Don’t rush to cut trees: HC

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, November 22

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the UT authorities need to further examine the issue before “rushing to cut trees” for constructing the Tribune flyover as such a step would be irretrievable. A Division Bench of the High Court asked the Administration to take into consideration “all facts and facets”.

The Bench of Chief Justice Ravi Shanker Jha and first puisne Justice Rajiv Sharma also made it clear that the authorities, in the meanwhile, may undertake the exercise of examining the issue after taking suggestions. The Bench added that the authorities “may place the suggestion reports or conclusions before this court for the purpose of further orders from the Bench regarding cutting of trees”.

The order, available today, says UT senior standing counsel Pankaj Jain, on instructions from the

Chief Engineer, submitted that the authorities had taken the decision in the best interests of the city. However, they would have no objections in considering and examining “any other reasonable suggestions and in taking into consideration all possible suggestions and options with regard to the project in question”. The Bench observed that it was stated that they would undertake the exercise by either issuing a public notice calling for suggestions or by some other method and consider all proposals or solutions.

“In the circumstances, it is directed that the authorities shall not take any further steps to uproot, relocate or cut trees for the construction of the flyover at Tribune Chowk until further orders,” the Bench added.

Before parting with the order, the Bench directed that a committee of officers from Punjab and Haryana would, after holding a meeting with the UT Adviser, come up with a solution to protect the trees, if possible.

The order came on an application filed by the Run Club for restraining the Chandigarh Administration and other respondents from cutting the trees existing on both sides of Dakshin Marg and Purv Marg for the construction of the flyover.

The applicant, through senior advocate Puneet Bali, contended that the counsel appearing on behalf of the UT Administration had, on a previous date of hearing, given a categorical statement before the High Court that the trees would not be axed without prior permission.

Bali added that the petitioner came to know that the respondent authorities had started marking the trees for axing on the premise that the High Court had not ordered a stay. Its stand was also “publicised” by local newspapers.