Delhi Preservation of Trees Act: HC Seeks Govt Status Report on SOP

The Delhi High Court recently ordered the Delhi government to file an affidavit on formulating Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) in relation to proceedings involving offenses of tree damage or violation of any other provision of the Delhi Preservation of Trees (DPT) Act, 1994.

A single bench of Justice Najmi Waziri was hearing a writ petition filed by senior lawyer Rajiv Dutta seeking directions for establishing a standard operating procedure (SOP) for conducting hearings, proceedings, and investigations related to DPT Act by the concerned officers.

“Admittedly, apart from a policy issued under section 33 of the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994 (‘DPT’) apropos transplantation of the trees, there are no directions or guidelines regarding how a Tree Officer would deal to the complaints apropos conduct of hearing,” the bench stated.

The bench stated that all proceedings involving statutory rights, liabilities, and obligations should be conducted in an ex-facie fair and transparent manner.

It went on to say that, based on the current case and other cases cited by the petitioner’s counsel, Aditya N. Prasad, it is common for complainants who report tree damage or felling to be kept in the dark about the progress or outcome of any related proceedings initiated as a result of the complaint.

The single bench then noted that the one-month period has now passed after reviewing the government’s counter-affidavit filed on February 20, which stated that the SOP would be issued within one month of seeking GNCTD approval.

Furthermore, advocate Prasad informed the bench that a mature tree had been fatally damaged and felled by a vehicle, and there was no evidence that the offender had been notified or that he had applied to compound the offence under the DPT Act. Although an order to compound the offence had been issued, he said there was no record of the Rs. 60,000 penalty being deposited. It was argued that the Tree Officer had engaged in “serious dereliction of duty.”

The petitioner also provided photographs demonstrating that the tree planted in lieu of the felled tree was barely surviving.

Advocate Avishkar Singhvi, appearing for the tree officer stated that an affidavit on the matter will be filed in two weeks and that “remedial measures” will be implemented in consultation with the land-owning agency, MCD.

What is the story?

Senior Advocate Rajiv Dutta who filed the petition owns a property in South Extension-I and there he planted a neem tree in 2013 with the help of the horticulture department of the former South MCD. The tree was planted on public land where his property’s boundary wall met the adjacent property’s boundary wall.

According to the petitioner’s plea, on June 6, 2022, he was informed by one of his neighbors that a vehicle carrying construction and demolition waste from a nearby construction site had allegedly felled the tree.

According to the plea, the vehicle approached the tree too closely, causing a major branch to be pulled and the trunk to be completely severed from the ground.

The senior advocate claimed that when he arrived at the site, he discovered that the felled tree had been cut into pieces and removed by unknown individuals. On the same day, he filed a complaint with the Tree Officer (South), supplying location information. He was later informed that an inspection had taken place and that a notice would be sent.

Then, the Advocate expected that necessary action would be taken under the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act and awaited further details. Nonetheless, despite numerous inquiries, he received no response.

As a result, a writ petition was filed before the High Court, requesting that the government direct the Tree Officers to give appropriate directions under Section 33 of the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994, and to lay down standard operating procedures for conducting hearings/proceedings/investigation by the concerned officers for offences or violations under the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994.

The bench listed the matter for further consideration on 11 April, 2023.