oHeraldo, April 7, 2022
PANJIM: The High Court of Bombay at Goa has pulled up the Goa government over non-compliance with various mandates under the Goa, Daman and Diu Preservation of Trees Act, 1984.
During the hearing of a petition filed by NGO Living Heritage Foundation seeking the revival of Tree Authorities in both the districts, the Division Bench of Justice M S Sonak and Justice R N Laddha slammed the government stating, “In a small state like Goa, the felling of trees is a serious concern.”
The Court also observed that the limit of 500 trees, which finds no statutory basis, imposed by the Tree Authorities on themselves hardly amounts to compliance with the provisions of Section 7(i) of the Trees Act. By this self-imposed limit, the Tree Authorities, it appears, propose not to comply with the mandate of the Trees Act.
“In a small state like Goa, the felling of trees is a serious concern, and therefore the mandate in Section 7 (i). This mandate, now reinforced by our directions, cannot be diluted in this manner,” the Bench observed.
The Bench further opined that for effective implementation of the Act, whenever there is any proposal by the Government Department or private bodies for the construction of buildings, roads, factories, irrigation works, laying out of electric, telephone, telegraphic, and other transmission lines involving felling of trees, then such proposals have to be placed before the Tree Authorities.
The Court also questioned the authorities if the census of a single tree was carried out. In their compliance report, the State had informed that they will carry out a census in Panjim and Margao. The Court, however, noted that the provisions of the Trees Act are quite clear that the census is required to be carried out in the entire State of Goa.
The Bench pointed out that their directions were also quite clear that such census work should be carried out in the entire State of Goa except the Government forest under the control of the Forest Department, a forest or forest land as notified under the Indian Forest Act.
“Despite both the statutory and the judicial mandate, the Tree Authorities cannot, at this belated stage, express the view that the process will first be carried out only in the two towns of Panaji and Margao. Further, except for the expression of such a view, no such census has been carried out even in Panaji and Margao to date. Thus, it is quite clear that there is no compliance and instead, some groundwork is being laid to avoid compliance,” reads an extract of the 10-page order pronounced on March 22.
The court had disposed of the petition in July 2021 by directing the State to implement the various mandates prescribed under the Goa, Daman, and Diu Preservation of Trees Act, 1984 (Trees Act). The court further directed the state to file their compliance reports from time to time.
Advocate Sreeja Chakraborty, appearing for the petitioner pointed out that the state has not complied with most of the court directions.
The Bench also noted that no decision has been taken on the issue of using modern technology such as RFID and geo-tagging for census purposes.
“If we find that there is no serious work to commence and complete the census work with the expedition required of them, we will be constrained to consider whether any action is warranted in exercise of our contempt jurisdiction,” the order said.\
“Despite both the statutory and the judicial mandate, the Tree Authorities cannot, at this belated stage, express the view that the process will first be carried out only in the two towns of Panaji and Margao. Further, except for the expression of such a view, no such census has been carried out even in Panaji and Margao to date. Thus, it is quite clear that there is no compliance and instead, some groundwork is being laid to avoid compliance,” reads an extract of the 10-page order pronounced on March 22.
The court had disposed of the petition in July 2021 by directing the State to implement the various mandates prescribed under the Goa, Daman, and Diu Preservation of Trees Act, 1984 (Trees Act). The court further directed the state to file their compliance reports from time to time.
Advocate Sreeja Chakraborty, appearing for the petitioner pointed out that the state has not complied with most of the court directions.
The Bench also noted that no decision has been taken on the issue of using modern technology such as RFID and geo-tagging for census purposes.
“If we find that there is no serious work to commence and complete the census work with the expedition required of them, we will be constrained to consider whether any action is warranted in exercise of our contempt jurisdiction,” the order said.\
The court has directed the member secretary of the two Tree Authorities to file a further compliance report by April 25 indicating the actual progress made at the ground level. If for any reason, the compliance report is not filed by 25th April 2022, the two member secretaries remain present in the court with all records concerning compliance, the order stated while posting the matter for further consideration on April 27
https://www.heraldgoa.in/News-Today/High-Court-says-felling-of-trees-is-a-serious-concern-in-small-state-such-as-Goa/188480
No comments:
Post a Comment