Bombay High Court: While considering a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Division Bench of Bharati Dangre* and Manjusha Deshpande, JJ., examined the validity of permission granted by the Tree Officer of the Pune Municipal Corporation to fell four coconut trees. The Court held that the procedure adopted was perfunctory, lacking essential particulars, and in violation of Section 8 of the Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection and Preservation of Trees Act, 1975 (‘Trees Act’), as well as binding judicial directions. Noting that the trees had already been felled, and no immediate relief could be granted, the Court nonetheless directed strict compliance with statutory requirements and ordered circulation of its ruling to municipal bodies across the State.
Background:
The dispute arose when an application was made to the Tree Officer for cutting five coconut trees situated on private premises. Permission was eventually granted for felling four trees. The Petitioner, a resident of the neighbourhood, objected to the manner in which the permission was granted, alleging that the statutory procedure under Section 8 of the Trees Act was not strictly followed and that the authorities had adopted a perfunctory approach with a pre-set mind to grant permission.
The Respondents contended that the procedure was duly followed as notices were published in the newspaper and pasted on the trees, and the resolution was passed by the Committee during the COVID period.
However, the Petitioner argued that the notice published in the newspaper lacked particulars of the proposed tree cutting, such as details of the trees, their location, and reasons for felling, thereby depriving concerned citizens of the opportunity to raise objections.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court emphasised that the aim and object of the Trees Act is the preservation of trees in urban areas in the State. It was noted that the enactment regulates the felling of trees and provides for planting an adequate number of trees in those areas, with the intention of preventing disturbance of the ecological balance due to indiscriminate felling of trees in urban areas of the State.
The Court highlighted the importance of the ‘Tree Authority’, with specific reference to Section 4 of the Trees Act, which requires the Authority to meet at least once every month to discharge its functions. It was emphasised that these functions are contemplated under Section 8, which imposes an embargo on any person from felling a tree or causing a tree to be felled in any land, whether privately owned or situated within an urban area, except with the previous permission of the Tree Officer. The Court observed that the procedure preceding such permission contemplates an adequate public notice to be given by the Tree Officer, both by advertising in a local newspaper and by affixing a notice on the conspicuous part of the tree proposed to be felled.
The Court found that no details were offered in the notice, and as the statute contemplates objections to be raised, the person who wants to raise an objection must necessarily be aware of the location of the trees, the reason why the trees are sought to be felled, and at whose instance. The Court noted that not every person can be expected to visit the website of the Pune Municipal Corporation to find out, as there may be a number of trees involved, but an objection may concern only one or a few of them, perhaps in the area of a person’s residence, or because he feels that these trees should not be allowed to be cut.
The Court referred to Rohit Manohar Joshi v. Tree Authority, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 6187, wherein it was directed that a public notice about the description of the property be published in a local newspaper having wide circulation within the limits of the Municipal Corporation. Considering that the cities of Mumbai and Thane are metropolitan cities, it was directed that the notice be published in Marathi, Hindi, and English newspapers having wide circulation within the particular Municipal Corporation limits, and that the notice must mention that copies of the decision have been uploaded on a particular website.
In the present case, the Court observed that the notice issued by the Municipal Corporation was a perfunctory exercise. It was highlighted that if the object was to invite objections from persons in the locality or those concerned with the environment, then adequate particulars of the trees must be given so that pinpointed objections could be raised.
The Court noted that the notice pasted on the trees on 29-07-2020 did provide details of the trees, a reference to the application, and the location of the trees proposed to be cut. The Court saw no difficulty in including such particulars in the newspaper publication as well, since this would ensure adequate opportunity for those interested to raise objections, whether out of environmental concern or for any other reason, which are in any case required to be deliberated before the Tree Authority prior to granting permission to fell the trees.
The Court noted that the procedure followed was not appropriate. It held that the process was in violation of the object with which the notice is directed to be published by the statute, and it also violated the direction in the case of Rohit Manohar Joshi (supra).
The Court highlighted that Section 21 of the Trees Act contemplates offences and penalties for contravention, including fines equivalent to the valuation of the tree and imprisonment. The Court further observed that contravention must be looked into with all seriousness and that offences are liable to be registered even against officers who fail to follow the procedure.
The Court further noted that although the trees had already been felled and no relief could be granted, it directed that reasons for granting permission must be recorded and maintained in the file by the Tree Authority. The Court stressed that the consideration of an application for felling of the tree must be justified and only when it is felt necessary to grant the permission and that too on consideration of the objections that are raised.
Therefore, the Court disposed of the writ petition with directions to the Municipal Corporation to act with vigilance and strictly follow statutory procedure along with binding judicial directives. The Court also directed communication of the order to the Urban Development Department for circulation among municipal bodies, thereby reinforcing the importance of transparency, accountability, and ecological preservation in tree-felling permissions.
[Abhijeet Mohan Anturkar v. Pune Municipal Corpn., Writ Petition No. 3752 of 2021, decided on 02-02-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Bharati Dangre
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Abhay Anturkar with Harshvardhan Suryavanshi i/b Ajinkya Udane
For the Respondents: Vishwanath Patil