1. Construction of metro car depot — Tree felling permissions — Dispute over site relocation and ecological preservation — Application for further tree felling. (Para 1 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1838
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.
In Re: Felling of Trees In Aarey Forest (Maharashtra) – Appellant
Versus
. – Respondent
IA No. 169860 of 2022 In Suo Moto Writ (Civil) No. 2 of 2019 with IA Nos. 104736, 104886 of 2022 and 178233 of 2019 In Smw (Civil) No. 2 of 2019, IA No. 105220 of 2022 In SLP (Civil) No. 14933 of 2019 and IA Nos. 107131 and 50314 of 2022 In SLP (Civil) No. 31178 of 2018.
Decided On : 29-11-2022
Advocates Appeared:
Chander Uday Singh, Advocate, Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, Advocate, Ms. Sanjana Grace Thomas, Advocate, Ms. Mantika Vohra, Advocate, Ms. Namrata Sarah Caleb, Advocate, Amjid Maqbool, Advocate and Ms. Prerna Priyadarshini, Advocate, for the Appellant; Tushar Mehta, SG, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, Maninder Singh, Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Advocate, Chirag Shah, Advocate, Kanu Aggarwal, Advocate, Utsav Trivedi, Advocate, Ms. Soumya Priyadarshini, Advocate, Ankit Ambasta, Advocate, Amit Kumar Srivastava, Advocate, Amlaan Kumar, Advocate, Vishal Prasad, Advocate, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Advocate, S. S. Rebello, Advocate, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Advocate, Ms. Deepabali Dutta, Advocate, Siddhanth Kohli, Advocate, Ishaan Sharma, Advocate, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate, G. S. Makker, Advocate, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Advocate, Chirag Shah, Advocate, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Advocate, Akshay Shinde, Advocate, Abhikalp Pratap Singh, Advocate, Bharat Bagla, Advocate, Ms. Kirti Dadheech, Ashish Wad, Advocate, Mrs. Tamali Wad, Advocate, Sidharth Mahajan, Advocate, Ajeyo Sharma, Shyam, Advocate, Ms. Anupama, Advocate, M/s. J S Wad and Co, Tanmaya Agarwal, Advocate, Ms. Pooja Dhar, Advocate, Pratul Pratap Singh, Advocate and Shree Pal Singh, Advocate, for the Respondent.
Chander Uday Singh, Advocate, Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, Advocate, Ms. Sanjana Grace Thomas, Advocate, Ms. Mantika Vohra, Advocate, Ms. Namrata Sarah Caleb, Advocate, Amjid Maqbool, Advocate and Ms. Prerna Priyadarshini, Advocate, for the Appellant; Tushar Mehta, SG, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, Maninder Singh, Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Advocate, Chirag Shah, Advocate, Kanu Aggarwal, Advocate, Utsav Trivedi, Advocate, Ms. Soumya Priyadarshini, Advocate, Ankit Ambasta, Advocate, Amit Kumar Srivastava, Advocate, Amlaan Kumar, Advocate, Vishal Prasad, Advocate, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Advocate, S. S. Rebello, Advocate, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Advocate, Ms. Deepabali Dutta, Advocate, Siddhanth Kohli, Advocate, Ishaan Sharma, Advocate, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate, G. S. Makker, Advocate, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Advocate, Chirag Shah, Advocate, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Advocate, Akshay Shinde, Advocate, Abhikalp Pratap Singh, Advocate, Bharat Bagla, Advocate, Ms. Kirti Dadheech, Ashish Wad, Advocate, Mrs. Tamali Wad, Advocate, Sidharth Mahajan, Advocate, Ajeyo Sharma, Shyam, Advocate, Ms. Anupama, Advocate, M/s. J S Wad and Co, Tanmaya Agarwal, Advocate, Ms. Pooja Dhar, Advocate, Pratul Pratap Singh, Advocate and Shree Pal Singh, Advocate, for the Respondent.
The court's decision balances public interest, environmental concerns, and the progress of the Metro Line - 3 project, allowing MMRCL to pursue its application for felling permission while emphasizing the Tree Authority's independent decision-making authority.
Headnote:
Interim Relief - Environmental Protection - The Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection and Preservation of Trees Act 1975 - The judgment discusses the permissions sought and granted for felling trees in Aarey Colony for the Metro Line - 3 project. It also considers the decision of the State Government to allow the work of the Metro Car Depot at Aarey to proceed, and the subsequent request for permission to move the Tree Authority for the felling of 84 trees. The court permits MMRCL to pursue its application before the Tree Authority for the permission to fell 84 trees for the purpose of the ramp, with the Tree Authority having the liberty to take an independent decision on the application and determine any conditions to be imposed.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the permissions sought and granted for felling trees in Aarey Colony for the Metro Line - 3 project. The State Government initially accepted a report recommending the location of the car depot at Aarey, but later changed its view and decided to realign the car depot at Kanjurmarg. The Union Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs communicated concerns about the proposed integration of two lines at SEEPZ village station and requested the State Government to reconsider its decision to shift the depot of Line-3 from Aarey colony to Kanjurmarg. The State Government subsequently decided to allow the work of the Metro Car Depot at Aarey to proceed.
Finding of the Court:
The court permits MMRCL to pursue its application before the Tree Authority for the permission to fell 84 trees for the purpose of the ramp, with the Tree Authority having the liberty to take an independent decision on the application and determine any conditions to be imposed.
Issues: The main issues revolve around the permissions for felling trees in Aarey Colony for the Metro Line - 3 project, the State Government's decision to allow the work of the Metro Car Depot at Aarey to proceed, and the subsequent request for permission to move the Tree Authority for the felling of 84 trees.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the public interest and the serious dislocation that would be caused if the public investment in the project were disregarded. It also took into account the environmental concerns and the substantial number of trees already felled in the area. The court concluded that MMRCL should be permitted to pursue its application before the Tree Authority for the permission to fell 84 trees for the purpose of the ramp.
Final Decision: The court permits MMRCL to move the Tree Authority for the grant of felling permission for 84 trees, with the Tree Authority having the liberty to take an independent decision on the application and determine any conditions to be imposed. The state government is also permitted to proceed further. The entire batch of petitions is listed for hearing and final decision on 7 February 2023.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Project completion and public interest versus ecological sensitivity, reversal of expert committee recommendations, and forest notification. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 )
3. Balancing public investment and project completion against environmental concerns — Technical operational risks of relocation — Utility of completed work dependent on final segments. (Para 21 , 22 )
4. In large public-funded projects, interim stays are unlikely where substantial progress is made and relocation poses significant operational risks and financial loss. (Para 21 , 22 )
5. Application permitted to move Tree Authority for felling specific trees — Status quo modified to allow project progression. (Para 23 , 24 )
6. How does the court balance large-scale public infrastructure investment with environmental concerns at an interim stage?
The court considers the scale of public funds invested and the potential dislocation caused by disregarding such investment, while acknowledging that all development must be sustainable. (Para 21 )
7. Does the extent of project completion influence the granting of interim relief to stop construction?
Yes, where a substantial portion of the project is complete and remaining work is essential for the utility of the completed parts, the court is less likely to grant a stay. (Para 22 )
8. To what extent will the court interfere with a government's decision to restore an original project site after considering technical reports?
The court will generally not stay a government decision to restore a project site at an interim stage if the decision is based on technical operational risks and public interest. (Para 21 )
JUDGMENT
Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI.
On 15 April 2019, this Court, while considering Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No 31178 of 2018, declined to grant interim relief in IA No 33819 of 2019. The reliefs which were sought in the application for interim relief were in the following terms:
"a). stopping all activities being carried out by the Respondent No-4 on the land in question inside Aarey Colony;
b). directing the Respondents to carry out the activities for setting up Metro Car depot at the alternative sites referred to in paragraph 3 of the present application;
c). staying the operation of the observations made at page 92 of the impugned order to the effect that Aarey Milk Colony area cannot be referred to as forest; and
d). any other order or further order or orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. Subsequently, on 7 October 2019, this Court, while entertaining a Suo Moto Writ Petition [Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No 2 of 2019], passed an order recording the statement of the Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the State of Maharashtra that no further trees were being felled till the next date of listing.
3. On 5 August 2022, this Court directed that all the connected writ petitions and Special Leave Petitions could be listed for final disposal. No specific interim directions were issued in view of the position of Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Limited [MMRCL] that no further trees had been felled since the order dated 7 October 2019 and none be cut till the next date of hearing.
4. The position in regard to the permissions which have been sought for the felling of trees in respect of the proposed depot at Aarey for Metro Line - 3 has been summarized in a plan which has been placed on the record by the Solicitor General. The position is elucidated below:
A Car Depot
(i) Permission applied on 21 July 2017;
(ii) Permission granted by the Tree Authority on 13 September 2019;
(iii) Trees permitted to be cut - 2185; and
(iv) Actual number of trees cut - 2144.
B Ramp area
(i) Permission applied on 6 September 2017;
(ii) Permission granted by the Tree Authority on 6 July 2018;
(iii) Trees permitted to be cut - 235; and
(iv) Actual number of trees cut - 212.
C Shunting area
(i) Permission applied on 11 February 2019;
(ii) Total number of trees affected - 84; and
(iii) Grant of permission awaited.
5. The IA which has been moved by MMRCL [IA No 169860 of 2022 in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No 2 of 2019] is for permission to enable it to move the Tree Authority for the felling of 84 trees required for the purpose of proceeding with the shunting segment of the Aarey car depot. For convenience of reference, the relief which has been sought in IA moved by MMRCL is extracted below:
"a) Direct/permit the Tree Authority to decide the application dated 11.02.2019 filed by MMRCL pending before it and pass final order thereof with respect to cutting of the 84 trees under The Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection and Preservation of Trees Act 1975 located on Metro Car Shed Land at Aarey Colony admeasuring approximately 33 hectares for the Mumbai Metro Line-3 project in Mumbai and permit, MMRCL to implement such decision of the Tree Authority, as the case may be;"
6. Apart from the IA which has been moved by MMRCL, this Court is seized of the following IAs:
i. IA No 104886 of 2022 in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No 2 of 2019seeking, inter alia,that (a) the order dated 21 July 2022 issued by the Urban Development Department of the Government of Maharashtra be kept in abeyance as it permits work on the car depot at Aarey, (b) the Government of Maharashtra submit the Wildlifereport on the Aarey Car Shed plot and to grant protection to wildlife on the said plot and declare the area as a forest;
ii. IA No 178233 of 2019 in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No 2 of 2019 seeking inter alia,the issuance of directions to the Government of Maharashtra to declare Aarey as a forest and direct that no trees
