'Not aware of need for court approval': Delhi LG tells SC on tree felling

On October 16, the Supreme Court gave Delhi Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena an October 22 deadline to take action against DDA officials for the illegal felling of trees

Delhi Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena informed the Supreme Court that he was unaware of the requirement for court approval prior to the felling of trees in the Ridge area, which is part of the Aravalli range.

His statement was made in a personal affidavit submitted ahead of Wednesday's hearing.

Saxena stated that he learned in June about the unauthorised felling of 642 trees that took place in February, when the court was hearing a contempt petition against the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). The court directed DDA Vice-Chairman Subhasish Panda to inform the Lieutenant Governor, given his role as chairman of the land-owning authority in the capital.

 

On October 16, the Supreme Court imposed a deadline of October 22 for Saxena to take action against DDA officials who were implicated in the illegal removal of over 1,100 trees. The court sought clarification on why the trees were cut without the necessary clearance and asked the Lieutenant Governor to indicate whether there had been any discussion about obtaining permission for the tree removal and when he became aware of this requirement.

A bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud asked Saxena to outline any remedial measures taken after he was informed of the situation.

In his affidavit, Saxena mentioned that he visited the Ridge area on February 3, where a medical facility for the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) is planned. During his visit, he considered both the significance of the project and the investments made thus far.

On his way back, he stopped to inspect road widening work, but no one at the site informed him that court permission was required for the tree removal, according to the affidavit.

Saxena characterised the tree felling as an unfortunate incident, asserting that there was no negligence on Panda's part, and requested that Panda be released from the contempt proceedings. He noted that both departmental and criminal actions had been initiated against an executive and two assistant engineers, who instructed a contractor to remove the trees “on their own authority”.

The Supreme Court is hearing a contempt case involving several DDA and Delhi government officials concerning the cutting of trees. The apex court said that if the chairperson agrees, criminal charges should be pursued against those responsible for the unlawful removal of the trees.

(With agency inputs)