AUGUSTO RODRIGUES
Environment activists and villagers living along NH 66, where trees were being cut for the highway’s expansion, breathed a sigh of relief after the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court granted interim relief and appointed a three-member committee to inspect the site and submit its report within six days. “We deem it appropriate to grant interim relief by staying the op eration of the order dated April 15, 2026 of the Tree Officer insofar as it concerns the standing 80 trees at the site and 55 trees proposed to be relocated,” read the order passed by Justice Valmiki Menez es and Justice Jiten S Venegavkar. “With hardly any tree canopy left, travelling along the Verna stretch of the highway does not feel the same an ymore,” said Savio Pereira from Verna. The entire stretch looks bare. I do not think they will manage to leave some trees untouched because the dam age seems to have been done. But at least some trees are supposed to be relocated and others planted. Something is better than nothing,” said a cautiously optimistic Pereira as news of the judgment spread. The order was delivered after nearly six hours of argu ments spread over two days in PIL WP No 1617/2026 (F). Advocate Malisa Zemira Simoes appeared for the petition ers, while Advocate General Devidas Pangam represented the State.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
In an order that highlighted procedural lapses on the part of the Tree Officer, Justices Valmiki Menezes and Jiten S Venegavkar sought to ensure that developmental im peratives were harmonised with environmental concerns. “Considering that the project is of national importance and concerns the widening of a highway in the State of Goa, an endeavour is required to assess the necessity of felling the 80 trees standing at the site, whether all or some of them can be translocated, and to identify those trees which can not be saved and may therefore be allowed to be felled,” the order stated. The three-member committee appointed by the court comprises Ramesh Kumar, Additional Principal Chief Con servator of Forests and Chief Wildlife Warden; Dr Pradeep V Sarmokadam, Member Secretary of the Goa Biodiversity Board; and Dr Uttappa A R, Senior Scientist (Agroforestry) at the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), Ella, Old Goa.
The committee has been directed to inspect the site, as sess the 80 standing trees as well as the 55 trees recom mended for relocation, examine the alternative sites pro posed by the Executive Engineer of the PWD (Highways), and submit its report and recommendations to the High Court on or before June 24, 2026. “We request the committee,” the order stated, “consider ing the fact that we have directed that status quo be main tained at the site, to first complete the inspection of the 80 standing trees which have been permitted to be felled. If the entire inspection cannot be completed by June 24, 2026, an interim report may be placed before us on that date.” As news of the interim stay reached Verna, local resident Juliana Fernandes remarked, “When we cry because there is no rain, we forget that the cause lies in our silence when trees are being cut.
This judgment proves that our judiciary is alive.” The High Court’s order indicates that permission to cut trees may have been granted without adequate study. The judges observed: “Prima facie, the record presently before us does not disclose the basis on which the Tree Officer ul timately arrived at the conclusion that permission ought to be granted for felling 422 trees while directing the translo cation of only 55 trees.” “The nexus between the recommendations contained in the reports and the conclusions reached by the Tree Officer is not immediately discernible. We have also noted that there is no report indicating that the Tree Officer inspected the 477 trees, inspected the alternative sites for replanting, or considered which species of trees were required to be re planted and the manner in which such replanted trees were to be distributed.” Further shortcomings in the process were highlighted in the order, which stated: “The Tree Officer has, in his order, neither specified the tree-planting plan required under Sec tion 10 of the Act nor detailed the manner and location for the relocation of the trees.” “Except for non-native acacia species, efforts will be made to recommend the preservation of all native trees that do not deplete groundwater,” said Dr Pradeep Sarmokadam, a member of the committee constituted by the court. For many advocates at the High Court, the order vindi cated the stand taken by Advocate Simoes that the permis sion granted by the Tree Authority was contrary to the High Court’s order dated October 16, 2025, in PIL WP No 15 of 2025.
