our attention to the statements made in the affidavit of Shri Sahebrao Panditrao Gavit which explain the statements made in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the affidavit filed by Shri Jitendra Pardeshi, Superintendent of Gardens and Tree Officer dated 13th April 2018. He submitted that powers will be exercised under sub-Section (6) of Section 8 by the Municipal Commissioner for 25 trees per project and/or per defined plot as per the sanction of Competent Authority or Planning Authority and proposals for more than 25 trees per defined plot or project will be referred to the Tree Authority. He further stated that in case of public projects like Metro Rail, widening of nalla, river etc., the proposals submitted section-wise will be considered. 22. The learned senior counsel relied upon various decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Welfare Association, A.R.P. Maharashtra and Anr. Vs. Ranjit P. Gohil and Ors. (2003) 9 SCC 358 , Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. Vs. P. Laxmi Devi (Smt.) (2008) 4 SCC 720 , Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India (2005) 6 SCC 281 , Consumer Action Group and Anr. Vs. State of T.N. And Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 425 , Rajbala & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2016) 2 SCC 445, and Bhavesh D. Parish and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr. (2000) 5 SCC 471 . He submitted that moreover mere violation of Article 14 is no ground to challenge constitutional validity of an enactment. Vs. State of T.N. And Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 425 , Rajbala & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2016) 2 SCC 445, and Bhavesh D. Parish and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr. (2000) 5 SCC 471 . He submitted that moreover mere violation of Article 14 is no ground to challenge constitutional validity of an enactment. He submitted that the operation of statutory provisions cannot be stayed by granting interim order and such interim order of stay of operation of statutory provisions can be granted only when the Court is fully satisfied that a particular enactment or Rule is ex facie unconstitutional. There also, the Court has to consider the factors such as balance of convenience, irreparable injury and public interest. He submitted that the apprehension expressed about the abuse or misuse of sub-Section (6) of Section 8 has no basis. He states, on instructions, that the Municipal Commissioner will consult the experts in the field who are available with the Municipal Corporation before taking any decision. He stated that the decision taken by the Municipal Commissioner can be suspended for seven to eight days from the date of its publication, so that every aggrieved party can always challenge the same. We accept the statement as the statements of the Municipal Commissioner of Mumbai which will continue to bind him till disposal of the PIL. 23. The learned senior counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation of City of Thane adopted the aforesaid submissions. He stated that the Municipal Commissioner is bound to consult the experts in the field before exercising the powers conferred under sub-Section (6) of Section 8. He also stated that the order can remain suspended for reasonable period to enable aggrieved parties to challenge the same. He submitted that large number of experts in the field of botany and horticulture are available on the establishment the said Municipal Corporation for consultation. We accept these statements as the statements of the Commissioner of the said Corporation which will continue to bind him till the disposal of PIL. 24. The learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 5 in PIL No. 119/2017 submitted that the proposals submitted by the said respondent were sanctioned on 17th October 2017 after undergoing the entire procedure. We accept these statements as the statements of the Commissioner of the said Corporation which will continue to bind him till the disposal of PIL. 24. The learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 5 in PIL No. 119/2017 submitted that the proposals submitted by the said respondent were sanctioned on 17th October 2017 after undergoing the entire procedure. He submitted that it is only in the light of the ad-interim order that the said respondent has made a statement that it would seek refund of the amount deposited with the Municipal Corporation. He submitted that as of today the said respondent has not taken refund. He submitted that entire machinery under the said Act cannot remain suspended and thus, if the Court is satisfied that the Tree Authority is not properly constituted, this Court should direct the constitution of the Tree Authority within a time bound period. He submitted that in PIL No. 119 of 2017, there is no challenge to the constitutional validity of sub-Section (4) of Section 3 which permits the Municipal Commissioner to discharge the powers and duties of the Tree Authority when for any reason, the Tree Authority is not able to function. He submitted that in view of the ad-interim order passed by this Court, the Tree Authority is not able to function and therefore, the Commissioner can exercise the powers under sub-Section (4) of Section 3. He submitted that after the new Tree Authority is constituted, a direction be issued for immediately placing the application of the fifth respondent before the newly constituted Tree Authority He submitted that no embargo can be put on the powers of the Commissioner which he could legitimately exercise under sub-Section (4) of Section 3. 25. We have also heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the intervenor in Civil Application No. 21/2018 who has adopted the aforesaid submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 5. He submitted that the proposal submitted by the Applicant has been already sanctioned. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 5 pointed out that said Respondent is implementing a public project. He also pointed out that substantial number of trees have been planted in the City of Thane. The learned counsel for the members of the Tree Authority of Thane opposed the petition. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 5 pointed out that said Respondent is implementing a public project. He also pointed out that substantial number of trees have been planted in the City of Thane. The learned counsel for the members of the Tree Authority of Thane opposed the petition. It was pointed out that there is nothing wrong with the appointment of special invitees as they have no voting rights. It was also pointed out that there is no challenge to the appointment of members under sub-Section (1) of Section 3. CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS THE ROLE OF TREE AUTHORITY AND ITS CONSTITUTION 26. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. It will be necessary to make a reference to the statements of objects and reasons of the Trees Act, the relevant part of which reads thus:- "Greenary in the cities is rapidly giving way to jungles of cement and concrete blocks. With the growing pace of urbanisation and industrialisation, there has been indiscriminate felling of large number of trees in the urban areas of the State of Maharashtra. This has resulted in disturbing the ecological balance with disastrous effect of environment particularly the climate in the cities and their surrounding areas. It has thus become necessary to provide for protection for the existing trees and for encouragement to planting more trees in the urban areas. This Bill accordingly seeks to make better provision for the preservation of trees in urban areas in the State, by regulating felling of trees and providing for planting of adequate number of new trees in those areas and to provide for matters connected therewith. The following paragraphs indicate in brief the important provisions made in the Bill....." 27. The statement of objects and reasons specifically notes the factual position that indiscriminate felling of large number of trees due to urbanisation and industrialisation in the urban areas in the State of Maharashtra has resulted in disturbing ecological balance with disastrous effect on the environment and particularly the climate in the cities and surrounding areas. The object of the Trees Act is to provide protection to the existing trees and to encourage planting more trees in the urban areas. The object of the Trees Act is to provide protection to the existing trees and to encourage planting more trees in the urban areas. It is emphasized that the Trees Act seeks to make better provisions for preservation of trees in urban areas in the State, by regulating felling of trees and providing for planting of adequate number of new trees in those areas. Thus, essentially the Trees Act has been enacted after taking a note of disturbance of ecological balance due to indiscriminate felling of trees in the urban areas of the State. The entire object seems to protect the existing trees and to encourage planting of more and more trees in urban areas. Only with the object of preservation of trees that the Trees Act seeks to regulate felling of trees. The object is not to allow felling of large number of trees. 28. Before we advert to the provisions of Sections 3, 4 and 8, it will be also necessary to make a reference to the other relevant provisions of the Trees Act. Under sub-Section (1) of Section 9, there is a power conferred on the Tree Officer to direct the owner or occupier of the land requiring him to plant such tree or trees at such places in the land as may be specified in the order. Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 provides for adoption of trees. Section 11 provides that when an order under Section 8 is made, it will be the duty of the owner or occupier of the land who is directed to plant trees to see that the trees grow properly and are well preserved. He is expected to submit a report to the Tree Officer once in six months about the condition of the trees. Moreover, it imposes a duty upon such owner or occupier to preserve all other trees existing on the land on the date of coming into force of the Trees Act in the urban areas in which the land is situated. Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 provides for grant of permission by the Tree Authority to an individual or a body to adopt any tree for the period specified therein. Section 19 is a salutary provision which starts with a non-obstante clause. The section, thus, overrides the other laws in force. Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 provides for grant of permission by the Tree Authority to an individual or a body to adopt any tree for the period specified therein. Section 19 is a salutary provision which starts with a non-obstante clause. The section, thus, overrides the other laws in force. It provides that any officer or any authority of the Urban Local Authority, who is empowered to give any permission for development of a land, shall not give such permission, except with the approval of and subject to the conditions, if any, imposed by the Tree Officer in regard to the preservation or plantation of trees on such land. Therefore, even if cutting or trimming of trees for making development on a land is not required, a development permission cannot be granted by the Planning Authority except with the approval of and subject to conditions imposed by the Tree Officer with the object of preservation or plantation of trees on such lands. This provision overrides the provisions of the Municipal Laws such as the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 and the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. Section 20A confers a power on any Tree Officer or any Police Officer to use such force as may be reasonably necessary to prevent the felling or destruction of any tree or for the protection of any tree. Thus, apart from the objects set out in the objects and reasons, the extensive provisions referred above clearly show that the object of the Trees Act is to provide protection to existing trees and for encouraging planting of additional trees. Granting permission for cutting the trees or transplanting the trees is only a small part of the function of the Tree Authority. In fact, if Section 7 is perused, it holds the Tree Authority responsible for protection and preservation of all trees in all lands within its jurisdiction. The Tree Authority is also under an obligation to carry out census of the existing trees in all lands within its jurisdiction once before December, 1996 and thereafter once in every five years. It is not clear whether this important function has been discharged by the Tree Authorities of both the Municipal Corporations. One of its functions is to organize flower, fruit, vegetable, tree or plant shows. It is not clear whether this important function has been discharged by the Tree Authorities of both the Municipal Corporations. One of its functions is to organize flower, fruit, vegetable, tree or plant shows. Its another function is grant of advice and technical assistance to any person seeking such advice or assistance in any matter connected with planting, protection and preservation of trees. Its duty is also to undertake the schemes or measures to achieve the objects of this Act. On conjoint reading of the provisions of the Trees Act with its objects and reasons, it is very clear that power under Section 8 conferred on various authorities is to ensure that there are restrictions/regulations on felling of trees so as to improve green cover of the urban areas. We have already made an extensive reference to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 20th September 2013, which essentially deals with the City of Pune which notes that due to expansion of the said City by leaps and bounds during last two decades, there is a fast depletion of green cover. We must take a judicial notice of the fact that the said observation will equally apply to the cities of Mumbai and Thane as well as several other Metropolitan cities in the State. Perhaps, it is in the light of the provisions of the Trees Act and objects and reasons that the Division Bench in paragraph 26 of the decision held thus:- "26. We now direct that the PMC shall take necessary steps to effectuate this order to ensure that the census of trees adopting modern technology in a digitized frame work with geo-tagging is duly completed. All steps shall be taken to ensure that the constitution of the Tree Authority is carried out in terms as indicated to the Court. Above all, we would seek to emphasize that the Tree Authority is not an authority for the destruction of trees but for the preservation of trees and the enhancement of the fast depleting green cover in the urban areas of the State." (emphasis added) 29. It is only in the light of this legal position that the provisions of the Trees Act will have to be interpreted. Now, we turn to the provisions of Section 3 of the Trees Act. It is only in the light of this legal position that the provisions of the Trees Act will have to be interpreted. Now, we turn to the provisions of Section 3 of the Trees Act. As far as the qualifications of nominated members under sub-Section (3) of Section 3 are concerned, the same can be found at three places. The first is the statute itself [sub-Section (3) of Section 3] which provides that the Tree Authority can nominate representatives of non-official organizations, who have special knowledge or practical experience in the field of planting and preservation of trees, as the members of the Tree Authority. The number of such nominated members shall not exceed the number of members appointed under sub-Section (1) of Section 3 who are councillors of the Municipal Corporation. We have already reproduced the provisions of Rule 3 of the said Rules of 2009 which provide for additional qualifications in addition to what is provided in sub-Section (3) of Section 3. It provides that nominated member shall be an active member of a Non Government Organization (NGO) registered with Social Forestry Department of the State Government. It imposes condition of a minimum experience of 10 years in that field. The decision dated 20th September 2013 which is referred earlier provides for experience of five years which does not take the note of Rule 3. However, said decision categorically lays down that all nominated members should not be from the same non-official organization. The fact that Rule 3 provides that a non-official organization must be registered with Social Forestry Department indicates that the NGO must have some connection with the activity of tree plantation or tree conservation or tree protection etc. Thus, the object of sub-Section (3) of Section 3 and Rule 3 seems to be that the Tree Authority should have an assistance of the persons who are having not only mere experience in the field but those who have special knowledge or practical experience in the field of plantation or preservation of trees who are representatives and members of NGO which is registered with Social Forestry Department. Thus, the object of the qualifications laid down is to ensure that a Tree Authority must have expert members in the field of tree planting and conservation and protection of trees. Thus, the object of the qualifications laid down is to ensure that a Tree Authority must have expert members in the field of tree planting and conservation and protection of trees. As stated earlier, grant of permissions for cutting the trees appears to be a very small part of the larger duties and functions entrusted to the Tree Authority generally under Section 7 and particularly under various other Sections of trees Act. 30. Thus, it goes without saying that if the provisions of sub-Section (3) of Section 3 and/or Rule 3 and/or aforesaid binding directions of this Court are not implemented in its true letter and spirit, the very object of appointing nominated members will be completely frustrated. We have already noted the statement of objects and reasons in which the State has accepted that there has been indiscriminate felling of large number of trees in the urban areas in the State of Maharashtra which has resulted in disturbing ecological balance with disastrous effect on environment particularly the climate in the cities and surrounding areas. It is not the stand taken by the State Government that between 1975 and 2018, there is any improvement in the situation. Any action which affects ecological balance and which has disastrous effect on the environment including the climate amounts to violation of fundamental rights of the citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The said right is to live in a pollution free atmosphere. Article 48A which is a part of the directive principals of such policy are also relevant which reads thus:- "48A. Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wild life. - The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country." 31. At this juncture, we may also refer to part 4A of the Constitution of India which incorporates Article 51A which are fundamental duties of the citizens. The fundamental duty as provided in clause (g) thereof is to protect and improve natural environment which includes trees. It is in the light of this legal position that we must examine to challenge to the appointment of nominated members under sub-Section (3) of Section 3 of the Tree Authority of the Thane Municipal Corporation and the appointment of the special invitees. It is in the light of this legal position that we must examine to challenge to the appointment of nominated members under sub-Section (3) of Section 3 of the Tree Authority of the Thane Municipal Corporation and the appointment of the special invitees. While we do so, we must note here that we are examining the decision making process adopted by the Tree Authority for appointing the nominated members. THE PROCESS OF APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS UNDER SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 3 OF THE TREE AUTHORITY FOR THANE. 32. The details of the process adopted are on record. It appears that on 19th June 2017, the Commissioner who is the ex-officio Chairman of the Tree Authority published a public notice inviting applications for being appointed as nominated members. On 20th June 2017, the appointment of six members as required by sub-Section (1) of Section 3 was made by the Municipal Corporation by a General Body resolution. As far as the nominated members are concerned, it appears that on 6th July 2017, a Committee of three persons was constituted to scrutinize the applications received for seeking appointments under sub-Section (3) of Section 3. A copy of the minutes of the meeting of the said Committee has been placed on record along with an affidavit filed by Shri Kedar Ramakant Patil, the Tree Officer of the Municipal Corporation. The minutes of the meeting dated 14th July, 2017 are at page 198 (of PIL 119 of 2017). It records that 37 applications were received out of which only 9 were held eligible. The names of eligible applicants who were not recommended by the Committee are:- (1) Sou. Seema Hemchandra Hardikar (2) Shri Prakash G. Berde (3) Shri Anand Bharat Patil (4) Kum. Ankita Amol Jamdar (5) Shri Santosh Tawde. The Committee recommended only 4 eligible applicants whose names read thus:- (1) Shri Chandrahas Govind Tawde (2) Shri Sudesh Suresh Kharkar (3) Sou. Namrata Sushant Jadhav (4) Shri Bharat Ganpat Padwal 33. No reasons whatsoever have been assigned by the Committee for holding other 28 candidates as ineligible. The Committee has not given reasons as to why only nine applicants were held to be eligible. No reasons are assigned for recommending only 4 candidates out of total 9 eligible candidates. It appears that the said report of the Committee was placed before the Tree Authority in its meeting held on 9th October, 2017. The Committee has not given reasons as to why only nine applicants were held to be eligible. No reasons are assigned for recommending only 4 candidates out of total 9 eligible candidates. It appears that the said report of the Committee was placed before the Tree Authority in its meeting held on 9th October, 2017. In the minutes of the meeting, there is a reference to the constitution of Scrutiny Committee and its recommendations. The Tree Authority appointed following persons as nominated members who are parties to the PIL:- (1) Sou. Seema Hemchandra Hardikar (2) Shri Prakash G. Berde (3) Shri Anand Bharat Patil (4) Shri Chandrahas Govind Tawde (5) Shri Santosh Tawde (6) Sou. Namrata Sushant Jadhav 34. The Scrutiny Committee had recommended 4 names which we have reproduced earlier. There are no reasons assigned or recorded in the minutes as to why the recommendations of the Scrutiny Committee were not accepted in its entirety inasmuch as out of 4 candidates recommended by the Scrutiny Committee only 2 were appointed by the Tree Authority. The minutes do not refer to any scrutiny of the applications made during the course of the meeting of the Tree Authority. There is no material on record to show that both the Scrutiny Committee and the Tree Authority have made any effort to record any conclusions as to why a particular applicant satisfies eligibility conditions. No effort is made to consider relative merits and demerits of the 9 eligible candidates. The record shows that there was no application of mind by the Tree Authority. The matter does not rest here. The Scrutiny Committee had found one Sou. Ankita Amol Jamdar as eligible whose application at Exhibit 'I' shows that she had secured M.Sc. Degree in Botany from Mumbai University. She had claimed that she stood first in the said examination. No reasons have been assigned either by the Scrutiny Committee or the Tree Authority for discarding the candidature of said candidate. However, in the Affidavit of Shri Patil, the Tree Officer, in paragraph 15, he has stated that the Tree Authority did not appoint her as the quota of 33% of women was already over. This approach, to say the least, is very shocking. There is no such reservation provided in law. We are really on the entire decision making process and the approach of the Tree Authority. This approach, to say the least, is very shocking. There is no such reservation provided in law. We are really on the entire decision making process and the approach of the Tree Authority. To the recommendations of the Scrutiny Committee, there is a chart annexed. We are referring to the chart not with a view to record any final finding on the eligibility of any candidate. The chart shows that in case of the 6 nominated members, it is specifically recorded that the NGOs of which the said candidates are member have not been registered with the Social Forestry Department. The word "No" appears in the second column against their names. The second column has a title "must be an active member of NGO registered with Social Forestry Department". No particulars of registration are mentioned therein. As far as one candidate is concerned, the name of the NGO is Lions Club. Another candidate is shown as a member of "Shrirang Sahniwas Ganeshsotsav Mandal" (the name suggests that this organization holds Ganesh Festival). 35. Even without going into the specific issue of eligibility of each and every candidates which could have been adjudicated upon as sufficient material available on record, ex facie, it appears to us that the entire process of nominating members under sub-Section (3) of Section 3 has been completely vitiated due to non application of mind. Hence, the Tree Authority which has such nominated members is not at all a lawfully constituted Tree Authority and therefore, it cannot be allowed to function pending the final hearing of PIL. APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL INVITEES 36. Now we turn to the one more challenge in PIL No. 119 of 2017 of appointment of special invitees to attend the meetings of the Tree Authority. On 9th October 2017, Tree Authority of Thane passed an order appointing five persons as special invitees who are entitled to attend all the meetings of the Tree Authority but they will have no right of voting. Perusal of the chart accompanying recommendations/report of the Scrutiny Committee shows that four out of five of the special invitees were held ineligible by the Committee for appointment under sub-Section (3) of Section 3. The fifth special invitee had not even applied for being nominated as a member under sub-section (3) of Section 3. Perusal of the chart accompanying recommendations/report of the Scrutiny Committee shows that four out of five of the special invitees were held ineligible by the Committee for appointment under sub-Section (3) of Section 3. The fifth special invitee had not even applied for being nominated as a member under sub-section (3) of Section 3. Appointing such persons as special invitees amounts to giving back door entry to the said persons who by their status as special invitees are entitled to participate in the proceedings of meetings. Neither the Act nor the said Rules provide for appointing such permanent special invitees. This is nothing but a gross abuse of powers by the Tree Authority. On 9th October 2017, when special invitees were appointed, the Tree Authority was fully aware that four out of five of them were not held as ineligible by the Scrutiny Committee. Therefore, the act of appointing special invitees appears to be ex-facie illegal. Suffice it to say that for the reasons which are recorded above, the appointment of special invitees is nothing but a complete abuse of power. DECISION MAKING PROCESS IN THE MEETING OF THE TREE AUTHORITY HELD ON 17TH OCTOBER 2017 37. On 17th October, 2017, when the Tree Authority met in presence of the special invitees, as many as 21 proposals have been considered in one meeting and permission was granted to cut 1,537 trees and to transplant 3,789 trees. The procedure requires the Tree Officer to make an inquiry and to submit a report to the Tree Authority. The Tree Authority ought to have considered the report in each and every case and come to a conclusion after due application of mind. After minutes of the meeting are perused, we find that absolutely no reasons have been recorded for granting such large number of permissions in one meeting. Careful perusal of the minutes will show that it is not recorded that the reports submitted by Tree Officer were perused by the Tree Authority. The Tree Authority seems to have completely ignored the provision of Section 8 and completely forgotten object of creating Tree Authority. Apart from the fact that constitution of Tree Authority is ex facie vitiated, considering the manner in which the decisions were taken in the meeting dated 17th October 2017, it is necessary to pass an interim order preventing parties from acting upon the permissions granted in the said meeting. Apart from the fact that constitution of Tree Authority is ex facie vitiated, considering the manner in which the decisions were taken in the meeting dated 17th October 2017, it is necessary to pass an interim order preventing parties from acting upon the permissions granted in the said meeting. A very strong prima facie case is made out about the illegality of the decisions taken in the said meeting. We must also note here that even assuming that constitution of the Tree Authority of the Thane Municipal Corporation was lawful, the decision making process adopted in the meeting dated 17th October 2017 is completely vitiated due to non consideration of reports and non-application of mind. 38. We may note here that the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in the said PIL (PIL No. 119 of 2017) has tendered across the bar a letter dated 20th February 2018 addressed to him by the Municipal Commissioner of Thane Municipal Corporation and ex-officio Chairman of the Tree Authority in which he has stated that "we are inclined to dissolve the present Tree Authority constituted under Section 3(1) and Section 3(3) of the Trees Act and also inclined to dissolve the members which are being taken as Special Invitee Members. Further once the body will be dissolved as aforesaid, we will take further steps to reconstitute the Tree Authority de novo". 39. Under sub-Section (1) of Section 3, Urban Local Authority (in the present case "the Municipal Corporation") is required to constitute a Tree Authority consisting of not less than 5 and not more than 15 persons from amongst its members. Thereafter, the Tree Authority is required to nominate representatives of non-official organizations. One of the submissions canvassed across the bar by the learned counsel representing the members appointed under sub-Section (3) of Section 3 and special invitees is that the decision to reconstitute the Tree Authority will have to be taken by the Municipal Corporation and, thus, the decision will have to be taken only by the General Body. 40. The Chairman of the Tree Authority who is the Municipal Commissioner has come to a conclusion that there is a need to de novo constitute the Tree Authority. We have recorded a prima facie finding that the process of appointment of members under sub-Section (3) of Section 3 stands vitiated. 40. The Chairman of the Tree Authority who is the Municipal Commissioner has come to a conclusion that there is a need to de novo constitute the Tree Authority. We have recorded a prima facie finding that the process of appointment of members under sub-Section (3) of Section 3 stands vitiated. Considering the scheme of the Trees Act, it is mandatory for the Urban Local Authority to constitute a Tree Authority in accordance with the provisions of the Trees Act. This mandatory obligation cannot be ignored by the Municipal Corporation. Under sub-Section (1b) of Section 63 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, it is the mandatory duty of the Municipal Corporation to take measures for urban forestry, protection of the environment and promotion of ecological aspects. Therefore, the Municipal Corporation cannot create a situation where there is no lawfully constituted Tree Authority. We, therefore, propose to direct the Municipal Commissioner to place the subject of the reconstitution of the Tree Authority before the next General Body Meeting of the Municipal Corporation so that the Municipal Corporation can take appropriate decision on the reconstitution of the Tree Authority in the light of the findings recorded by this Court and the stand taken by the Municipal Commissioner. We are sure that the General Body is aware of the mandate under of Section 3 of the Trees Act as well as sub-Section (1b) of Section 63 of the said Act of 1949. The Municipal Corporation will have to ensure that the Tree Authority is lawfully reconstituted so that there is no void. Even otherwise, it is the legal obligation of the Municipal Corporation to so. PROCEDURE UNDER SECTION 8 41. Now, we turn to the other relevant provisions for dealing with the other arguments. Before we deal with sub-Section (4) of Section 3, it will be necessary to consider Section 8. sub-Section (1) imposes a complete embargo on felling of trees and causing any tree to be felled except with the previous permission of the Tree Officer. Considering the definitions in clauses (c) and (d) of section 2, a permission is mandatory for burning or cutting trees or for damaging trees in any manner. This will include the act of causing destruction or damage to trees by using any chemical and material. Sub-Section (2) of Section 8 requires an application to be made for seeking a permission of the Tree Authority. This will include the act of causing destruction or damage to trees by using any chemical and material. Sub-Section (2) of Section 8 requires an application to be made for seeking a permission of the Tree Authority. Sub-Section (2) makes it very clear that even the State Government, Central Government and an Urban Local Authority cannot indulge in felling of trees without seeking permission. For the sake of completion, we may also note here that the form of application to be made under sub-Section (2) of Section 8 is Form-C which is appended to the said Rules. We must note that by the Amendment Act, sub-Section (2) of Section 8 has underwent an amendment and now the application under sub-Section (2) is required to be addressed to the Tree Officer. Clause (a) of sub-Section (3) as amended by the Amendment Act requires the Tree officer to give a public notice of such application by an advertisement in at least one local newspaper and by affixing such notice on the conspicuous part of the tree. He is required to personally inspect the tree and hold an enquiry Further part of clause (a) of sub-Section (3) shows that the public notice is for inviting objections to the application. The period for submitting objections and suggestions has to be of 7 days. Thereafter, the Tree officer is under an obligation to submit his report along with objections and suggestions, if any, received by him to the Tree Authority or the Officer mentioned in sub-Section (6), as the case may be. Proviso to clause (a) of sub-Section (3) mandates that such a report shall be submitted within a period of 12 days from the date of receipt of such application. Thus, after receipt of the application, it is mandatory for the Tree officer firstly to give public notice by advertising it in at least one local newspaper. The object of publishing the advertisement is to enable the citizens to file objections and suggestions. It is obvious that the Tree Officer has to apply his mind and ensure that the advertisement is published in the newspaper having a very wide circulation in the concerned urban area. If the advertisement is published in a newspaper which does not have a very wide circulation, there cannot be a compliance with the mandatory requirement of clause (a) of sub-Section (3). If the advertisement is published in a newspaper which does not have a very wide circulation, there cannot be a compliance with the mandatory requirement of clause (a) of sub-Section (3). The second obligation is of affixing notice on the tree to be felled. The third obligation is to personally inspect the tree which can be dispensed with by virtue of second proviso provided the applicant submits images and details of the trees to be felled, by using Information Technology enabled system developed by the Urban Local Authority which suffices the requirement of the submission of a report by the Tree officer. Thus, unless the second proviso is applicable, requirement of inspecting the tree is mandatory. The second proviso will apply provided there is an Information Technology enabled system developed by the Urban Local Authority which suffices the requirement of submitting a report by the Tree Officer. The last requirement is of holding an enquiry. 42. It is obvious that along with the report which is required to be submitted mandatorily by the Tree Officer, he must produce the material to show that he has complied with the requirements under clause (a) of sub-Section (3). As he is under a mandate to hold an enquiry, the report must naturally include his conclusions on holding the enquiry. Thereafter, it is for the Tree Authority or the Officers mentioned in sub-Sections (4) or (6) to take appropriate decision of either of allowing or rejecting the application within 45 days from the date of receipt of the application. 43. Thus, it follows that before considering the application, it is the responsibility of the Tree Authority or the officers mentioned in sub-Sections (4) or (6) to ensure that the Tree Officer has complied with the requirements of sub-Section (3) of Section 8. It is only thereafter that the application can be considered on merits. SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 8 44. In PIL No. 119 of 2017, there are some submissions made on the basis of sub-Section (4) of Section 8 which is a deeming provision. As far as the said submission is concerned, we will be guided by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 20th September 2013 wherein the Division Bench has already dealt with the issue of applicability of sub-Section (4) of Section 8. In paragraph 11, the Division Bench held thus: "11. Section 8(4) provides for a deeming permission. As far as the said submission is concerned, we will be guided by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 20th September 2013 wherein the Division Bench has already dealt with the issue of applicability of sub-Section (4) of Section 8. In paragraph 11, the Division Bench held thus: "11. Section 8(4) provides for a deeming permission. But it is equally well settled that where a statutory provision stipulates that an application would be deemed to be granted after a stipulated period, it must, be complete in all respects and must comply with the law. The legislature could not possibly have intended a deeming provision to apply even though a legal obligation is not fulfilled. We also take serious note of the failure of the members of the Tree Authority to dispose of applications within the stipulated period of sixty days. We hereby place the members of the Tree Authority on notice that they shall follow the mandate of the law and take a decision on each application within a period of sixty days, failing which they shall invite an action in exercise of the contempt jurisdiction of this Court, if such dereliction is brought to the notice of the Court." (emphasis added) 45. We respectfully follow what the Division Bench has held in the said case with modification that the Tree Authority or the Officer referred in sub-Section (4) of Section 3 or sub-Section (6) of Section 8 must take a decision within a period of 45 days as provided in clause (a-1) of sub-Section (3) of Section 8 introduced by the Amendment Act. While we respectfully propose to follow the directions given in paragraph 11 quoted above, we must note sub-Section (5) of Section 8 as substituted by the Amendment Act which provides that where permission to fell a tree is granted or deemed to have been granted under sub-Section (4), the applicant shall plant twice the number of trees to be felled of the same or other suitable local species on the same site and if required at other suitable places as decided by the Tree Authority. The number of trees to be planted on the same site and on other suitable place along with the location of such suitable place shall be mentioned in the permission to be granted by the Authority The trees shall be planted within fifteen days from the date the tree is felled, or such extended time as the Tree Officer may allow in this behalf. Thus, even if there is a deemed permission, the Applicant before acting upon the same will have to go to the Tree Authority for seeking directions in terms of sub-Section (5) of Section 8 about the number of trees to be planted on the same site or on other suitable place along with its location. 46. Thus, the deeming fiction will apply only when application made by the applicant is lawful and the procedure as contemplated by clause (a) of sub-Section (3) of Section 8 is duly followed by the Tree Officer. Moreover, before acting upon the deemed permission, directions under sub-Section (5) of Section 8 will have to be sought by the applicant. As stated earlier, if the Tree Officer or the Tree Authority or the concerned officers fail to comply with the time frame provided in clauses (a) or (a-1) of sub-Section (3) of Section 8, it will invite action under the contempt jurisdiction as specified in paragraph 11 above. SECOND PART OF SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 3 46. Before we come to the controversy regarding sub-Section (6) of Section 8, we must note here that certain submissions were canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in PIL No. 119 of 2017 on the effect of second part of sub-Section (4) of Section 3 which permits the Municipal Commissioners in the present cases to act as a Tree Authority when the Tree Authority is either not constituted or is not able to function for any reason whatsoever. As pointed out by the learned senior counsel appearing for the fifth respondent, there is no specific challenge in the said PIL to validity of second part of sub-Section (4) of Section 3. As pointed out by the learned senior counsel appearing for the fifth respondent, there is no specific challenge in the said PIL to validity of second part of sub-Section (4) of Section 3. However, the submissions made by the petitioner will have to be understood in the context of the fact that a situation is created in case of the Tree Authority of Thane under which there is a possibility of the Municipal Commissioner invoking second part of sub-Section (4) of Section 3 only because of the failure to constitute the Tree Authority in accordance with law. On plain reading of second part of sub-Section (4) of Section 3, we find that the object of the said provision is to ensure that there is no void created due to the fact that the Tree Authority is unable to function and, if there is an emergent situation, the Municipal Commissioner or the Chief Officer, as the case may be, will be in a position to exercise the powers of the Tree Authority. It is only an enabling provision and incorporation of this provision does not mean that the Municipal Commissioners or the Chief Officers are entitled to exercise the power of the Tree Authority under Section 8 in a routine manner and virtually substitute themselves as the Tree Authority. At this stage, we may note the objects and reasons set out by the legislature in support of the said part of sub-Section (4) of Section 3 which was brought on the Statute Book by the Act No. XV of 2015. In the objects and reasons, it is observed that it is experienced that for administrative reasons or otherwise, it takes sometime to constitute the Tree Authority or sometimes such Authority though constituted cannot function for many reasons. It is noted that such situations cause delay in execution of the development work particularly in the area of the Municipal Corporations or the Municipal Councils. Thus, the reason given for conferring power under sub-Section (4) of Section 3 of the Trees Act on the Commissioner or the Chief Officer, as the case may be, is to take care of a situation when a void is created for the reason of failure to constitute the Tree Authority or the Tree Authority is unable to function for any reason. To take care of such a situation, now there is a provision of sub-Section (6) of Section 8 under which the Commissioner or the Chief Officer can entertain the applications wherein permissions sought are in respect of not more than 25 trees and can exercise the powers of the Tree Authority. The statement made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the State Government that the power under sub-Section (4) of Section 3 can be exercised only in emergent situations is supported by the affidavit of Shri Sanjay Shantaram Banait, the Deputy Director of Town Planning. In paragraph 5 of the said affidavit, while dealing with the power conferred by the said part of sub-Section (4) of Section 3, Shri Banait has stated thus: "5. I say that, it was noticed that the tree authorities could not be constituted for administrative reasons or otherwise even if it was constituted, many times, it may become defunct and this was causing immense delay in executing development work particularly, in the areas of Municipal Corporation or Municipal Council. Therefore, these powers have been given to tackle the emergent situations where the Tree Authority is not in existence. (emphasis added) 48. We must note here that the said affidavit is filed on behalf of the State Government. Thus, it appears to us that the Commissioners or the Chief Officers are not expected to routinely act as the Tree Authority by virtue of second part of sub-Section (4) of Section 3 and it is only to tackle emergent situations that they can exercise the power of the Tree Authority. CHALLENGE TO SUB-SECTION (6) OF SECTION 8 49. Now, we come back to Section 8 and in particular sub-Section (6) which confers powers of the Tree Authority on the Municipal Commissioner or the Chief Officer or the Chief Executive Officer, as the case may be. There are various submissions made in support of the challenge to the constitutional validity of sub-Section (6). The first submission was based on the fact that in view of the amendment made by the Amendment Act, now it is the mandatory duty of the Tree Authority to hold a meeting at least once in every fortnight, as provided in sub-Section (1) of Section 4 and the interval between two meetings cannot exceed 21 days. The first submission was based on the fact that in view of the amendment made by the Amendment Act, now it is the mandatory duty of the Tree Authority to hold a meeting at least once in every fortnight, as provided in sub-Section (1) of Section 4 and the interval between two meetings cannot exceed 21 days. Thus, the submission is that in view of mandate of amended Section 4 of the Trees Act, the Tree Authority will be taking decisions by meeting once in every fortnight. Moreover, now the amended Section 8 provides that within a short span of 12 days from the receipt of the application under sub-Section (2) of Section 8, the Tree Officer is required to submit a report. Clause (a-1) of sub-Section (3) of Section 8 lays down a mandate that the Tree Authority will have to take a decision within 45 days from the receipt of the application. Therefore, now in view of the amendment to Section 8, the applications which are made under sub-Section (2) will be expeditiously decided. When the Tree Authority is not able to function for any reason, the law has already made a provision in the form of second part of sub-Section (4) of Section 3 wherein by way of an emergent measure, a Chief Officer or a Commissioner can exercise the powers of the Tree Authority. It is pointed out that when a Commissioner or a Chief Officer exercises power under sub-Section (4) of Section 3, there is a further requirement of placing the said decision before the General Body of the Municipal Corporation or the Municipal Council, as the case may be, in its immediately next meeting held after such decision. Similar safeguard is not provided in sub-Section (6) of Section 8. 50. One more argument was canvassed regarding unguided power conferred on the Commissioner or the Chief Officer under sub-Section (6) of Section 8. On plain reading of sub-Section (6), we find that there are no procedural safeguards provided. Neither the Trees Act nor the said Rules lay down any parameters or guidelines for the exercise of the drastic power under sub-Section (6) of Section 8 of permitting felling of 25 trees. There is no remedy provided to the affected citizens to challenge the decisions taken under sub-Section (6) of Section 8. The law does not require the Commissioner to consult experts in the field. There is no remedy provided to the affected citizens to challenge the decisions taken under sub-Section (6) of Section 8. The law does not require the Commissioner to consult experts in the field. Thus, prima facie, it does appear to us that the power conferred by sub-Section (6) of Section 8 is unguided and arbitrary. To this, the answer of the State Government and the Municipal Commissioners is that under sub-Section (6) of Section 8 the Commissioner acts as the Tree Authority and therefore, the entire procedure which is provided under the provisions of Section 8 has to be followed. In our view, there is a fallacy in this argument. Whenever an application is placed before a Tree Authority, valuable opinion of the experts in the field appointed under sub-Section (3) of Section 3 is always available. In fact, the said experts can always influence the decision making process. Moreover, the decision taken to fell trees is a collective decision of the elected councillors who are answerable to the citizens and the experts in the field who are supposed to be equal in numbers. When the Commissioner exercises the power under sub-Section (6) of Section 8, the law does not mandate that before exercising the power, the Commissioner must take assistance of the experts in the field. Faced with this situation, both the Municipal Corporations have come out with a list of officers on their establishments who are qualified horticulturists or experts in botany and a solemn statement has been made before us that before dealing with the applications under sub-Section (6) of Section 8, the Commissioners will consult the experts in the field. One more statement is made across the bar that adequate publicity will be given to the decisions taken by the Municipal Commissioners by publishing the same on website and in the same manner in which the information about the applications is required to be published. It is also stated that for a reasonable time, the permissions will not be acted upon so that the citizens will have an opportunity to challenge the same. Though the aforesaid statements which are in the form of concessions will not affect the legal position as regards the validity of sub-Section (6), nevertheless, these statements will have to be certainly taken into consideration for moulding the prayer for interim relief. 51. Though the aforesaid statements which are in the form of concessions will not affect the legal position as regards the validity of sub-Section (6), nevertheless, these statements will have to be certainly taken into consideration for moulding the prayer for interim relief. 51. There is one more aspect which needs to be dealt with regard to the constitutional challenge. As stated earlier, the power of permitting felling of trees is conferred by the Trees Act on various Authorities as a part of a measure to ensure preservation of trees and planting adequate number of new trees. Prima facie, it appears to us that whether 25 trees are to be felled or more than 25 trees are to be felled, the situation is no different. Even one tree can be very old having heritage value which may be providing shed to several citizens. Axiomatically, there is no difference between the situations where somebody wants to fell not more than 25 trees and somebody wants to fell more than 25 trees. When a permission is granted to fell one tree, which may be a very old and huge tree, the same ceases to exist as a result of felling. No doubt, there is a provision for compensatory plantation, but the effect of grant of permission is that the tree is permanently lost. The loss of even a single tree can have adverse impact of the environment. Hence, the object of making a classification based on number of trees appears to be prima facie discriminatory and arbitrary. 52. It is in the light of this position that we must make a reference to the decisions relied upon by the parties. While we do so, we must record here that possible misuse of statutory provision is no ground to uphold the challenge to the constitutional validity of a legislative provision as the authorities can always be compelled to take steps to avoid possible abuse or misuse of the provisions. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Subramanian Swamy (supra). In paragraph 49, the Apex Court held thus:- "49. Where there is challenge to the constitutional validity of a law enacted by the legislature, the Court must keep in view that there is always a presumption of constitutionality of an enactment, and a clear transgression of constitutional principles must be shown. In paragraph 49, the Apex Court held thus:- "49. Where there is challenge to the constitutional validity of a law enacted by the legislature, the Court must keep in view that there is always a presumption of constitutionality of an enactment, and a clear transgression of constitutional principles must be shown. The fundamental nature and importance of the legislative process needs to be recognised by the Court and due regard and deference must be accorded to the legislative process. Where the legislation is sought to be challenged as being unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, the Court must remind itself to the principles relating to the applicability of Article 14 in relation to invalidation of legislation. The two dimensions of Article 14 in its application to legislation and rendering legislation invalid are now well recognised and these are: (i) discrimination, based on an impermissible or invalid classification, and (ii) excessive delegation of powers; conferment of uncanalised and unguided powers on the executive, whether in the form of delegated legislation or by way of conferment of authority to pass administrative orders - if such conferment is without any guidance, control or checks, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court also needs to be mindful that a legislation does not become unconstitutional merely because there is another view or because another method may be considered to be as good or even more effective, like any issue of social, or even economic policy. It is well settled that the courts do not substitute their views on what the policy is." (emphasis added) 53. The said decision reiterates the well settled legal position that there can be a challenge to the constitutional validity of statute on the basis of violation of Article 14. It is held that violation of Article 14 will invalidate the statute in two cases. The first case is where there is a discrimination based on impermissible or invalid classification or excessive delegation of powers. Secondly when conferment of uncanalised and unguided powers is made on the executive to pass administrative orders is without any guidance, control or checks, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, the submissions made are about irrationality of the classification made on the basis of applications seeking permission for felling of trees upto 25 trees and more than 25 trees. In the present case, the submissions made are about irrationality of the classification made on the basis of applications seeking permission for felling of trees upto 25 trees and more than 25 trees. Moreover, the challenge is also on the ground of conferment of uncanalised and unguided power without any control or checks. We have already recorded our prima facie finding on both the aspects in favour of the petitioners. 54. Reliance was also placed on another decision of the Apex Court which is of a Constitution Bench in the case of State of Punjab and Another Vs. Khan Chand (supra), where majority view is expressed by Khanna, J. In paragraph 8 of the said decision, the Apex Court observed that vesting of discretion in the authorities in exercise of power under an enactment by itself does not entail contravention of Article 14. What is objectionable is the conferment of arbitrary and uncontrolled discretion without any guidelines whatsoever with regard to the exercise of discretion. Paragraph 8 of the said decision is relevant which reads thus:- 8. We may state that the vesting of discretion in authorities in the exercise of power under an enactment does not by itself entail contravention of Article 14. What is objectionable is the conferment of arbitrary and uncontrolled discretion without any guidelines whatsoever with regard to the exercise of that discretion. Considering the complex nature of problems which have to be faced by a modern State, it is but inevitable that the matter of details should be left to the authorities acting under an enactment. Discretion has, therefore, to be given to the authorities concerned for the exercise of the powers vested in them under an enactment. The enactment must, however, prescribe the guidelines for the furtherance of the objects of the enactment and it is within the framework of those guidelines that the authorities can use their discretion in the exercise of the powers conferred upon them. Discretion which is absolute, uncontrolled and without any guidelines in the exercise of the powers can easily degenerate into arbitrariness. When individuals act according to their sweet will, there is bound to be an element of "pick and choose" according to the notion of the individuals. Discretion which is absolute, uncontrolled and without any guidelines in the exercise of the powers can easily degenerate into arbitrariness. When individuals act according to their sweet will, there is bound to be an element of "pick and choose" according to the notion of the individuals. If a Legislature bestows such untrammelled discretion on the authorities acting under an enactment, it abdicates its essential function for such discretion is bound to result in discrimination which is the negation and antithesis of the ideal of equality before law as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. It is the absence of any principle or policy for the guidance of the authority concerned in the exercise of discretion which vitiates an enactment and makes it vulnerable to the attack on the ground of violation of Article 14. It is no answer to the above that the executive officers are presumed to be reasonable men who do not stand to gain in the abuse of their power and can be trusted to use "discretion" with discretion. As mentioned on p. 3 of Parliamentary Supervision of Delegated Legislation by John E. Kersell, 1960 Edn. "The point is, however, that no one ought to be trusted with power without restraint. Power can be of an encroaching nature, and its encroachments are usually for the sake of what are sincerely believed to be good, and indeed necessary, objectives. Throughout history the most terrible form of tyranny has been the forcing on human beings of what someone believes to be good for them. The imposition of controls on the use of delegated legislative authority, therefore, does not imply a deep suspicion of malevolent intentions. Human nature, being what it is, has to be protected against itself, and where power is concerned the very existence of the possibility of restraint, as we shall see, is a safeguard against abuses in which ends may be used to justify means and the good in intent becomes the evil in effect." (emphasis added) 55. The Apex Court reiterated the settled legal principle that when a discretion conferred on an Authority which is absolute, uncontrolled and without any guidelines, the exercise of such powers can easily degenerate into arbitrariness. The Apex Court observed in the same decision in paragraph 9 which reads thus:- "9. The Apex Court reiterated the settled legal principle that when a discretion conferred on an Authority which is absolute, uncontrolled and without any guidelines, the exercise of such powers can easily degenerate into arbitrariness. The Apex Court observed in the same decision in paragraph 9 which reads thus:- "9. It has been observed by this Court in the case of Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar [ AIR 1958 SC 538 : (1959) SCR 279, 299: (1959) SCJ 147] that a statute may not make any classification of the persons or things for the purpose of applying its provisions but may leave it to the discretion of the Government to select and classify persons or things to whom its provisions are to apply. In determining the question of the validity or otherwise of such a statute the Court will not strike down the law out of hand only because no classification appears on its face or because a discretion is given to the Government to make the selection or classification but will go on to examine and ascertain if the statute has laid down any principle or policy for the guidance of the exercise of discretion by the Government in the matter of the selection or classification. After such scrutiny the Court will strike down the statute if it does not lay down any principle or policy for guiding the exercise of discretion by the Government in the matter of selection or classification, on the ground that the statute provides for the delegation of arbitrary and uncontrolled power to the Government so as to enable it to discriminate between persons or things similarly situate and that, therefore, the discrimination is inherent in the statute itself. In such a case the Court will strike down both the law as well as the executive action under such law." (emphasis added) The Apex Court has also laid down in what manner scrutiny of legislative challenge is to be made by the Courts. Applying the said test laid down by the Apex Court, we find that unguided powers appear to have been conferred on the Commissioner under sub-Section (6) of Section 8. 56. There are other decisions placed on record to which a brief reference will have to be made. We are conscious of the limitations on the power of writ Court to stay the provisions of an enactment. 56. There are other decisions placed on record to which a brief reference will have to be made. We are conscious of the limitations on the power of writ Court to stay the provisions of an enactment. However, that is a different question which is dealt with in subsequent paragraphs when we will consider the question of moulding the reliefs. In the case of State of Tamil Nadu and others Vs. K. Shyam Sunder and others (supra), in paragraph 49, the Apex Court held thus:- "49. In view of the above, the law stands crystallised to the effect that in case the legislature wants to delegate its power in respect of the implementation of the law enacted by it, it must provide sufficient guidelines, conditions, on fulfillment of which, the Act would be enforced by the delegatee. Conferring unfettered, uncanalised powers without laying down certain norms for enforcement of the Act tantamounts to abdication of legislative power by the legislature which is not permissible in law More so, where the Act has already come into force, such a power cannot be exercised just to nullify its commencement thereof." 57. In the case of Dwarka Prasad Laxmi Narain (supra), in paragraph-7, the Apex Court has held thus: "Nobody can dispute that for ensuring equitable distribution of commodities considered essential to the community and their availability at fair prices, it is quite a reasonable thing to regulate sale of these commodities through licensed vendors to whom quotas are allotted in specified quantities and who are not permitted to sell them beyond the prices that are fixed by the controlling authorities. The power of granting or withholding licences or of fixing the prices of the goods would necessarily have to be vested in certain public officers or bodies and they would certainly have to be left with some amount of discretion in these matters. So far no exception can be taken; but the mischief arises when the power conferred on such officers is an arbitrary power unregulated by any rule or principle and it is left entirely to the discretion of particular persons to do anything they like without any check or control by any higher authority. A law or order, which confers arbitrary and uncontrolled power upon the executive in the matter of regulating trade or business in normally available commodities cannot but be held to be unreasonable. A law or order, which confers arbitrary and uncontrolled power upon the executive in the matter of regulating trade or business in normally available commodities cannot but be held to be unreasonable. As has been held by this court in Chintamon v. The State of Madhya Pradesh: (1950) SCR 759, the phrase "reasonable restriction" connotes that the limitation imposed upon a person in enjoyment of a right should not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature beyond what is required in the interest of the public. Legislation, which arbitrarily or excessively invades the right, cannot be said to contain the quality of reasonableness, and unless it strikes a proper balance between the freedom guaranteed under Article 19(1) (g) and the social control permitted by clause (6) of article 19, it must be held to be wanting in reasonableness. It is in the light of these principles that we would proceed to examine the provisions of this Control Order, the validity of which has been impugned before us on behalf of the petitioners." (emphasis added) 58. Now, we go back to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Subramanian Swamy (supra). In paragraph-58, the Apex Court held thus: "58. The Constitution permits the State to determine, by the process of classification, what should be regarded as a class for purposes of legislation and in relation to law enacted on a particular subject. There is bound to be some degree of inequality when there is segregation of one class from the other. However, such segregation must be rational and not artificial or evasive. In other words, the classification must not only be based on some qualities or characteristics, which are to be found in all persons grouped together and not in others who are left out but those qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object of the legislation. Differentia which is the basis of classification must be sound and must have reasonable relation to the object of the legislation. If the object itself is discriminatory, then explanation that classification is reasonable having rational relation to the object sought to be achieved is immaterial." (emphasis added) 59. Differentia which is the basis of classification must be sound and must have reasonable relation to the object of the legislation. If the object itself is discriminatory, then explanation that classification is reasonable having rational relation to the object sought to be achieved is immaterial." (emphasis added) 59. In the present case, prima facie, we have found that the object of classification made of applications seeking relief in respect of not more than 25 trees and applications seeking relief in respect of more than 25 trees is itself discriminatory and arbitrary. In any event, there are arguable questions raised on the issue whether the classification on the basis of the number of the trees to be felled is reasonable. 60. All the decisions which are relied upon by the petitioners as well as by the respondents take a note of well settled principles regarding presumption of constitutionality in favour of the statutory provisions and that the burden of establishing that the same is unconstitutional is on the person who seeks to challenge the same. The learned senior counsel appearing for the Mumbai Municipal Corporation relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Welfare Association, A.R.P. Maharashtra (supra) and, in particular what is held in paragraph-5 thereof which again reiterates the same principle of burden of proof being on the petitioner who challenges the constitutional validity. He also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Laxmi Devi (supra) and, particularly paragraph- 43 which holds that the Court can declare a statute to be unconstitutional only when there can be no manner of doubt that it is flagrantly unconstitutional and there is no way of avoiding such a conclusion. In the case of Subramanian Swamy (supra), the Apex Court has reiterated the well settled law that mere possibility of abuse of the provisions of law does not per se invalidate legislation. 61. As regards the contention that sub-Section (6) of Section 8 confers unguided and arbitrary power on the Municipal Commissioner, the learned counsel appearing for the Mumbai Municipal Corporation pressed into service the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Consumer Action Group (supra) and, particularly what is held in paragraph-18 which reads thus: "18. 61. As regards the contention that sub-Section (6) of Section 8 confers unguided and arbitrary power on the Municipal Commissioner, the learned counsel appearing for the Mumbai Municipal Corporation pressed into service the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Consumer Action Group (supra) and, particularly what is held in paragraph-18 which reads thus: "18. The catena of decisions referred to above concludes unwaveringly in spite of a very wide power being conferred on the delegatee that such a Section would still not be ultra vires, if guidelines could be gathered from the Preamble, Objects and Reasons and other provisions of the Acts and Rules. In testing the validity of such provision, the courts have to discover, whether there is any legislative policy, purpose of the statute or indication of any clear will through its various provisions. If there be any, then this by itself would be a guiding factor to be exercised by the delegatee. In other words, then it cannot be held that such a power is unbridled or uncanalised. The exercise of power of such delegatee is controlled through such policy. The fast-changing scenario of economic, social order with scientific development spawns innumerable situations which the legislature possibly could not foresee, so the delegatee is entrusted with power to meet such exigencies within the inbuilt check or guidance and in the present case to be within the declared policy. So the delegatee has to exercise its powers within this controlled path to subserve the policy and to achieve the objectives of the Act. A situation may arise, in some cases where strict adherence to any provision of the statute or rules may result in great hardship, in a given situation, where exercise of such power of exemption is to remove this hardship without materially affecting the policy of the Act, viz., development in the present case then such exercise of power would be covered under it. All situations cannot be culled out, which have to be judiciously judged and exercised, to meet any such great hardship of any individual or institution or conversely in the interest of the society at large. Such power is meant rarely to be used. All situations cannot be culled out, which have to be judiciously judged and exercised, to meet any such great hardship of any individual or institution or conversely in the interest of the society at large. Such power is meant rarely to be used. So far as decisions relied on by the petitioner, where the provisions were held to be ultra vires, they are not cases in which the Court found that there was any policy laid down under the Act. In A.N. Parasuraman [ (1989) 4 SCC 683 ] the Court held Section 22 to be ultra vires as the Act did not lay down any principle or policy. Similarly, in Kunnathat Thathunni Moopil Nair [ AIR 1961 SC 552 : (1961) 3 SCR 77 ]. Section 7 was held to be ultra vires as there was no principle or policy laid down." 62. Our attention is also invited to the well known decision of the Apex Court in the case of Health for Millions (supra) which deals with the power of the Constitutional Courts to grant interim relief of stay of statutory provisions. Paragraph-13 of the said decision reads thus: "13. We have considered the respective arguments and submissions and carefully perused the record. Since the matter is pending adjudication before the High Court, we do not want to express any opinion on the merits and demerits of the writ Petitioner's challenge to the constitutional validity of the 2003 Act and the 2004 Rules as amended in 2005 but have no hesitation in holding that the High Court was not at all justified in passing the impugned orders ignoring the well-settled proposition of law that in matters involving challenge to the constitutionality of any legislation enacted by the Legislature and the rules framed thereunder the Courts should be extremely loath to pass an interim order. At the time of final adjudication, the Court can strike down the statute if it is found to be ultra vires the Constitution. Likewise, the rules can be quashed if the same are found to be unconstitutional or ultra vires the provisions of the Act. At the time of final adjudication, the Court can strike down the statute if it is found to be ultra vires the Constitution. Likewise, the rules can be quashed if the same are found to be unconstitutional or ultra vires the provisions of the Act. However, the operation of the statutory provisions cannot be stultified by granting an interim order except when the Court is fully convinced that the particular enactment or the rules are ex facie unconstitutional and the factors, like, balance of convenience, irreparable injury and public interest are in favour of passing an interim order." (emphasis added) 63. As narrated earlier, the State Government has come out with a suggestion that a direction can be issued to ensure that a permission, if any, granted by the Municipal Commissioner under sub-Section (6) of Section 8 is not implemented for a reasonable time from the date of publication of the said order on the website of the Municipal Corporation as well as in the newspapers so that aggrieved persons get an opportunity to challenge the said decision. Moreover, in the additional affidavit filed by Shri Jitendra Pardeshi, Superintendent of Garden and Tree Officer of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation dated 13th April 2018 several assurances have been given. The said affidavit is clarified by further affidavit dated 18th April 2018 of Shri Sahebrao P Gavit, Superintendent of Garden. We have already quoted paragraph-10 of the affidavit of Shri Jitendra V. Pardeshi dated 13th April 2018 in earlier part of the judgment. In paragraph- 2 and 3 of the affidavit of Shri Gavit, the statements made in paragraphs-10 and 11 of the affidavit of Shri Jitendra Pardeshi have been explained. Paragraphs-2 and 3 of the affidavit of Shri Sahebrao Gavit read thus: "2. I say that Affidavit dated 13th April, 2018 filed by Superintendent of Gardens Shri. Jitendra Pardeshi, wherein in para 10 it is stated that "the said functions and powers will be exercised by the Municipal Commissioner for 25 trees per project and /or per defined plot and per sanction of Competent Authority or Planning Authority. More than 25 trees per defined plot will be referred to Tree Authority as per procedure." I state that the proposals as stated in the said para refer to private layouts/defined plots. 3. Paragraph-11 of the said Affidavit, mentions about the Public Projects such as Metro Rail. More than 25 trees per defined plot will be referred to Tree Authority as per procedure." I state that the proposals as stated in the said para refer to private layouts/defined plots. 3. Paragraph-11 of the said Affidavit, mentions about the Public Projects such as Metro Rail. It is therefore submitted in the said para-11 "that there are Public Projects wherein the proposals are submitted section wise the proposals upto 25 trees will be considered per Section as sanctioned by the concerned Competent Authority." These statements in the affidavits will continue to bind the Municipal Commissioner till the final disposal of PIL. 64. Though a prima facie case is made out about the invalidity of the provisions of sub-Section (5) of Section 8, as far as the question of staying the operation of sub-Section (6) of Section 8 is concerned, we are of the view that the prayer for interim relief can be moulded so as to avoid possibility of misuse of sub-Section (6) of Section 8 of the Trees Act. Firstly, the Municipal Commissioner will have to take advice of experts available with the Municipal Corporation before taking any decision on the application made under sub-Section (6) of Section 8. The Municipal Commissioner will have to also pass an order on each application recording the names of the experts whose assistance and/or advice is taken by him. It is obvious that the Municipal Commissioner will have to ensure that the exercise of powers under sub-Section (6) of Section 8 is not made for circumventing the provisions of sub-Section (3) of Section 8 with a view to obtain permission for felling more than 25 trees on the same property by making more than one applications seeking relief in respect of 25 trees in each application. It is obvious that pending the final disposal of the petition, the power under sub-Section (6) of Section 8 can be exercised by the Municipal Commissioner only once in respect of every plot which is shown as a separate plot in city survey records or revenue records. In case of a public project which relates to several properties, before dealing with the application made under sub-Section (6) of Section 8, the Municipal Commissioner will have to verify whether the project is divided into separate sections. In case of a public project which relates to several properties, before dealing with the application made under sub-Section (6) of Section 8, the Municipal Commissioner will have to verify whether the project is divided into separate sections. It is obvious that only one application under sub-Section (6) of Section 8 can be entertained by the Municipal Commissioner for each such section. Moreover, the decision taken by the Municipal Commissioner will have to be published on the website of the respective Municipal Corporations. The entire text of the order will have to be published. Moreover, a public notice of the said decision giving description of the property shall be published in local newspapers having a very wide circulation within the limits of the Municipal Corporation. Considering that the cities of Mumbai and Thane are metropolitan cities, the notice will have to be published in Marathi, Hindi and English newspapers having wide circulation in that particular municipal corporation limits. The notice published in the newspapers must mention that the copies of the decisions have been uploaded on a particular website. The decisions taken by the Municipal Commissioners under sub-Section (6) of Section 8 shall not be implemented for a period of three weeks from the date on which the publication is made on the website and in newspapers whichever is subsequent. This will give an opportunity to the citizens to challenge the decisions taken by the Municipal Commissioner by adopting appropriate proceedings. In case the petitioners in these two petitions wish to challenge such decisions, it will be always open for them to file an application in these pending petitions to challenge such decisions. However, we have to clarify that this embargo of not implementing the decisions will not apply where in the order, the Municipal Commissioner has recorded a specific finding that if a particular tree is not allowed to be felled immediately, it would pose a grave danger to the life or property. 65. Even as regards the orders passed by the Municipal Commissioner by exercising powers under second part of sub-Section (4) of Section 3, we propose to issue similar directions regarding publication so that aggrieved citizens can challenge the said orders. 66. As regards the appointment of the Tree Officer of the Thane Municipal Corporation is concerned, we propose to consider the prayer for interim relief after necessary adjudication is made as directed. 67. 66. As regards the appointment of the Tree Officer of the Thane Municipal Corporation is concerned, we propose to consider the prayer for interim relief after necessary adjudication is made as directed. 67. We summarize our conclusions as under: (i) Prima facie, we find merit in the challenge to the constitutional validity of sub-Section (6) of Section 8 of the Trees Act; (ii) As far as power conferred on the Municipal Officers by second part of sub-Section (4) of Section 3 is concerned, we hold that power can be exercised only in case of emergency or in exceptional cases. We hold that the said power does not give any authority to the municipal officers named therein to exercise power under the said provision in a routine manner by substituting themselves in place of Tree Authority Thus, the said power cannot be exercised in a routine manner and the exercise of power will remain confined to exceptional cases and in case of emergency We may note here that if exceptional case or emergent case is in relation to less than 25 trees, recourse will have to be taken to sub-Section (6) of Section 8 and not second part of sub-Section (4) of Section 3. (iii) We hold that the public notice which is required to be published as per clause (a)(i) of sub-Section (3) of Section 8 shall be published in local newspapers having very wide circulation in the entire area of the respective Municipal Corporations. In metropolitan cities, there cannot be adequate compliance of publication of notice in newspapers unless the publication is made in Marathi, Hindi and English newspapers having wide circulation within the limits of such Municipal Corporations; (iv) As regards the Tree Authority of the Thane Municipal Corporation, our conclusion is that ex facie, the appointment of members made in accordance with sub-Section (3) of Section 3 by the Resolution dated 9th October 2017 is illegal as the entire process is vitiated by non-application of mind. We also hold that ex facie, the appointment of Special Invitees made under Resolution dated 9th October 2017 is completely illegal; (v) As regards members appointed under sub-Section (1) of Section 3 in respect of the Tree Authority of Thane, as the Municipal Commissioner has already come to the conclusion that the Tree Authority needs to be reconstituted, the Municipal Corporation (its General Body) will have to decide whether the appointment of the members made under sub-Section (1) of Section 3 deserves to be continued in the newly constituted Tree Authority. We leave this issue open as we have made no adjudication on the question of eligibility of those members who have been appointed under sub-Section (1) of Section 3. The Municipal Corporation will consider whether a preference will have to be given to Science graduates while making appointment under sub-Section (1) of Section 3 as agreed by the Pune Municipal Corporation. However, this aspect will have to be gone into by the Municipal Corporation; (vi) We hold that the decisions taken by the Tree Authority of the Thane Municipal Corporation of permitting felling/transplanting trees in the meeting held on 17th October 2017 is prima facie illegal and cannot be implemented till the disposal of the petition. However, if the Tree Authority is hereafter lawfully constituted, the Tree Authority can deal with the said applications decided on 17th October 2017 from the stage at which the said applications were pending on 17th October 2017. We make it clear that we have not made any adjudication on the merits of the said applications. Moreover, the decision dated 17th October 2017 is vitiated for the reason that appointment of members made under sub-Section (3) of Section 3 as well as the Special Invitees is found to be ex facie illegal. 68. We make it clear that we have not made any adjudication on the merits of the said applications. Moreover, the decision dated 17th October 2017 is vitiated for the reason that appointment of members made under sub-Section (3) of Section 3 as well as the Special Invitees is found to be ex facie illegal. 68. In the light of the prima facie findings recorded above, we pass the following interim order: ORDER (i) We direct that till the final disposal of this petition, the resolutions dated 9th October 2017 (Exhibit-H and K in PIL No. 119 of 2017) shall not be acted upon in view of the findings recorded as above; (ii) In view of the above findings, till the final disposal of PIL No. 119 of 2017, the existing Tree Authority of the Thane Municipal Corporation shall not take any decision on the applications which may be made under sub-Section (2) of Section 8 of the Trees Act; (iii) We accept the statement made by the Municipal Commissioner of the Thane Municipal Corporation in letter dated 28th April 2018; (iv) We direct the Municipal Commissioner of the Thane Municipal Corporation to place the subject of reconstitution of Tree Authority before the first General Body meeting which will be held after this order is uploaded; (v) The General Body of the Thane Municipal Corporation shall consider whether the members who are already appointed under sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the Trees Act deserve to continue in the reconstituted Tree Authority After the said decision is taken of appointing members in accordance with sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the Trees Act, a fresh process shall be commenced for appointing members in accordance with sub-Section (3) of Section 3 of the Trees Act. This process shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, within the period of three months from the date on which the appropriate decision is taken by the General Body of the said Municipal Corporation; (vi) We make it clear that the newly constituted Tree Authority can start functioning only after the members are appointed in accordance with sub-Section (3) of Section 3 of the Trees Act in the light of observations made in this order as well as in the judgment and order dated 20th September 2013 in the case of Dipak Balkrishna Vahikar and another (supra); (vii) In PIL No. 119/2017, we restrain the concerned respondents therein from giving effect to the permissions granted in the meeting of the Tree Authority held on 17th October 2017. We make it clear that after the Tree Authority is lawfully constituted, the applications which were granted in the said meeting shall be placed before the Tree Authority and the said applications shall be dealt with from the stage at which the said applications were pending on 17th October 2017; (viii) We clarify that powers of the Municipal Commissioners conferred by the second part of sub-Section (4) of Section 3 of the Trees Act shall be exercised in accordance with the findings recorded in this order in paragraphs-47 and 48 above; (ix) As far as deeming fiction under sub-Section (5) of Section 8 is concerned, the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dipak Balkrishna Vahikar and another will apply, subject to what is held in paragraphs-44 to 46 above; (x) Whenever powers are exercised by the Commissioners of the Municipal Corporations either under the second part of sub-Section (4) of Section 3 or sub-Section (6) of Section 8, the final decision shall not be taken by the Municipal Commissioners without consulting the experts in the field of Horticulture or Botany working on the establishments of the Municipal Corporations. If the services of such experts are not available with the Municipal Corporation, the Municipal Commissioners shall consult appropriate experts in the field. The orders which may be passed by the Municipal Commissioners shall record the name/s of the person or persons whose assistance and advice is taken by the Municipal Commissioners. If the services of such experts are not available with the Municipal Corporation, the Municipal Commissioners shall consult appropriate experts in the field. The orders which may be passed by the Municipal Commissioners shall record the name/s of the person or persons whose assistance and advice is taken by the Municipal Commissioners. If the Municipal Commissioners are of the view that a permission to fell a tree or trees is required to be granted on the ground that the tree or trees are posing grave danger to life or property, the orders will specifically record the said reason; (xi) The powers under sub-Section (4) of Section 3 and sub-Section (6) of Section 8 of the Trees Act shall be exercised by the Municipal Commissioner keeping in mind the observations made in this order. The complete text of the order passed by the Commissioners shall be immediately uploaded on the website of the concerned Municipal Corporations. If the Tree Authority is having its own website, the orders shall be also uploaded on the website of the Tree Authority. In addition, a public notice shall be published in the newspapers having a very vide circulation in the Municipal areas as observed earlier giving details of the orders passed by the Municipal Commissioners and also setting out that the decisions taken have been published on the website or websites mentioned therein; (xii) The decisions taken by the Municipal Commissioners as aforesaid shall not be implemented for a period of three weeks from the date on which the same are published on the websites and newspapers, whichever is later. However, this embargo will not be applicable in relation to the trees in respect of which a specific finding has been recorded that the trees constitute a grave danger to the life or property. In relation to such trees, the orders can be immediately implemented; (xiii) Needless to add that after such publication is made, the citizens who are aggrieved by the said decisions will be free to adopt appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. In relation to such trees, the orders can be immediately implemented; (xiii) Needless to add that after such publication is made, the citizens who are aggrieved by the said decisions will be free to adopt appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. If the petitioners in these two PILs are aggrieved by any such orders, they may also file appropriate proceedings in the pending PILs for challenging the decisions of the Municipal Commissioners; (xiv) As far as Tree Authority of Thane is concerned, we make it clear that we have not recorded any final finding on the issue of eligibility of individual members who are appointed as members either under sub-Section (1) of Section 3 or sub-Section (3) of Section 3 of the Trees Act; (xv) The prayers for interim relief are disposed of with the above directions; (xvi) As far as prayer regarding the Tree Officer of Tree Authority of Thane is concerned, before we dispose of the said prayer, we direct the Principal Secretary of the Urban Development Department to apply his mind and to decide whether the Tree Officer was holding a post of the rank not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner before he was appointed as the Tree Officer. The Principal Secretary of the Urban Development Department shall act on the basis of an authenticated copy of this order and submit report to this Court on or before 12th June 2018 for considering the said limited prayer; (xvii) The petition shall be listed on 12th June 2018 under the caption of "directions".