Team Herald
PANJIM: The High Court of Bombay at Goa has pulled up the State government over non-compliance of various mandates under the Goa, Daman, and Diu Preservation of Trees Act, 1984.
During the hearing of a petition filed by NGO Living Heritage Foundation seeking revival of the Tree Authorities in both the districts, the Division Bench comprising Justice M S Sonak and Justice R N Laddha slammed the government stating, “In a small state like Goa, the felling of trees is a serious concern.”
The Court also observed that the limit of 500 trees, which finds no statutory basis, imposed by the Tree Authorities on themselves hardly amounts to compliance with the provisions of Section 7(i) of the Trees Act. By this self imposed limit, the Tree Authorities, it appears, propose not to comply with the mandate of the Trees Act.
The State’s compliance report states that to ensure that a minimum number of trees are to be felled, the Tree Authorities directed the Forest Department that all proposal involving felling of more than 500 trees be placed before the Tree Authorities for critical analysis and recommendations before the proposals are taken up for consideration.
“In a small state like Goa, the felling of trees is a serious concern, and therefore the mandate in Section 7 (i). This mandate, now reinforced by our directions, cannot be diluted in this manner,” the Bench observed.
The Bench further opined that for effective implementation of the Act, whenever there is any proposal by the Government Department or private bodies for the construction of buildings, roads, factories, irrigation works, laying out of electric, telephone, telegraphic, and other transmission lines involving felling of trees, then such proposals have to be placed before the Tree Authorities.
The Court also questioned the authorities if a census of a single tree was carried out. In their compliance report, the State had informed that they will carry out a census in Panjim and Margao. The Court, however, noted that the provisions of the Trees Act are quite clear that the census is required to be carried out in the entire State of Goa.
The Bench pointed out that their directions were also quite clear that such census work should be carried out in the entire State of Goa except the Government forest under the control of the Forest Department, a forest or forest land as notified under the Indian Forest Act.
“Despite both the statutory and the judicial mandate, the Tree Authorities cannot, at this belated stage, express the view that the process will first be carried out only in the two towns of Panaji and Margao. Further, except for the expression of such a view, no such census has been carried out even in Panaji and Margao to date. Thus, it is quite clear that there is no compliance and instead, some groundwork is being laid to avoid compliances,” states an extract of the 10-page order pronounced on March 22.
The court had disposed of the petition in July 2021 by directing the State to implement the various mandates prescribed under the Goa, Daman, and Diu Preservation of Trees Act, 1984 (Trees Act). The court further directed the State to file its compliance reports from time to time.
Advocate Sreeja Chakraborty, appearing for the petitioner pointed out that the state has not complied with most of the court directions.
The Bench also noted that no decision has been taken on the issue of using modern technology such as RFID and geo-tagging for census purposes.
“If we find that there is no serious work to commence and complete the census work with the expedition required of them, we will be constrained to consider whether any action is warranted in exercise of our contempt jurisdiction,” the order said.
Speaking on the order, advocate Sreeja Chakrabarty said, “The PIL was filed because even though the Trees Act was enacted in 1984 none of the provisions of the Act were complied with. The Tree Authorities in both districts were not formed so powers in any issues with regards to the subject were with one officer in the concerned department who was giving permission left, right and center without checks and balances. Rather we gather the impression that nothing was done. The High Court refused to accept the submission of the government that every monsoon plants become trees so it is impossible to count the trees.”
Petitioner Mohan Kumar of Living Heritage Foundation said, “The High Court is pretty displeased that the government has not carried our census of the trees. The State suggested that it starts with Panjim and Margao but Court didn’t buy that argument. The Court has given time till April 25 to file another report. The Court feels that there could be grounds for contempt by the State Government.”
The court has directed the member secretary of the two Tree Authorities to file a further compliance report by April 25 indicating the actual progress made at the ground level. If for any reason, the compliance report is not filed by 25th April 2022, the two member secretaries remain present in the court with all records concerning compliance, the order stated while posting the matter for further consideration on April 27.
