Disposed

Ritesh Pandey vs

NGT6 Nov 2024Original Application No. 944/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This original application concerned alleged tree cutting in a mango orchard and for road widening in Uttar Pradesh. The National Green Tribunal accepted an apology regarding an irregularly constituted committee. Relying on fact-finding that no trees were yet cut for approved proposals, the Tribunal directed authorities not to cut trees without following requisite environmental laws and obtaining c

What did the court decide?

Direction to authorities not to cut any trees for road widening or rest area construction without following requisite environmental laws and obtaining consent.

Ritesh Pandey vs — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2024)

¶1

Item No. 15

¶2

Court No. 2

¶3

BEFORE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Original Application No. 944/2024

Ritesh Pandey

Applicant

Versus

State of UP

Respondent(s)

Date of hearing: 06.11.2024

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER

¶12

Applicant: None

¶13

Respondents: Ms. Sthavi Asthana, Advocate for UPPCB

¶14

Mr. Bhanwar Pal Singh Jadon and Ms. Gargi Chaturvedi, Advocates for State of U.P. with Mr. Chandra Vijay Singh, DM Ayodhya and Mr. Pranav, DFO.

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Mr. Ritesh Pandey, Member of Parliament, Ambedkar Nagar, Uttar Pradesh has sent letter petition dated 16.06.2023 which has been registered as Original Application (hereinafter referred to as ' OA ') under Sections 14 and 15 of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'NGT Act, 2010 ) in exercise of suo-moto jurisdiction in view of law laid down by Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater

¶17

Mumbai Versus Ankita Sinha and Others, (2022) 13 SCC 401 .

¶18

Grievance of the complainant is that there is a land measuring 04 hectares in village Madhya Sherwa (Uparhar)/Sherwa Ghat wherein mango orchard is developed which has more than 300 full grown green trees. The authorities are going to construct a rest area for the purpose whereof the

¶19

¶20

aforesaid orchard is being attempted to be damaged by cutting the trees and this will cause serious damage to environment.

¶21

Reply dated 15.10.2024 was submitted by District Magistrate, Ayodhya annexing therewith an alleged Joint Committee report which was prepared not by Joint Committee constituted by this Tribunal but an alternative committee wherein members were inducted by District Magistrate himself without any authority.

¶22

Further, in the said report of altered Joint Committee, it was stressed that for cutting of trees, complainant or owner has no objection but this was not found to be a reason for authorizing Authorities concerned to cut green and grown-up trees. Hence, this Tribunal by order dated 16.10.2024 directed District Magistrate, Ayodhya to appear on the next date. Tribunal also impleaded following as respondents and issued notices to them to file their reply:-

¶23

i. State of U.P through Secretary, Environment, Forest and Climate Change.

¶24

ii. District Magistrate, Ayodhya.

¶25

iii. UP Pollution Control Board through its Member Secretary iv. Divisional forest officer, Ayodhya

¶26

Pursuant to above order, an affidavit dated 05.11.2024 has been filed by District Magistrate, Ayodhya i.e. respondent 2 tendering an apology for making alteration in constitution of Joint Committee on its own level though it was not authorized by Tribunal. Sh. Chandra Vijay Singh, DM is present in person also and stated that this was a mistake and shall not be repeated in future.

¶27

¶28

We accordingly accept the apology and do not proceed in the matter on this aspect.

¶29

With regard to cutting of trees, it is said that proposal for construction of rest area was not approved and therefore no such rest area is proposed to be constructed as has been stated by complainant. Hence, there is no cause of action as far as this aspect is concerned.

¶30

Further, with regard to cutting of trees on widening of roads, it is said that as per survey of Gata No. 542 and 531, about 87 trees which includes 60 mango trees, 25 teak, 1 seram and 1 neem tree may be required to be required to be cut when project is executed by

¶31

National Highway Division-Public Works Department, U.P. Construction of the road includes total length of 253.60 km and the said route has been allotted to National Highway Authority of India by Ministry of Road Transport and Highway, Government of India by Gazette Notification dated 28.07.2021. However, project is at the stage of approval and neither any tree has been cut so far nor in future any tree shall be cut unless and until all requisite statutory compliances are observed and made by concerned Authorities in accordance with law.

¶32

Sh. Bhanwar Pal Singh Jadon, Advocate appearing for respondent 1, 2 and 3 stated that even with respect to cutting of trees, presently there is no cause of action since no action has been taken so far and in future whenever any such occasion arise, Authorities concerned shall comply with all requirements of environmental laws and other statutory provisions with regard to Permission/No Objection Certificate/Clearance/Consent and only thereafter if required, any shall be cut.

¶33

¶34

In these factual circumstances, we are of the view that no further order is required to be passed in this matter except that respondents Authorities shall not proceed to cut any tree for widening/construction of the road in question without following requisite environmental laws and other statutory provisions with regard to Consent, Permission, etc. which includes, payment of compensation, if any.

¶35

With above observations/directions, this Original Application is disposed of.

¶36

Sudhir Agarwal, JM

¶37

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶38

November 06, 2024 Original Application No. 944/2024 AB

¶39

Ritesh Pandey vs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ritesh Pandey vs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ghan Shyam vs Department of Revenue

Shashikant Vitthal Kamble vs Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change (Moef & Cc) New Delhi

Municipal Corporation vs Maharasthra Pollution Control Board

Ankur Sharma vs Union of India

Swati vs

Mohid Shah vs

Gaurav Singhal vs

News Item Titled "Toxic Gas Leak Claims Two Lives at Gujarat Textile Factory" Appearing in the Millenium Post Dated 27.10.2024 vs

Sidharth Jaglan and Ors. So Rajvir Singh Jaglan vs

Director Avnii Nature Green Fundation vs

Capt N Viswanathan vs

Prakash Yadav So Sh Fateh Singh vs

Jaismer Kumar vs

Sh Srinivas M Metha vs