SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(SC) 1838

D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
In Re: Felling of Trees In Aarey Forest (Maharashtra) – Appellant
Versus
. – Respondent


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.

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.

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
      whatsapp-icon Back to top