The high court, observing that another bench is already overseeing the operations of the Delhi Tree Authority, has declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking an order for the authority to conduct quarterly meetings.
A bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna, emphasized that the petitioner’s plea, urging the tree authority to distribute saplings to individuals for planting on their properties, should be considered by the authority itself, which is expected to make an informed decision.
The PIL filed by Rahul Bhardwaj sought directives for timely execution of duties by the concerned authorities and for the Delhi Tree Authority to convene meetings every three months as per the provisions of the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, the bench acknowledged the ongoing scrutiny of the authority’s functionality by a single judge.
Anupam Srivastava, additional standing counsel of the Delhi government, apprised the bench of the existing monitoring by a single-judge bench regarding the operations of the Delhi Tree Authority in a separate case. The division bench reviewed a July order issued by the single judge, highlighting its attention to the assertion that, despite the mandate for 104 meetings, the tree authority convened only eight times.
During the proceedings before the single judge, it was argued that the tree authority, a statutory body entrusted with the preservation, maintenance, and well-being of all trees in the city, was virtually inactive. The member secretary of the tree authority attributed the situation to a lack of infrastructure and secretarial services, assuring that 67 forest guards who had completed training would soon be integrated into the system.
In the July order, the single-judge bench directed the prompt resumption of the tree authority’s operations within four weeks, encompassing the appointment of secretarial staff and the provision of necessary infrastructure. The division bench, taking cognizance of these developments, concluded that, given the ongoing monitoring by the single judge, it would be inappropriate to entertain the current PIL and subsequently closed the proceedings in the matter.
