The Supreme Court on Thursday noted discrepancies in the statements and dates of Delhi Lieutenant Governor (LG) V K Saxena and ex-VC of Delhi Development Authority (DDA) on when they learnt about tree felling in Delhi’s Ridge area while directing them to make a “specific disclosure”. A bench of Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra asked LG Saxena and Subhasish Panda, ex-VC of DDA to make a specific disclosure on when they came to know about the tree felling in the Ridge area.
“We further call for an affidavit from the chairperson and former vice-chairperson of the DDA on the discrepancies. We also direct that all the original records be produced before this court… We direct specific disclosure by both the chairperson and former vice-chairperson of DDA of the specific date on which they obtained knowledge of the felling of trees,” directed the bench.
While directing that a report of Forest Survey of India be also produced before the court within a week, the bench posted the hearing on November 5.
During the hearing, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the petitioners who have alleged contempt on part of Delhi LG, submitted that as per the affidavit submitted by the LG, it appeared that he had come to know about the tree felling on June 10 but records showed he was apprised about tree felling in the Ridge area in April.
Alleging it as “hair splitting of the incident” by the petitioners, senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the LG, said the exact date on when he (LG) learnt about the tree felling was June 10, when he was informed that the felling of trees began on February 16.
“The DDA chairperson is not saying that he did not know about the felling of trees till June 10. He is only saying that the actual date of felling of trees was conveyed to him on June 10,” Singh submitted.
He sought the top court’s permission to file a better affidavit.
The bench observed the felling of trees had commenced on or about February 16, 2024.
“This being the position, the primary question which arises is who sanctioned the felling of trees,” it said. The bench noted the LG’s affidavit stated that he was made aware for the first time on receipt of the DDA vice-chairman’s letter on June 10 that the tree felling exercise had started on February 16.
The bench said prima facie it appeared from the files that the former vice-chairperson of DDA on April 12, 2024, had informed the LG about the project and alternate alignment of roads. It noted the LG directed on the proposal for an alternate alignment of roads to be completed in a time-bound manner.
It said from the April 12 letter it appeared the ex-vice chairperson had communicated about the facts pertaining to felling of the trees to the chairperson — the Delhi LG.
“Consequently the statements that it was only on June 10, 2024 that the chairperson was apprised of the fact that the actual felling of trees commenced on February 16 would require further clarification,” the bench said.
In his affidavit, the Delhi LG said he was not made aware of the need for a prior permission for felling of trees in the Ridge area and necessary legal action had been initiated against the erring officials of the DDA.
He submitted he had learnt about the development only after the incident of felling of trees took place between February 16 and February 26. The intimation, he said, came via a letter by the DDA vice chairman on June 10.
“Though a mistake, the work done by them (DDA officials) was bona-fide and in the interest of public good. However, the actions which have been initiated departmentally by the DDA against the erring officials,” the affidavit said.
On October 16, the top court had directed the LG to file a personal affidavit detailing actions against erring officials for allegedly illegally felling around 1,100 trees in Delhi Ridge area in February.
The LG, acknowledged that in February, 2024, he had visited the site of a road widening project to ease access to the Central Armed Police Forces Institute of Medical Sciences, when he was told that the permission for felling trees was awaited from the “competent authority”.
“No one present at the said site on the date of the visit, brought to the notice of the deponent, the legal requirement of obtaining permission of this court for felling of trees,” he said.
LG Saxena claimed he had called for the communication of such approval to be expedited, but did not realise that the court’s permission was also required.
“The deponent was neither aware, nor made aware of the fact that a further permission was required from this court,” the LG said.
The top court sought information from the Delhi LG while hearing a contempt case against former vice-chairman of DDA, other officials and some private parties over the alleged felling of trees.
