Rogue Tree Authority expert conceded to public pressure: BMC lawyer

  • | Wednesday | 2nd October, 2019

"There was so much public odium that everyone tried to back out," Senior Counsel Aspi Chinoy told the division bench of Chief Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice Bharati Dangre. He was referring to the expert who had changed his opinion on the transplantation of 623 Subabul trees. At first, the expert had given in writing that these can be transplanted with 100% success but had changed his stand in two days saying they can't be transplanted. He also told the court that 50% of the experts' recommendations were accepted. Dwarkadas raised the point that the low survival rate of transplanted trees in earlier projects, due to neglect, were among the serious objections not answered to by TA.

The letter from a member of the Tree Authority (TA) committee, which said that experts were not given enough time to survey the trees at Aarey Milk Colony, was a reaction to public backlash said the lawyer representing the BMC in Bombay High Court on Tuesday. "There was so much public odium that everyone tried to back out," Senior Counsel Aspi Chinoy told the division bench of Chief Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice Bharati Dangre. "There was bombardment by the press. It is in these peculiar circumstances that the letter comes." The letter in question was written by Shashikala Sureshkumar and it said that the committee was not given enough time to assess the trees which would be affected. Chinoy held that she had not attended the third and the last site visit. "There were three visits, three meetings and the decision was taken over a period of months," he said. Brushing aside the petitioner activist Zoru Bhathena's complaint that there has been no reply to objections raised to the proposal of removing trees, Chinoy cursorily said, "I won't go into it that a website in Bangalore produced 95% of the objections, which were all in a similar pattern. This is not part of my arguments. I just want to point out the difficulty in dealing with such mass-turned-out objections." He added that these were all "contemporaneously generated". The CJ came down hard on TA when Chinoy said that it was not a judicial or quasi-judicial body and its processes might not meet the standard of an adjudicatory body. "If there is a statutory duty cast to take decisions which are amenable to judicial review, the reasons need to be given to show that you have come to grips with the issue," Chief Justice Nandrajog said, adding "If I was the Tree Authority, I would say that 'now you have to cut a large number of trees, then can we save any?' A precautionary principle has to be applied, not that mechanical view is taken." Root Of Dissent Shashikala Sureshkumar said the TA committee was not given enough time to assess the trees BMC said she had not attended the third and last site visit, and the list was made over months Civic body said that ‘everyone tried to back out after so much public odium’ On Monday, Bhathena's lawyer, senior counsel Janak Dwarkadas had told the court the reasons why a particular expert — who had first raised objections in a TA meeting — had then approved the felling proposal were not recorded in the minutes of the meeting. He was referring to the expert who had changed his opinion on the transplantation of 623 Subabul trees. At first, the expert had given in writing that these can be transplanted with 100% success but had changed his stand in two days saying they can't be transplanted. The reasons for his change of stand were not recorded. "Do we take it that the expert doesn't understand which is exotic or indigenous?," Dwarkadas reasoned, adding "The Metro then stated that the particular tree is exotic and not indigenous and also toxic, so need not be preserved." Chinoy further told the court that 986-page report by TA reflects the six-month process undertaken to categorize trees into those that should get the axe and those for transplantation. He also told the court that 50% of the experts' recommendations were accepted. "On one expert's recommendation, a unique heritage tree has been retained. We have saved 55 trees near the boundary wall by changing the layout of the road and water pipes," Chinoy said, adding that though the rule is to plant three trees for every tree cut, they are going to plant six trees instead. Dwarkadas raised the point that the low survival rate of transplanted trees in earlier projects, due to neglect, were among the serious objections not answered to by TA. "You may pay lip service by transplanting (the trees), but the care is dismal. What is the point of changing the location of halal?" he asked. The court has reserved the matter for orders.

If You Like This Story, Support NYOOOZ

NYOOOZ SUPPORTER

NYOOOZ FRIEND

Your support to NYOOOZ will help us to continue create and publish news for and from smaller cities, which also need equal voice as much as citizens living in bigger cities have through mainstream media organizations.


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

Related Articles