Mumbai Metro Project at Aarey: Bombay High Court halts felling of 177 trees till clarification from Supreme Court

The Bombay High Court on Friday restrained Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd (MMRCL) from felling 177 trees in Aarey, Mumbai for the metro rail project till it seeks clarification from Supreme Court on its order permitting MMRCL to approach local authorities for felling of trees. [Zoru Bhathena v. Tree Authority (BMC) & Ors].The Court was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) by petitioner Zoru Bhathena, who had challenged the order of the tree authority of Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) permitting the felling of 177 trees. MMRCL argued that the Supreme Court order was clear and allowed the felling of trees for clearing land for the shunting area.A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep Marne noted that the case before the Supreme Court was pending and was likely to be heard on April 11. Thus, it directed MMRCL to approach the Supreme Court and seek clarification on the tree authority’s order. In the mean time, it was directed to hold off on the felling of the trees.“The apex court is already seized of the matter. In light of above, propriety would require that MMRCL shall not fell the trees in furtherance of tree authorities order until it seeks clarification/order from the Hon’ble Apex Court,” the Court ordered MMRCL..Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Venkatesh Dhond informed the Court that the Supreme Court had only allowed the parties to approach the concerned authorities for felling of 84 trees, and that there was otherwise a blanket embargo on the felling of trees. Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Ashutosh Kumbhakoni (for MMRCL) and Senior Advocate Milind Sathe (for BMC) justified the order of the tree authority and claimed it was in alignment with the Supreme Court order. Kumbhakoni added that Supreme Court had permitted modification of the embargo only because this was an important public project and without cutting those trees, the project would come to a grinding halt..The Court, however, expressed its apprehension in trying to ‘clarify or interpret’ an order of the Supreme Court, especially when the matter was pending before it.“If the petition was before us without there being a pending petition before the Supreme Court, we could have decided the petition. But our question remains -can we modify a Supreme Court order? When specific figures are mentioned and an earlier embargo order is modified…” the Court queried. It also specifically acknowledged the importance of the project and the need to maintain ecological balance. “There is no doubt that the metro project involves public interest and public purpose. There cannot be any debate in the proposition that the balance has to be struck between sustainable development and ecology,” the order stated. .[Read order]