DDA tree-felling contempt case: What was L-G’s defence & the ‘misunderstanding’ he admitted to in SC

In affidavit, VK Saxena defends DDA for going ahead with tree felling in Delhi, saying it was done on premise that CEC’s positive recommendation to axe trees was final clearance needed.

File photo of Delhi Lieutenant Governor V.K. Saxena | ANI

New Delhi: Defending himself in the ongoing controversy over tree-felling in the Delhi Ridge area, Delhi Lieutenant Governor (L-G) V.K. Saxena has asserted that this was carried out in view of an approval given to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) by the Supreme Court-appointed Central Empowered Committee (CEC) in December 2023.

The purpose was to widen the approach road to the Central Armed Police Forces Institute of Medical Sciences (CAPFIMS).

Saxena made this submission before the Supreme Court Tuesday through an affidavit, which ThePrint has accessed.

In the document, the L-G said he was not aware that the top court’s approval was mandatory for the tree-felling project, nor was he told so by any officer of the DDA. The L-G is the chairperson of the authority.

The affidavit was filed in the court of Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, which is hearing contempt petitions against the DDA for cutting trees in violation of previous judicial orders.

In the same breath, Saxena defended the DDA and its officials for going ahead with the tree felling exercise, which he said was carried out on the premise that the CEC’s positive recommendation to axe the trees was the final permission needed to cut them.

He admitted it was a misunderstanding by officials who did not realise that the legal procedure required them to approach the top court for its nod.

The CEC’s report annexed with Saxena’s affidavit, however, reveals that the panel had left it to the Supreme Court to take a final call in the matter. Prepared after the site was inspected last year, the CEC’s report did not oppose the uprooting of the trees for widening of the road.

While suggesting that the DDA can go ahead with the work, the report says the Supreme Court “may consider granting approval” to the agency for construction of the approach road from Chattarpur main road to the upcoming CAPFIMS area.

Speaking to ThePrint, senior advocate A.D.N Rao, who is assisting the court in the matter, admitted that the CEC had raised no opposition to the project. Yet, its recommendation cannot be construed as final approval.

“The CEC report categorically states that the SC may consider granting the approval to DDA, which had approached the committee with its tree-felling proposal,” Rao said.

The CEC’s report had come on the DDA’s earlier application to cut trees that was filed in the SC last year. During a hearing in March this year, the SC had asked the DDA to reconsider its proposal, thereby instructing the CEC to have a fresh look into the plan.

“So how could the DDA cut trees without re-informing the bench about how it intends to proceed?” Rao asked.

Despite the CEC’s clear reference to approach the top court, Rao said, the DDA did not file a formal application in the SC and instead moved on with the tree felling exercise.

“This is clear contempt,” he said, adding that the DDA cannot claim ignorance of the legal procedure because the agency has followed it in the past to receive similar approvals.

As an expert panel, the CEC provides assistance to the top court on the feasibility of development projects in forest areas that are ecologically sensitive zones.

CEC stipulations

The CEC’s December 2023 report on the project related to the CAPFIMS campus agreed, in principle, that since the road-widening work was in public interest, the top court may consider granting approval to the DDA for it.

However, the positive recommendation was subject to stipulations, one of which required the user-agency, DDA, to deposit 5 percent of the project cost, proportionate to the area falling within the ridge area, with the Ridge Management Board Fund meant for protecting the Delhi Ridge.

Another one asked the DDA to approach the Delhi government’s forest department for clearance under the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994 (DPTA). But DPTA permission is given subject to the DDA depositing the cost of planting and maintenance of 2,960 indigenous plants with the forest department and providing suitable land available for compensatory plantation.

Rao said that since the DDA did not approach the top court for permission, it is not clear whether the authority complied with the conditions suggested in the CEC report.

Saxena’s affidavit was submitted in a pending matter related to the CAPFIMS project.

Upset with the DDA for not approaching it before undertaking the exercise to cut trees, two different benches of the SC—one led by Justice B.R. Gavai and the other by Justice Abhay Oka—had initiated contempt proceedings against the DDA and its erring officials.

Though the DDA filed an application for approval from the SC, it did so after the felling exercise had begun in February this year.

To avoid conflicting decisions on the controversy, Justice Gavai had recused himself from hearing the case again and referred it to the CJI, who then listed the two separate proceedings with himself.

‘No fresh allotment of said land’

During a hearing on 16 October, the CJI’s court asked Saxena to furnish an explanation on whether DDA officials told him about the need to obtain permission from the top court to fell trees. As chairperson of the DDA, Saxena has been supervising the CAPFIMS project and other ongoing works in that area.

While claiming ignorance about the procedure, Saxena submitted in his affidavit that the CAPFIMS project was granted approval by the CEC as well as the top court in 2017. CAPFIMS, he stated, would be a 970-bed super-speciality and tertiary care hospital for the benefit and treatment of paramilitary forces’ personnel who get seriously injured in terror attacks and clashes with Naxalites.

The L-G issued directions to expedite the clearances considering the national importance and public interest of the project, he told the court through his affidavit. This was done following a physical inspection of the site by him.

But, Saxena added, since the CAPFIMS project was approved by the CEC and SC, therefore utilisation of land for a road to CAPFIMS would not constitute any fresh allotment of the said land for any other purpose.

Therefore, the contention that the widening of the road may constitute a separate allotment of land to any other entity for any other project and purpose may be contrary to the orders passed by the top court, he said, adding that such a plea should not be entertained.

Saxena did learn about the need to seek the top court’s permission for felling of trees, but it was only on 21 March, 2024, the affidavit said. And he learnt only in June 2024 that trees had been felled before the DDA moved an application in court.

(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)