In a significant development, we saw how as recently as on September 16, 2022, the Uttarakhand High Court in a most laudable, learned, landmark and latest judgment titled Ashish Kumar Garg v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. In Writ Petition (PIL) No. 68 of 2022 has allowed the proposed cutting of ‘2057 number of trees’ for road-widening project in the Sahastradhara passage leading to Mussorie. While denying relief to the stay application filed by the petitioner to halt the move, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Ramesh Chandra Khulbe minced no words to clearly state that:
As to which road should be developed or expanded, is a matter of policy decision. Neither the petitioner has a vested right to claim that the respondent should formulate a policy which he thinks proper, nor is it for this Court to lay down the policy for the State Government. We are only concerned with the examination of the issue, whether the impugned actions of the State are illegal or unconstitutional, and, on that ground, whether they call for interference. Very rightly so!

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi for a Division Bench of Uttarakhand High Court comprising of himself and Hon’ble Sri RC Khulbe sets the ball rolling by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
The petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition, in public interest, to seek the intervention of this Court against the proposed felling of 2057 trees for the purpose of widening of the road from Jogiwala/ Ladpur/ Sahastradhara Crossing/ Krishali Square/ Pacific Golf Estate in Dehradun. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents to frame guidelines for any road widening exercise that may lead to consequent felling of trees.

While giving a brief background of the petitioner, the Division Bench then specifies in para 2 that:
The petitioner is a Civil Engineer, M.B.A., and also a fellow of Institution of Engineers. He is the President of the EcoGroup society of Dehradun, which is an environment conservation group working for the awareness of climate change, and to deal with the aspects of waste management, water conservation, solar, forest conservation and tree plantation.

To put things in perspective, the Division Bench then envisages in para 3 that, The petitioner states that the planned felling of 2057 trees, for expansion of Jogiwala/ Ladpur/ Sahastradhara Crossing/ Krishali Square/ Pacific Golf Estate road, so as to facilitate traffic movement between Mussoorie and Sahastradhara, would adversely impact the ecological and heritage value of the said trees, which are critical to the watershed of the Doon Valley.

The petitioner states that the said proposed felling of trees falls foul of the accepted canons of sustainable development. According to the petitioner, alternatives are available to mitigate the traffic congestion, as well as to propagate environment conservation. The petitioner states that most of the said 2057 trees are fully grown varieties of the Peepal (7 peepal trees), Pilkhan, Amaltas, Mango (122 trees in all), Eucalyptus (1006) and other exquisite varieties of trees, which play a vital role in maintaining the ecology of the place, and in keeping the entire area cool in summer, and retaining water in their roots, which helps in maintaining the water table and lowering the air pollution.

Be it noted, the Division Bench then discloses in para 8 that:
The Writ Petition was first taken up by the Division Bench of this Court on 11.05.2022. On that date, this Court directed that, in pursuance of the proposed road widening from Jogiwala/ Ladpur/ Sahastradhara Crossing/ Krishali Square/ Pacific Golf Estate, no trees shall be felled by the respondents. The matter was adjourned to 08.06.2022. On 08.06.2022, the matter was further adjourned to 20.06.2022, and the interim order dated 11.05.2022 was continued. The matter was further adjourned to 22.06.2022, and the interim order was continued.

Quite significantly, the Division Bench then observes in para 29 that:
Since Sahastradhara road is also a common tourist destination, in every tourist season, there is a spike in the Passenger Car Unit (PCU). Thousands of tourists visit Sahastradhara on daily basis. The affidavit discloses that, keeping in view the aforesaid aspect, land on both sides of the Sahastradhara Road was procured/ bought by the P.W.D. as far as back in the year 1948, and part of the land consumed in the widening of the Ring Road was procured between 2001-2009. The State has disclosed that another alternate route, by the name of Sahastradhara-Chamasari-Barlowganj Road, for reaching Mussoorie, connecting many villages is already under construction, and that the Sahastradhara Road/ Ring Road would feed and connect to the said SahastradharaChamasari-Barlowganj road. This would reduce the pressure of traffic within the State, especially in the peak season.

As it turned out, the Division Bench then enunciates in para 43 that:
We may first deal with the submission of Mr. Negi premised on the Notification dated 01.02.1989. The project to expand the road in question is being undertaken to facilitate smooth movement of traffic on the road in question, which is experiencing high volume of vehicular traffic. It also caters to the traffic from Dehradun to Mussoorie, via Sahastradhara, and back. The removal of congestion on the road is not intended only for tourism purposes.

The said project cannot be classified as a tourism project. It is a developmental project for the development and upgradation of the existing transport infrastructure which is essential for the people of Dehradun, in as much, as, it is essential for those living and working in Dehradun, as it is for people going to Mussoorie for tourism, or otherwise. There is no change of land use, since it is the stand of the respondents that the land already stands acquired by the Government, on either side of the road in question. Mr. Negi has not even ventured to elaborate on either of the aforesaid two aspects, apart from making a faint argument. Therefore, in our view, reliance placed on the notification dated 01.02.1989, issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, is of no avail for the present purpose.

While clearing the air, the Division Bench then pointed out in para 44 that, Reliance placed by Mr. Negi on the order dated 06.04.2022, passed in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 36 of 2022, which refers to, and relies upon the aforesaid notification dated 01.02.1989, appears to be misplaced. From the said order, it appears that the Court was dealing with the specific case of raising of construction on land bearing Khasra No. 277, which had been converted by the Revenue Authorities, from water logged area to barren/ banjar land, to enable construction thereon.

Frankly speaking, the Division Bench then concedes in para 45 that:
There is no denying the fact that the entire world is facing the threat of environmental and climatic change due to Global warming. This is happening due to rapid industrialization, cutting of forests, burning of fossil fuel, which is leading to carbon emissions in the environment. However, that cannot be cited as a general reason to stop all developmental activities. Certain developmental activities may, in fact, contribute to reduction of carbon emissions. Widening of a busy and congested road would, in fact, help the environment, as it would lead to smooth running of traffic and lesser carbon emissions. It is well known that busy roads, with slow moving traffic, contribute greatly to air pollution, as a result of unproductive and inefficient burning of fuel.

On a candid note, the Division Bench then concedes in para 50 that:
Though, there is no denying the fact that the cutting of the 1006 Eucalyptus trees would, at least for some time, adversely impact the environment, and also affect the birds and insects which nest in such trees, looking to the extent of forest cover in the Doon Valley itself, and the State of Uttarakhand as a whole, we cannot accept the submission that the species of birds and insects, which nest on trees, including Eucalyptus trees, would be rendered vulnerable. This is so, because the Doon Valley specifically, and the State of Uttarakhand generally, have a large forest cover, and it is not that all the trees, or all Eucalyptus trees, are being destroyed.

Most notably, the Division Bench then holds in para 52 that:
In the light of the aforesaid, we are of the view that the cutting down of the 1006 Eucalyptus trees, which have already lived their full lifecycle, and which have the potential of causing accident in case they fall on their own, does not call for interference by us in these proceedings. The petitioner has himself placed on record literature to show that Eucalyptus trees have very shallow roots and, therefore, such trees are prone to getting uprooted due to strong winds and storms. We, therefore, reject the submission of Mr. Abhijay Negi that the respondents should not be permitted to cut the 1006, or the remaining 478 Eucalyptus trees.

Most remarkably, the Division Bench then directs in para 56 that:
We are, therefore, inclined to direct the State to buy the necessary equipment, for transplantation of the fully grown trees, positively within the next four months. However, since the work of expansion of the road in question has already commenced, and appears to be necessary to meet the urgent needs of smooth flow of traffic, we are inclined to permit the transplantation of the trees, though under the supervision of the experts of the F.R.I., Dehradun. The F.R.I., Dehradun shall nominate at least two experts, who shall be involved at every stage of transplantation of the fully grown trees, i.e. from the uprooting of the trees; to its transportation; thereafter, to their re-transplantation, and; their upkeep till they stabilize at their new location.

The transplanted trees should be given necessary treatment for the injury caused to them in the process of relocation, to prevent them getting infected. The respondents shall ensure compliance with the instructions and advice rendered by the experts from F.R.I. in all such matters of transplantation/ treatment of trees. The suitability of the area, where the transplantation of the trees is being undertaken, shall also be examined and certified by the experts of the F.R.I, Dehradun.

Most pragmatically, the Division Bench then observes in para 61 that:
We also find merit in the submission of Mr. Babulkar that, while environmental concerns have to be kept in mind, the State of Uttarakhand – which is relatively a new and upcoming State, also needs development and infrastructure to meet the aspirations of the people, and to achieve the economic upliftment and developments.

While continuing in the same vein, the Division Bench then stipulates in para 62 stating that:
The State needs sustainable development, which means that a balance has to be struck between the environmental needs and the need of development. So far as the removal of 1006 Eucalyptus Trees is concerned, it appears, that the said trees have practically lived their life, and considering the fact that Eucalyptus Trees are fast growing species, the State can, and should replenish the said loss by planting many more trees, than the numbers being cut down, in appropriate areas, where there is water logging, or the water table is high, after approval of the Ground Water Authority.

Furthermore, the Bench then also stipulates in para 63 stating that:
Other trees, which would compensate for the loss of carbon sequestering due to the removal of the 1006 Eucalyptus Trees, should be planted in appropriate areas, under the supervision of the F.R.I., Dehradun.

On a positive note, the Division Bench then hastens to add in para 64 that, Since, we have directed the involvement of F.R.I., Dehradun in the matter of transplantation of the remaining trees, out of the 972 trees, we are hopeful that the transplanted trees would do well, and continue to serve the environmental needs after relocation.

Going ahead, the Division Bench states in para 65 that:
Mr. Negi has also sought to raise issues with regard to the width of the proposed four lane road/ highway, and its design.

Of course, the Division Bench then holds in para 66 that:
We do not find any merit in the said submission. There is nothing to show that there is any prohibition in law to the State developing the highway in the manner proposed. The respondents have been able to show that the current Passenger Car Unit (PCU) is high, and there is urgent need to develop the State Highway/ road in question.

Finally, the Division Bench then concludes by holding in para 67 that:
For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss the Stay Application (IA No. 06 of 2022) moved by the petitioner. The State shall, however, continue to comply with the conditions imposed upon it vide order dated 22.06.2022, as well as the directions issued by us in this order.

In essence, we thus see that the Uttarakhand High Court very rightly vacates stay on cutting of trees for construction of the Sahastradhara Road. It also very rightly directs the government to transplant trees. This would no doubt help us in making our environment clean and healthy!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh