Propriety demands MMRCL seeks SC clarification on trees to be felled: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court on Friday noted that propriety demanded the Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd MMRCL not cut trees at Aarey Colony in the metropolis for a metro rail carshed until it seeks clarification from the Supreme Court with regard to the number of trees to be felledA bench of Acting Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep Marne was hearing a Public Interest Litigation PIL filed by activist Zoru Bathena challenging the permission granted by the citys municipal commissioner to MMRCL to fell 177 treesBathena claimed that in 2022 the Supreme Court had allowed the MMRCL to cut only 84 treesThe bench on Friday said the authorities ought to seek clarification from the apex courtPropriety would require that the respondent no 2 MMRCL shall not fell the trees pursuant to the impugned order until it seeks clarificationorder from the Honble Apex Court the HC saidThe SC on November 29 2022 permitted the MMRCL to move the BMCs Tree Authority for felling of 84 trees for clearance of the shunting neck areaHowever on March 15 the BMC commissioner granted permission to fell 177 trees The MMRCL justified the increase in number of trees claiming the earlier application for felling 84 trees was of 2019 and over the years shrubs had grown into treesAlso readCongress leader Navjot Sidhu likely to be released from Patiala jail on April 1Pursuant to earlier HC remarks the MMRCL has filed an application before the apex court seeking clarification which is likely to come up for hearing on April 11During the hearing on Friday the HC noted it is not a matter of debate that the SC has granted permission to the MMRCL to move the Tree Authority to the extent of 84 treesHowever the permission by the BMC is for 177 trees the HC saidThe same is beyond the liberty granted by the Apex Court In light of that it will not be possible for this Court to accept the contention of BMC and MMRCL that the civic body could permit the MMRCL to fell trees beyond 84 the court saidThe bench said the Metro project was of public importance but the court cannot pass any order since the matter was pending before the apex courtThere is no doubt that the metro project involves public interest and public purpose There cannot be any debate in the proposition that the balance has to be struck between sustainable development and ecology it saidThe court posted the matter for further hearing on April 27This story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed agencies Midday accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability trustworthiness reliability and data of the text Midday managementmiddaycom reserves the sole right to alter delete or remove without notice the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever