Goemkarponn desk
PANAJI: The Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court recently expressed its displeasure with the non-compliance of the state government in implementing the various mandates under the Tree Act.
“Have you carried out a census of a single tree?” a division bench of justice M S Sonak and justice R N Laddha asked.
In their compliance report, the state had informed that they would carry out a census in Panjim and Margao. The court, however, noted that the provisions of the Trees Act are quite clear that the census is required to be carried out in the entire State of Goa. The judges pointed out that their directions were also quite clear that such census work should be carried out in the entire State of Goa except the Government forest under the control of the Forest Department, a forest or forest land as notified under the Indian Forest Act.\
“Despite both the statutory and the judicial mandate, the Tree Authorities cannot, at this belated stage, express the view that the process will first be carried out only in the two towns of Panaji and Margao. Further, except for the expression of such a view, no such census has been carried out even in Panaji and Margao to date. Thus, it is quite clear that there is no compliance and instead, some groundwork is being laid to avoid compliances,” the court observed in its order on March 22.
The court was hearing public interest litigation filed by NGO Living Heritage Foundation seeking the revival of the tree authorities of the North and South Goa.
The court had disposed of the petition in July 2021 by directing the state to implement the various mandates prescribed under the Goa, Daman, and Diu Preservation of Trees Act, 1984 (Trees Act). The court further directed the state to file its compliance reports from time to time.
Appearing for the petitioners, advocate Sreeja Chakraborty pointed out that the state has not complied with most of the court directions.
The state’s compliance report states that to ensure that the minimum number of trees are to be felled, the Tree Authorities have directed the Forest Department that all proposals which involve felling of more than 500 trees must be placed before the Tree Authorities for critical analysis and give its recommendations before the proposals are taken up for consideration.
However, the judges felt that the limit of 500 trees, which finds no statutory basis, imposed by the Tree Authorities on themselves hardly amounts to compliance with the provisions of Section 7(i) of the Trees Act.
“By this self-imposed limit, the Tree Authorities, it appears, propose not to comply with the mandate of Section 7(i) of the Trees Act. By this self-imposed limit, the Tree authorities wish to avoid compliance unless there is a proposal involving the felling of more than 500 trees,” the court said.
“In a small state like Goa, the felling of trees is a serious concern, and therefore the mandate in Section 7(i). This mandate, now reinforced by our directions, cannot be diluted in this manner,” the court added.
Section 7(i) of the Trees Act requires undertaking a critical study of the proposals of various government departments and private bodies for the construction of buildings, roads, factories, irrigation works, laying out of electric, telephone, telegraphic and other transmission lines with regard to the protection of existing trees and planting of more trees, wherever possible.
“The Tree Authorities must undertake a critical study of the proposals and make their recommendations. Such recommendations will have to be considered by the authorities granting approvals for such proposals. The Tree Authorities cannot shirk the responsibility of complying with the mandate by simply imposing this limit of 500 trees or refuse to undertake critical study and give its recommendations on a specious plea that less than 500 trees are to be felled for the project,” the court observed.
“The benchmark of 500 trees could be diluting the duties of the TA. What if that one tree is a 200-year-old banyan tree,” Justice Sonak remarked.
The judges also noted that no decision has been taken on the issue of using modern technology such as RFID and geo-tagging for census purposes.
If we find that there is no serious work to commence and complete the census work with the expedition required of them, we will be constrained to consider whether any action is warranted in exercise of our contempt jurisdiction, the order said.
The court has directed the member secretary of the two Tree Authorities to file a further compliance report by April 25 indicating the actual progress made at the ground level.
If, for any reason, the compliance report is not filed by April 25 2022, the two-member secretaries remain present in the court with all records concerning compliance, the order stated.
The matter has been kept for hearing on April 27.