The court emphasized the importance of procedural compliance and sustainable development principles in the context of environmental protection and development decisions.

JUDGMENT

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J. - The genesis of this Writ Petition (PIL) lies in a letter petition dated 08-06-2020. The Petitioner, Kailash Pradhan, an Architect from Sikkim, being deeply troubled by the callous way that the trees in the city were being felled, averred that besides providing clean air, stabilising climate, binding soil and supporting other forms of biodiversity, trees are an intangible part of the collective memories of the residents, and give meaning to everyday urban existence. That, he was aware that the trees are required to be cleared for essential human activity and that the felled trees could not be resurrected, however, the Government could be made to acknowledge that trees are important and ought to be valued and saved. That, felling should be only for a good purpose after rendering serious consideration. Besides, the general public were not made aware of a plan of widening the National Highway for which the trees were being felled. That, the merits of a plan that warranted felling so many trees required questioning. That, the Government had justified their action by stating that for every felled tree 10 (ten) trees would be planted in another location, but for city dwellers the trees in the city cannot be compared to those in a forest. Hence, the prayer that this Court recognise the gravity of what is at stake and to do what is best for Gangtok and its citizens.

2. Besides the Respondent No.1 (The State of Sikkim through the Chief Secretary); Respondent No.2 (The Forest, Environment and Wildlife Management Department, Government of Sikkim); Respondent No.3 (The Union of India through Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways) and Respondent No.4 (National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited); the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, was arrayed as Respondent No.5 vide Order dated 23-06-2020. On the submissions of Learned Advocate General, the Urban Development and Housing Department was impleaded as Respondent No.6, while on the submissions of the Learned Amicus Curiae, the Gangtok Smart City Development Limited was impleaded as Respondent No.7 vide Order dated 29-06-2020.

3. Learned Amicus Curiae submitted that after interactions with the Petitioner, retired Forest Officials, Architects of the town and other local persons certain suggestions were put forth which were brought to the notice of the Court. That, the Respondent No.2 was duty bound to get clearance for the felling of trees from the Central Government which the concerned Officers deliberately bypassed as no clearance would have been granted by the Central Government. That, the Respondent No.2 is to look into the interest and to protect the indiscriminate felling of trees which are young and healthy despite adverse public opinion. Reference was made by the Learned Amicus Curiae to the Royal Parks, a charity created in London, United Kingdom, to support and manage 5000 acres of Royal Park land across London. Reference was also made to efforts worldwide and pledges by different countries to plant trees. It was urged that trees have to be saved and the protection of the environment be given priority.

4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 while attempting to convince this Court that all relevant Rules had been complied with by the Department, referred to the Report dated 27- 06-2020 and submitted that on receipt of