The High Court of Bombay at Goa has under scored the urgent need for accountability in tree fell ing linked to infrastructure projects, suggesting the formation of a committee of senior legal officers and environmental experts to oversee translocation and compensatory plantation. During the hearing of a PIL writ petition filed by Aaron Victor E Fernandes and two others, the divi sion bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Ashish S Chavan noted that while the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) and the Goa State Infrastructure Development Corporation (GSIDC) are permitting tree cutting for highway and road widening, the real con cern lies in whether herit age trees are re-planted at appropriate places, whether the species chosen will grow into large trees, and most importantly, who will super vise their survival.
The bench suggested a committee comprising Advo cate General Devidas Pangam, Assistant Solicitor General of India Somnath Karpe, senior advocate Norma Alvares and others to ensure proper oversight. “There is a peculiar situation,” the judges observed, pointing out that beautifi cation and landscaping are often blended with plantation promises, but the survival of transplanted or freshly plant ed trees remains unmonitored. Senior advocate Norma Alvares proposed that the com mittee include officials from the PWD, GSIDC, Planning Department and Forest Department, besides experts, so that a long-term programme can be devised. She cau tioned that tree cutting and replantation must not be reduced to a mere contractual formality involving pay ments, but should be designed to ensure actual survival.
“The trees are merely being substituted by fresh plan tations or saplings, and the shifting of big trees should ensure their survival for a particular number of years so that the green cover of the city and its adjoining areas is maintained,” Alvares said. The court’s observations follow repeated controversies in Goa over large-scale felling of age-old trees. Only this week, the Goa Green Brigade staged a protest against the Public Works Department’s (PWD) move to axe 27 heritage trees along the Mapusa-Parra road, describing it as a “mass murder of trees.” Following citizen pressure, the PWD agreed to halt further cutting and to remove tar around the base of existing trees in line with National Green Tribunal guidelines.
The MoRTH, in its affidavit, has entrusted the responsi bility of plantation to the State government. However, the court recalled earlier instances where critical studies man dated by law were absent. In particular, while approving the cutting of 612 trees and translocation of four for the Guirim–Porvorim elevated flyover, the State government had paid almost Rs 1 crore towards felling and replantation deposits, even though guidelines mandate that contractors should bear the responsibility. The bench expressed dismay that permissions for cut ting were often granted by the Tree Authority without any proper plan for compensatory planting. The petitioner had also complained of routine approvals being given without application of mind