<p>The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday extended the stay on felling of trees for road widening within BBMP area and questioned the significance of the Tree Authority and the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act.<br /><br /></p>.<p>The court was hearing a petition filed by the Environment Support Group (ESG) and a suo motu PIL initiated by the High Court, following a letter by Justice D V Shylendrakumar to the erstwhile chief justice in 2011. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vikramajit Sen and Justice B V Nagarathna extended the stay and clubbed the petition with another suo motu petition, where the High Court, on September 4, 2012, had told the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) that no trees shall be felled for road construction or widening on NH-218 passing through Bijapur, Humnabad and Gulbarga.<br /><br />The petitioners cited BBMP’s claim that it had planted over eight lakh trees and contended that the Palike did not state where it planted the trees. They submitted that status of the planted trees was not known and the Tree Authority “was indiscriminately permitting the felling.” The Bench also questioned the Tree Authority’s significance. “Prima facie, we feel that the public must be made aware of a proposal for removal of trees by issuing a public notice so that objections can be invited. The Act does not provide any machinery in this regard,” the Bench noted.<br /><br />“So far as the availability of an appeal is concerned, it seems to us that it may be futile in those instances where the tree officer grants permission to fell a tree. The public perception is that such orders are executed instantly and at night.”<br /><br />Upholding the submission of the petitioners that members of the Tree Authority were “not satisfactory,” the Bench observed: “The Act does not seem to cater for such an eventuality. Further more, so far as the constitution of the feller body is concerned, it comprises three members such as mayor or president of the Municipal Corporation, the municipal commissioner or the chief executive etc, who are in effect the persons proposing the felling or keeping of a particular tree. This may amount to a person being a judge in his own cause and is an anathema in law.” <br />The matter has been adjourned.</p>
<p>The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday extended the stay on felling of trees for road widening within BBMP area and questioned the significance of the Tree Authority and the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act.<br /><br /></p>.<p>The court was hearing a petition filed by the Environment Support Group (ESG) and a suo motu PIL initiated by the High Court, following a letter by Justice D V Shylendrakumar to the erstwhile chief justice in 2011. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vikramajit Sen and Justice B V Nagarathna extended the stay and clubbed the petition with another suo motu petition, where the High Court, on September 4, 2012, had told the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) that no trees shall be felled for road construction or widening on NH-218 passing through Bijapur, Humnabad and Gulbarga.<br /><br />The petitioners cited BBMP’s claim that it had planted over eight lakh trees and contended that the Palike did not state where it planted the trees. They submitted that status of the planted trees was not known and the Tree Authority “was indiscriminately permitting the felling.” The Bench also questioned the Tree Authority’s significance. “Prima facie, we feel that the public must be made aware of a proposal for removal of trees by issuing a public notice so that objections can be invited. The Act does not provide any machinery in this regard,” the Bench noted.<br /><br />“So far as the availability of an appeal is concerned, it seems to us that it may be futile in those instances where the tree officer grants permission to fell a tree. The public perception is that such orders are executed instantly and at night.”<br /><br />Upholding the submission of the petitioners that members of the Tree Authority were “not satisfactory,” the Bench observed: “The Act does not seem to cater for such an eventuality. Further more, so far as the constitution of the feller body is concerned, it comprises three members such as mayor or president of the Municipal Corporation, the municipal commissioner or the chief executive etc, who are in effect the persons proposing the felling or keeping of a particular tree. This may amount to a person being a judge in his own cause and is an anathema in law.” <br />The matter has been adjourned.</p>
