SATURDAY, APRIL 27, 2024
AUGUSTO RODRIGUES
SIOLIM: The registration of First Offence Register (FOR) by the Range Forest Officer (RFO) against a contractor for illegally felling 35 trees in Siolim is an indication that the High Court of Bombay at Goa needs to be revisited.
“Though the State government has filed its compliance report, we are trying to get the matter heard so that the court knows that its directions have not been fully complied,” said Mohan Kumar of Living Heritage Foundation, the petitioner in the Tree Census case versus the State, July 8, 2021.
The directions issued by Justice Mahesh Sonak and Justice M S Jawalkar had clearly stated, “The Tree Authorities are directed to meet at least once in every three months as mandated by Section 4(1)of the Trees Act …”
“We have been trying to get an opportunity to get a hearing from the High Court. There have been a few impediments which we will get over with soon and present our case,” said Kumar.
The Tree Authority, according to records obtained, has met nine times after the judgment on July 8, 2021 and it has been seven months since the last time the meeting was held.
Attempts to contact Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and his subordinates proved futile.
“After having won the case, the judgment has not had the effect because the Tree Authority is not bothered. The purpose of having a Tree Authority is to give structure to life of trees and not see them being killed,” Kumar said.
Avertino Miranda, Convenor of Goa Green Brigade, believes that the officials of Tree Authority are liable for contempt Petition in the High Court for not giving reasons why permission to fell trees is given or not.
“The DCF in Ponda is blindly giving permissions to fell trees without application of mind and with no reasons. He functions as though he is unanswerable to anyone and even threatens to file false complaints,” alleged Miranda.
The July 8, 2021 judgment had stated this:
“Tree Officers appointed under the Trees Act must dispose of the applications for felling of trees within 60 days as stipulated in Section 9(3) of the Trees Act by giving reasons for the grant or refusal of such permissions,” reads Direction (i).
“We have filed complaints that no such reasons were given to cut trees in Assagao and when we filed an appeal in the tribunal, trees were cut immediately. We are approaching the High Court too,” disclosed Avertino.
“The Tree Authorities,” Direction (e) reads, “must take appropriate measures for planting and transplanting of trees necessitated by the construction of buildings, new roads or widening of existing roads, or replacement of trees which have failed to come up along roads or for safeguarding danger to life and property.”
“That the trees were cut without the permission of the Forest Department is in itself a crime and that the Tree Authority did not to intervene, shows that they care a damn about any judgment,” reasons Oswald Pinto.
Direction (h) of the order is: “The Tree Authorities are hereby directed to comply with the obligations cast upon them by Section 4 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and to upload the information prescribed in the said section on the website of the Forest Department and even otherwise make available such information in the public domain by other suitable means.”
The Tree Authority has a portal on the Forest Department website and the last meeting of Tree authority uploaded on it is dated May 4, 2023. The website shows that the first meeting of North Goa Tree Authority was held on April 26, 2021; South Goa on April 27, 2021; four joint meetings between the two Tree Authorities and two meetings after the two were amalgamated into one.
