Guwahati: The Meghalaya High Court recently directed State Authorities to instruct all applicants who filed applications under the Meghalaya Tree Preservation Rules, 1976, for felling trees in the Lower New Colony area, Laitumkhrah, to explain how the trees “have become dangerous to life and property.”
A division bench, comprising Chief Justice I. P. Mukerji and Justice W. Diengdoh, also passed several directions, including demanding State authorities inspect the property and trees before deciding to fell them.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
The Court heard a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking to prevent illegal or irregular felling of trees in the Lower New Colony area, Laitumkhrah.
In its order dated February 7, the Court directed the State respondents to file an affidavit by February 28, disclosing all pending applications for tree felling in the area.
The Court further directed that they proceed with these applications according to the Meghalaya Tree (Preservation) Act 1976 and the Meghalaya Tree (Preservation) Rules, 1976.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
The Court directed the State to disclose decisions on each application in the affidavit, including decisions already made to allow tree felling but not yet executed. They also mandated a review of these decisions by the respondent authorities, and to keep tree felling in abeyance.
The State respondents filed the said affidavit, Annexure-1 of which provides the number of pending applications, the number of trees to be felled requested in each of the applications, the reason cited by each applicant for such felling, an inspection and a status report for each application.
“We find that all the applications are pending consideration. Applicants have requested to fell between 2 and 89 trees in each application. The reason cited by each and every applicant for felling of trees is ‘tree posing danger to human life’,” the Court noted.
The Court noted that these applications follow a format prescribed in Form-1 to Rule 3(1) of the Meghalaya Tree Preservation Rules, 1976, and it cannot order alteration of the form.
“Nevertheless, we direct the State respondents to instruct each and every applicant to append as an annexure to the form, in explanation of the reason: ‘has become dangerous to life and property’ the details how the tree has become dangerous to life and property,” the Court directed.
The Court further directed:
- The State respondents must inspect the property and trees.
- If they find a tree “has become dangerous to life and property,” they must first try to preserve it by taking measures like clipping the trunk and branches or chopping a part of it and retaining the rest.
- Only if that does not suffice, they should decide to fell the tree.
- Only in case of a tree so dangerously situated that danger or damage is imminent should the respondents fell it immediately.
- At the moment, no tree should be felled unless it is imminently dangerous and would cause substantial damage if allowed to stand, even before the Court is in a position to hear out the PIL.