Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday stayed the felling of 777 trees in Dahanu, Palghar district, for the widening of State Highway 30. A bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Arif Doctor directed that “the trees in question shall not be felled until further orders.”
The court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Chauhan Foundation, a local trust, challenging the January 28 permission granted by the Tree Authority to fell the trees. The petitioner alleged that the approval violated the Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection and Preservation of Trees Act.
According to the PIL, filed through Advocate Arjun Kadam, the State Public Works Department (PWD) had awarded a private contract for widening the Dahanu-Jawhar, Mokhada-Trimbak Road. As per legal requirements, a public notice inviting objections was issued on January 24.
The trust submitted its objections on February 3, well within the mandatory seven-day period. However, it later discovered that the Tree Authority had granted permission on January 28 — before the public notice period had expired and without receiving the necessary inquiry report from the Tree Officer.
The petitioner stated that despite the objection period not concluding, laborers were deployed to fell trees, and some had already been chopped down. “Few trees have been chopped off and further felling is anticipated,” the petition stated.
Kadam argued that the permission was granted in “flagrant violation” of Section 7 of the Trees Act. The Act stipulates that if fewer than 25 trees are to be felled, the Tree Officer must issue a notice, determine the trees’ age, and complete due diligence before granting permission. If more than 25 trees are involved, the responsibility shifts to the Tree Authority, which must conduct an inquiry before making a decision.
The PIL seeks to quash the permission granted by the Tree Authority and halt further tree felling. After hearing the submissions, the court issued notices to the Dahanu Municipal Council, the chairman of the Tree Authority, and the State Public Works Department. While issuing notice to respondents, the HC said: “Trees shall not be felled without the order from this court.”
