'Suggest names for tree monitoring panel'

The High Court on Monday directed the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) and others to suggest members for a committee to monitor felling of trees, planting of saplings in Bangalore and address public grievances about them.

A division bench of Chief Justice D H Waghela and Justice B V Nagarathna asked the amicus curiae, Vaishali Hegde, the BBMP and other parties to propose names of members for the tree monitoring committee. The bench was hearing a suo motu petition against indiscriminate felling of trees in Bangalore.

The counsel for the BBMP told the court that only five per cent of the 1,36,000 saplings planted in Bangalore in 2012 had survived, but of the two lakh-odd saplings that were plants in 2013, nearly 60 per cent had survived.

The amicus curiae then informed the court about several proposed measures such as— reconstitution of tree authority, appointment of tree officer, obligations on the tree officer prior to grant of permission for felling of trees, due regard for alternatives prior to grant of permission for felling, permission for felling to be an exception, transplantation of trees and others. The bench observed that if all development, including industrialisation, was concentrated in the City, it was quite obvious that more green cover would be sacrificed. It said the government should develop other cities as well.

Notice ordered to school

The High Court on Monday ordered that a notice be issued to CMR National Public School, HBR Layout, Bangalore, on a petition filed by seven young children seeking admission under the Right To Education (RTE) Act.

Justice Ananda Byrareddy ordered that notice be issued to the school, and directed it to file objections. The petitioners, Master Akash (6) and six others, had approached the court seeking directions to the said school to admit them to class 1.

They contended that all schools in Bangalore had almost concluded admission for the upcoming academic year and that there was little hope at this stage they would find admission in other institutions.

The petitioner’s counsel pointed out that as long as the said school’s application for minority status remained pending, it had no right to deny admission to the children.