Team Herald
PANJIM: The High Court of Bombay at Goa on Friday expressed its concern over the absence of a critical study as mandated by law while giving permission to cut as many as 612 trees and translocating four trees for the six-lane elevated corridor being built from Guirim to Porvorim.
The Court has now directed the Tree Authority Goa to conduct a critical study with regard to felling and plantation of trees before the next hearing fixed on Thursday, September 19.
The division bench comprising Justice M S Karnik and Justice Valmiki Menezes gave the directions after senior advocate Norma Alvares pointed out that the Tree Authority Goa had granted the permission to cut trees without a proper plan for compensatory afforestation.
The Court was hearing an application filed by petitioner Aaron Victor E Fernandes, in the PIL writ petition challenging the illegal felling of trees for road widening in Siolim.
The petitioner contended that there was no plan for planting 1,850 trees as compensatory afforestation as a result of felling of 612 trees for the project.
“There is a deadline for cutting the trees but none for planting them,” Adv Alvares submitted, adding that the authorities should transplant as many trees as possible and there’s no need to immediately start cutting trees without a proper plan (for afforestation).
Justice Menezes stated that diversity of the area should be maintained. “The way development is taking place, translocation has to be done. It can’t be said that we don’t have the technology,” he observed after the Advocate General Devidas Pangam submitted that they did not have the technology to transplant.
Justice Karnik steered the attention to the Goa Preservation of Trees Act and stated that the State government cannot bypass the duties of the Tree Authority Goa that requires a critical study for such projects.
Without conducting a study on what type of trees to replant on what type of soil and in which area, how can the tree officer grant permission?, the Court asked. The bench stated that the Tree Officer should file a report, while observing that the biodiversity of an area cannot be changed.
Justice Menezes questioned as to how permission was granted for cutting the trees without doing a soil study and topography of the area which also includes paddy fields. You cannot go ahead and just plant forest species, the Judge said while remarking on the Australian Acacias planted by the Forest Department in the past.
The Judge made the observation after the advocate general submitted that miscellaneous forest species would be planted.
The Court further noted that there are so many cases of cutting and replanting of trees without proper application of mind. The bench was also surprised that the State government has paid almost Rs one crore, as fees towards felling and security deposit for replantation of trees while guidelines mandate that the contractor of the project was liable to do so. The petitioner will now implead the contractor as a respondent to the application. The petitioner also submitted to the Court that he will compile a list of the project affected trees on the stretch that could be transplanted.