Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Allahabad High Court: In a public interest litigation filed in 2013 seeking geo-tagging of the mango trees belt in UP, the Division Bench of Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary and Ranjan Roy, JJ., summoned the Additional Chief Secretary/ Principal Secretary of Forest, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Divisional Forest Officer of Lucknow, and Principal Secretary of Horticulture and Food Processing due to repeated non-compliance with court orders.
Background
In 2013, the petitioner filed the present PIL seeking geo-tagging of the trees in the mango belt in UP. However, no action was taken till 2025.
On 02-01-2025, the Court noted that the affidavit filed by the National Highways Authority of India (“NHAI”) regarding plantation and protection of environmental issues on the National Highways constructed by the NHAI was dissatisfactory. The affidavit did not clarify the extent of depth on either side of the road, which is retained as State property, i.e., the NHAI utilized for the plantation of trees by the agency. Accordingly, the State and the U.P. Pollution Control Board (“UPPCB”) were granted time to file better affidavits.
However, on 12-11-2025, the Court remarked that neither the NHAI nor the UPPCB had filed counter-affidavits. The Court directed the UPPCB to file an affidavit stating that it had no role to play in the matter if that was the case. The Court also inquired whether a scientific methodology for geo-tagging of trees in the mango belt could be adopted as per the judgment of Bombay High Court in Deepak Balkrishna Vahikar v. State of Maharashtra1, but the State sought time for a response.
The Court remarked that the matter had remained pending for eleven years, and the State Counsel still wanted time to seek instructions. Accordingly, a cost of Rs.15,000 was imposed on the State Authorities for not complying with earlier orders.
On the present date, the UPPNB informed the Court that they had already filed the counter affidavit, but it had defects. However, the defects had been removed, and the affidavit would be uploaded on the e-court portal during the day. The UPPCB and NHAI also informed the Court that they had no role to play in the present matter.
Regarding the costs imposed on the last date, the State’s Counsel informed the Court that she had no instructions as to whether the costs had been deposited or not. She had not received any instructions, nor had any affidavit been filed by the State authorities after the previous order dated 12-11-2025.
Analysis
Noting the aforesaid, the Court remarked that this was the apathy shown by the State authorities after such a stringent order was passed on 12-11-2025.
“No other option is left with us but to summon all the State authorities who are impleaded herein, as it appears that, in such an important matter involving public interest, they are not only not cooperating, but their conduct displays certain intransigence which needs to be addressed.”
Accordingly, the Court sought the physical appearance of the Additional Chief Secretary/ Principal Secretary of Forest, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, and Divisional Forest Officer of Lucknow, who were said to be the authorities required to assist the Court in the light of the observations made by this Court in its orders dated 13.-01-2014 and 12-11-2025.
For their non-cooperation in the proceedings and failure to comply with Court orders in filing required affidavits, the Court imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000, especially since none of the affidavits filed by the State authorities after 03-01-2014 addressed the Court’s query regarding geo-tagging. The Court further directed that the entire cost, including the one imposed on 12-11-2025, shall be paid by the State authorities before the next date, which shall then be remitted to the Drishti Samajik Sansthan, which runs a juvenile home for girls and boys at Lucknow, by the Senior Registrar.
At this stage, the State’s Counsel informed the Court that she had telephonic instructions from the Chief Executive Officer, State Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority, that geo-tagging details had to be submitted by the Department of Horticulture, and the geo-tagging had already been taking place since 2018. However, the petitioner countered that the order dated 03-01-2024 also mentioned felling of trees along with geo-tagging, thus the forest department was concerned.
Noting this, the Court stated that it failed to understand why the Chief Executive Officer did not provide written instructions or file an affidavit in this regard, so that the factual aspect was clear and the Department of Horticulture could be confronted on it. The Court also inquired why the cost that had already been imposed was not deposited.
Therefore, the Court held that the State’s statement did not persuade it to change its order and sought the physical appearance of the Principal Secretary of Horticulture and Food Processing.
The matter was listed for 13-01-2026.
[Jayant Singh Tomar v. State of U.P., 2026 SCC OnLine All 13, decided on 05-01-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Petitioner in Person, Advocates Gaurav Mehrotra, Maria Fatima, Shreya Agarwal
For the respondents: C.S.C., A K Verma, Abhinav Singh, Arjun Gupta, J B S Rathore, Jyotsana Singh, Ratnesh Chandra, Vimlesh Kumar, Isha Mittal
1. Public Interest Litigation No.93 of 2009