The Supreme Court on Wednesday held the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) guilty of contempt for wilful disobedience of the courts order banning felling of trees in the capitals Ridge area for widening of an approach road for a paramilitary forces hospital and ordered extensive afforestation. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, which imposed a fine of `25,000 on the errant DDA officials for contempt of court, however, said that though the misadventure undertaken by them was in clear contravention of this courts orders but the underlying objective of having a broader approach roads for Central Armed Police Forces Institute of Medical Sciences (CAPFIMS) appears to be not in bad faith. We are thus left with no hesitation in holding that the respondents (DDA) conduct has been gravely contumacious, and when viewed cumulatively, their actions amount to a blatant obstruction of the administration of justice. These acts, in our considered view, fall squarely within the ambit of criminal contempt as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the bench said. The bench, which gave its verdict on a contempt petition alleging violations of courts order by DDA officials, said it is conscious of the distinction between mala fide abuse of power and genuine administrative misjudgement, and the court is inclined to deem that the present instance falls within the latter category. It must be emphasised that while the misadventure undertaken by the errant officials of the DDA was in clear and flagrant contravention of this courts orders, the underlying objective — namely, to facilitate improved access through broader approach roads for CAPFIMS and other public institutions — appears, does not seem to be in bad faith and certainly not to defy the authority of this court, it said. The bench issued a slew of directions for preservation of environment, protection of Ridge Area and afforestation to the DDA and asked an expert panel to oversee their efforts. It said after having holistically considered the matter from multiple dimensions, this court must remain mindful that the establishment of CAPFIMS, the felling of trees, and the construction of approach roads are now fait accompli. While it may be theoretically possible to contemplate a reversal of these actions, such a course is practically untenable. In our view, the die is cast, and what is done cannot now be undone — any refusal to put institutions like CAPFIMS to optimal use or to undo road construction at this stage risks not only undermining public interest but also squandering significant public resources, it said. The top court warned the DDA of any future misadventure and said that it will not be viewed lightly. As an epilogue to this chronicle, we must state that the instant matter is yet another classic case of institutional missteps and administrative overreach. The facts before us reveal a troubling pattern: permissions not obtained, court orders ignored, and environmental degradation inflicted with impunity. Such actions certainly raise fundamental concerns about governance and accountability. We truly hope that these proceedings have been conducive to incorporating necessary course corrections by the DDA and other bodies so as to avoid any such lapses in the future, it said. The bench said insofar as this court has taken a view in the present instance, it must be unequivocally stated that any recurrence of such conduct will not be met with similar indulgence. It is only the overwhelming public interest served by the establishment of CAPFIMS that has, in effect, overshadowed the sheer administrative incompetence and blatant disregard for both established procedures and the orders of this Court. It is the good fortune of the concerned DDA officials that this larger objective has weighed in their favour, without which this Court may have been compelled to adopt a far more stringent approach and deal with an iron fist, the bench cautioned. It directed the DDA that henceforth, every notification or order relating to afforestation, road construction, tree felling, or any activity with potential ecological impact must explicitly mention the pendency of relevant proceedings before this Court. The top court identified the contemptuous conduct of the DDA as non compliance of its two orders, one dated May 9, 1996, which mandated obtaining prior permission for the felling of trees; and second of March 4, last year in which the deliberate concealment from the court of the fact that tree felling had already commenced. It added that officials of the DDA acted in an errant manner, which not only amounted to a concealment of this courts directions but also led to an unfortunate and avoidable misconstruction of communications attributed to Delhi LG VK Saxena, thereby placing him in an embarrassing position. The top court in its 48-page order also warned that if it is found that the development of such a facility has been undertaken under the ostensible guise of serving the needs of paramilitary forces, but in actuality is intended to confer undue benefit upon affluent individuals or private interests, such actions will be viewed by this court through an entirely different lens and with the seriousness they warrant. The bench directed the DDA to carry out afforestation in 185 acres it has identified and ensure the visit of an expert panel to see the suitability of land.

Stay updated with all the Delhi Latest News headlines here. For more exclusive & live news updates from all around India, stay connected with NYOOOZ.