High Court · 2011

1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 21.11.2011CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHAandTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPALWrit Petition (MD) No.11464 of 2011andM.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011LITTLES TRUST,rep. by its Managing Trustee,T.R.Paravatha Varthini,w/o.S.Arumugam,Door No.7/26, Venkataraman Nagar, N.G.O. Colony,Nagamalai Pudukkottai,Madurai - 625 019. ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The National Highways Authority of India, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport & Highways, G-5 & 6, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075.2.Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Forest, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3.3.The Director General, National Highways Authority of India, G5 & 6, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi.4.The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Madurai.5.State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Environment & Forest, Secretariat, Chennai.6.Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, rep. by its Chairman, Guindy, Chennai.7.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.8.The Divisional Engineer, National Highways Division, Madurai. ... Respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2(R8 impleaded as per order of the Court dated 10.11.2011 made in M.P.(MD).No.2 of 2011)Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, to forbear the fourthrespondent from cutting the trees located in NH-49 extension for expansionof Highways, without obtaining the Environmental Clearance, as per thenotification of Ministry of Environment and Forests, dated 14.09.2006.For petitioner .. Mr.T.Lajapathi RoyFor respondents .. Mr.K.K.Senthilvelan,1 to 4 & 8 Senior Central Government StandingCounselFor respondents 5 & 7 .. Mr.K.Mahendran, Special Government PleaderFor 6th respondent .. Mr.C.Elaman ORDER(Order of the Court was made by K.N.BASHA, J.)The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking forthe relief of forbearing the fourth respondent from cutting the treeslocated in NH-49 extension for expansion of Highways, without obtaining theEnvironmental Clearance, as per the notification of Ministry of Environmentand Forests, dated 14.09.2006.2.Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner would submit that the petitioner is a social serviceorganisation and it is a centre for children and also actively involved inspreading the environmental awareness among the public. The learnedcounsel would submit that the National Highways Department has startedcutting trees for the expansion of road in NH-49 extension and there arenearly 800 trees in the stretch of Nagamalai Pudukottai to CheckkanooraniHighway. It is contended that there is likelihood of removal of trees whichcould be saved and the road also could be widened. The learned counselwould contend that the Highways Department does not require to cut andremove all the trees and even without the same, they can very well widenthe road. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also sought forappointment of an Advocate Commissioner for inspecting the premises in thepresence of both the parties viz., the petitioner and the departmentalofficials.3.Per contra, Mr.K.Mahendran, learned Special Government Pleaderwould contend that the work of widening the road, carried out by theHighways Department, is only with the object of avoiding frequent roadaccidents. It is contended that number of road accidents took place in theparticular place which is under the process of widening the road. Thelearned Special Government Pleader would submit that the department is alsomaking arrangement to compensate the trees to be removed which are causinghindrance for widening the road, by providing new saplings at 1 % 10 ratioand as such, the question of causing environmental threat does not arise. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

34.Considering the submission of the both sides, this Courtthought it fit to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the disputedplace, where the work of widening process is going on, in order to find outthe feasibility of saving certain number of trees. Accordingly,Mr.N.S.Ponniah, learned senior advocate was appointed as AdvocateCommissioner to inspect the disputed premises for the above said purposealong with the petitioner and the Assistant Engineer, National HighwaysDivision, Madurai and to submit a report.5.The learned Advocate Commissioner has submitted a report todaybefore this Court, which reads hereunder:"During the inspection it was concluded by the AdvocateCommissioner that there are 16 number of live trees find out aslisted below which are situated in almost close to the extremeend of widening portion which can be retained and few branchesmaking hindrance to carry out the widening work may be cleared.1Km 10/4Left SideNeem Tree2Km 11/4Left SideNeem Tree3Km 12/6Left SideTamarind Tree4Km 12/8Left SideKondrai Tree5Km 13/6Right SideNeem Tree6Km 13/8 (i)Left SideVagai Tree7 Km 13/8 (ii)Left SideVagai Tree8Km 14/6 (i)Left SideTamarind Tree 9 Km 14/6 (ii)Left SideNeem Tree10 Km 14/6(iii)Left SideTamarind Tree11Km 14/8 (i)Left SideTamarind Tree12 Km 14/8 (ii)Left SideTamarind Tree13 Km 14/8 (iii)Left SideTamarind Tree14Km 14/8 (iv)Left Side Tamarind Tree15Km 14/10 (i)Left SideKondrai Tree 16 Km 14/10 (ii)Left SideNeem TreeThe above said 16 live trees were clearly marked withenamel yellow paint distinct the same from other cutting trees.The Advocate Commissioner has also suggested to providepedestrian foot path in KM 11/2 - 11/4 (200.00 meter inNagamalai Pudukkottai built-up area) Right side for theconvenience of school, college students and pedestriansdepending upon the availability of funds.The Advocate Commissioner also suggested to plantsaplings of new trees in the widening stretch in possiblelocations and further recommended the National Highways,Madurai to supervise the cutting of trees for preventing thecutting of unmarked trees."6.A reading of the above said report of the Advocate Commissionermakes it crystal clear that there are 16 number of live trees, as mentionedin the tabular column, as incorporated above, prescribed in the report of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4the Commissioner as serial Nos.1 to 16, are situated in the extreme end ofwidening operation and as such, the learned Advocate Commissioner opinedthat the said trees could be retained. It is also stated by the AdvocateCommissioner in the said report that few branches, which may causehindrance to the widening process, may be cleared. The learned AdvocateCommissioner has also suggested for providing a pedestrian foot path in KM11/2 - 11/4 for the convenience of school and college students, as the areacoming under the school and college zone and nearly five thousand to tenthousand students are using the said road everyday. Apart from suchproposal, the learned Advocate Commissioner further suggested to plantsaplings of new trees in the widening stretch in possible locations, whichcan be supervised by the National Highways, Madurai and also suggested thatthe National Highways, Madurai may be directed to supervise the cutting oftrees for preventing the cutting of trees unnecessarily.7.The report also makes it very clear that the above said 16trees could be saved, while carrying out the work of widening the road. Weare constrained to state that the Highways Department is carrying out thewidening work only for the benefit of the public at large. It is alsoequally important to safeguard the road safety. A recent report statesthat in the year 2010 as many as 15,409 people died in road accidents inTamil Nadu and as such, the State is duty bound to take all necessary stepsto prevent the road accident. One such step, in order to prevent the roadaccident, is to widen the road, by providing the number of lanes for theroad traffic. Mere widening of road itself would not be sufficient toprevent frequent accidents. The authorities concerned should take stringentaction against drunken driving and should create awareness among the publicthat traffic rules are to be strictly followed and crossing of the roadsshould be only at pedestrian cross and unnecessary overtaking of vehiclesshould be avoided, etc. It is also needless to state that in the interestof public, we have to balance the road safety and the protection ofenvironment by saving the live trees. As far as the case on hand isconcerned, the only grievance of the petitioner is that there is a threatof cut and removal of certain live trees, which could be otherwise saved.Now, the unbiased and fair report of the learned Advocate Commissionerrevealed that 16 live trees can be saved as the same is situated in theextreme end of the widening operation. 8.Accordingly, we are constrained to direct the DivisionalEngineer, National Highways Division, Madurai, viz., the eighth respondentherein not to cut and remove 16 live trees mentioned as Serial Nos.1 to 16in the report of the Advocate Commissioner, dated 21.11.2011. It is madeclear that in the event of any few branches of the said trees, which wouldcause hindrance to carry out the widening work, may be cleared by trimmingthe branches alone. The widening work should be supervised by theSuperintending Engineer, National Highways, Madurai, periodically in orderto ensure the retention of the above said 16 trees and unnecessary removalof trees which are not required for widening the road.9.We are placing it on record of our appreciation to the learnedAdvocate Commissioner Mr.N.S.Ponniah, senior advocate, Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy,learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Mahendran, learned SpecialGovernment Pleader for taking efforts to save the trees, in order toprotect the environment and also to protect the public from frequent roadaccidents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

510.With the above direction, the writ petition is hereby disposedof. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.SD/-Assistant Registrar(Crl.side)/True copy/Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)To:1.The National Highways Authority of India, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport & Highways, G-5 & 6, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075.2.Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Forest, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3.3.The Director General, National Highways Authority of India, G5 & 6, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi.4.The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Madurai.5.State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Environment & Forest, Secretariat, Chennai.6.Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, rep. by its Chairman, Guindy, Chennai.7.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.8.The Divisional Engineer, National Highways Division, Madurai.+1 CC to the Special Government Pleader, SR.NO.40830gcg Order in W.P.(MD)No.11464 of 2011 21.11.2011 TR : 16.12.2011 : 5p/10c