HC refuses interim stay on amendment to Trees Act

Image
Press Trust of India Mumbai
Last Updated : Apr 23 2018 | 4:40 PM IST

The Bombay High Court today refused to grant an interim stay on a recent amendment that allowed chiefs of civic bodies in Maharashtra to decide applications seeking felling of trees below 25 in number, but said the powers should not be "misused" and must not be used in a routine manner.

As per a recent amendment to the Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection and Preservation of Trees Act, any proposal to cut trees below 25 in number can be placed before the concerned civic body commissioner.

Proposals for cutting more than 25 trees would be sent to the Tree Authority of that particular civic body.

A division bench of Justices A S Oka and Riyaz Chagla was hearing a petition filed by an activist, Zoru Bhathena, challenging validity of the amendment--section 8(6)--and sought an interim stay on implementation of this section.

The HC observed that while prima facie it found merit in the challenge to section 8(6) of the Act, it would not be feasible to grant an interim stay practically.

"...However, the commissioners will have to ensure that the powers are not misused and should be exercised only in emergency or exceptional cases. The commissioner should not exercise his powers in a routine manner," the bench said.

It added that the commissioners shall take opinion of experts before taking decision on applications seeking permission to cut trees and that the commissioner concerned will have to record the names of these experts in the order.

The decision of the commissioner would have to be published on the civic body's website and a public notice giving description of the property shall be published in newspapers.

"The decision shall not be implemented for a period of three weeks from publishing the order on the website. This will give citizens an opportunity to challenge the order," the bench said.

This three-week period would not apply to cases where the commissioner has observed in his order that the tree, if not cut, would pose a threat to life or property, the high court said.

The judges also held that the Thane civic body's Tree Authority was set up in an illegal manner and without proper application of mind.

"We accept the Thane civic body chief's statement that the tree authority has been dissolved. We direct him commissioner to raise the issue of reconstituting the tree authority before the corporation's general body," the court said.

Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content

*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Apr 23 2018 | 4:40 PM IST

Next Story