Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 59 (MEG)

Kaustav Paul v. State of Meghalaya

2018-09-07

MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR, S.R.SEN

body2018
JUDGMENT : Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J. 1. Petitioner, an advocate by profession, appreciably has espoused the cause of the public which in essence is linked with the beauty and ambience of Shillong town. Taking note of the newspaper reports to the effect that large number of trees are proposed to cut down, has filed the instant Public Interest Litigation (PIL). 2. What triggered the proposal for cutting down of large numbers of trees is a mishap which happened unfortunately at Raj Bhavan. Due to incessant torrential rain and strong wind for several days eucalyptus tree fell down, three persons in the incident lost their lives. The said tragic incident occurred on 12.08.2017 immediately thereafter, the Forest department convened a meeting. Six inspection teams were formed to identify the trees posing serious threat and danger to public life and property. The said inspection teams prepared the report, on the basis of the report, 549 trees were identified as dangerous out of which 83 trees were posing serious threat to the lives of the people. It was also made public that any person can inform the Forest department by using helpline numbers regarding the trees posing danger to human life and properties. 3. The petitioner has highlighted that Shillong has all along been known as greenery, the presence of lush green forests and pine groves in every locality add to the beauty and ambience to town popularly known as "Scotland of the East." 4. True it is that beauty and other things have to be maintained but at the same time pruning and cutting of unhealthy trees posing serious threat to the life and property is imperative. Beauty of the town is to be enjoyed by the inhabitants and tourist but when it poses a threat and take away the lives, allowing such trees to stand shall not be in the interest of public. 5. Various orders passed from time to time have been complied with and responded. In the process, we have not noticed any deviation committed by the Forest department. It is also our concern that healthy trees shall not be cut down. The trees after proper inspection, if found, anywhere in a deteriorating condition posing threat to the life and property, the authorities concerned shall immediately take action and follow the Meghalaya Tree (Preservation) Act, 1976 and the Meghalaya Tree (Preservation) Rules, 1976. 6. It is also our concern that healthy trees shall not be cut down. The trees after proper inspection, if found, anywhere in a deteriorating condition posing threat to the life and property, the authorities concerned shall immediately take action and follow the Meghalaya Tree (Preservation) Act, 1976 and the Meghalaya Tree (Preservation) Rules, 1976. 6. The respondent-department has the responsibility to observe the provisions of the Act and Rules in real spirit and to ensure that under any pretext healthy trees are not cut down. The answer to the same is available in the latest affidavit filed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Khasi Hills Territorial Division, Shillong wherein, the background regarding felling of trees has been given in detail, further, it has been made clear that as a matter of fact, 549 trees were identified as dangerous, 83 trees were posing serious threat to the lives and properties. It is also made clear that the Commissioner as appointed by the Court has submitted the report regarding the condition of trees. The Advisory Committee on 11.09.2017 recommending majority felling, some to be retained after heavy pruning, lopping at the top, retention with lopping, retention with pruning, retention with spray of anti termite solution etc. 7. In the affidavits as were filed on 22.08.2017, 06.09.2017, 22.09.2017 and 08.12.2017, it was made clear that the total numbers of trees to be felled were 39 out of which 27 were felled. Then subsequently, 11 more were cut down. The apprehension that there shall be cutting of majority of trees is imaginary. 8. Learned Advocate General in the open Court assured that the Forest department whenever initiates process for felling of unhealthy trees, the rules and the provisions of the Act will be strictly followed. Felling and pruning of tree whenever required shall also be strictly in accordance the Act and Rules. 9. The Forest department is an expert body. They know what will be the healthy tree or which tree poses threat, which tree requires pruning and lopping. Same position is supported by fact that during the pendency of this PIL, it was reported that some healthy trees were cut down. Immediately a team of expert was constituted to submit the report. When the report was submitted it was found the photographs revealed that those trees were not healthy but decayed. 10. Same position is supported by fact that during the pendency of this PIL, it was reported that some healthy trees were cut down. Immediately a team of expert was constituted to submit the report. When the report was submitted it was found the photographs revealed that those trees were not healthy but decayed. 10. Forest department has responsibility to ensure that no healthy tree is cut down. If at any point of time, any tree in a healthy condition is cut down otherwise than for public purpose, it shall be open for any person to lodge complaint against the violator and stern action will be taken in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules. 11. In view of the assurance extended by the learned Advocate General on behalf of the Forest department and other authorities that no tree will be cut down unless expert opines that the tree is posing threat to the life and property and also assures that there will be no deviation or violation in implementing the provisions of the Act and Rules. 12. The Act by itself provides that if a tree is cut as a replacement 10 more trees are to be planted by the Forest department. The Forest department shall ensure that whenever tree is cut down, 10 more trees are planted as envisaged by the Rules of 1976. 13. Mr. S.P. Mahanta, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 6 submits that in cantonment area there are also rules in place regarding preservation, cutting, lopping of trees. The respondent No. 6 will strictly adhere to the same. 14. For the stated reasons, there is no requirement to continue with this PIL which is accordingly closed. 15. During the pendency of this petition in pursuance to various orders, some cut down trees were seized but cutting of trees was found in accordance with law therefore, seized timber of those trees which is under the custody of the Receiver appointed by the Court shall be handed over to the Forest department who shall dispose of the same in accordance with the Act and Rules. 16. Disposed of as above.