Delhi High Court: In an application filed by the Central Public Works Department (‘CPWD’) seeking permission of this Court to transplant 26 trees to carry out the project work namely ‘Expansion of Supreme Court Building for creating additional Court rooms including Constitutional Court, Chambers for Judges and Facilities for Lawyers and Litigants’, Jasmeet Singh, J., stated that given that the proposed project pertained to the expansion of the Supreme Court building to accommodate additional courtrooms, including a dedicated Constitutional Court, as well as chambers for judges and essential facilities for lawyers and litigants, the present application needs to be allowed, subject to certain conditions.
Background
As per the application, 26 trees were to be transplanted within the Supreme Court Complex. In this regard, the applicant was an affidavit, wherein it was stated that out of 26 trees to be transplanted, 16 trees were to be transplanted along the periphery of garden between Gate A and B; and 10 trees were to be transplanted near the corner of Administrative Buildings Complex, adjacent to Gate 1. Additionally, the applicant had also made a compensatory plantation of 260 tress at Sundar Nursery.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that given that the proposed project pertained to the expansion of the Supreme Court building to accommodate additional courtrooms, including a dedicated Constitutional Court, as well as chambers for judges and essential facilities for lawyers and litigants, the present application needs to be allowed, subject to certain conditions.
The Court stated that the applicant should file an affidavit of a responsible officer indicating the status of the 26 transplanted trees that they were being taken care of along with the 260 trees planted at the Sundar Nursery. The said affidavit should be filed within 2 weeks from the date of the release of this order. Further, the applicant should furnish photographs after the transplantation of 26 trees had been done, so that the amicus curiae could see the upkeep and maintenance of the said trees.
The Court further stated that the applicant should obtain necessary permissions from the municipal authorities concerned to see if more trees could be planted on the road leading to the Supreme Court as the same was enveloped with fully grown trees till some years ago (before the Sundar Nagar Road expansion).
Further, the Court directed that the tree Officer concerned should depute a responsible officer at the time of pruning of the trees to ensure that the same was done in a scientific manner to ensure the rejuvenation of those 26 trees, as the past transplantation of trees showed that there was heavy pruning of trees which resulted in the trees becoming mere logs of wood incapable of rejuvenating. The applicant should also file a site-specific transplantation report. The Court further stated that every year, the said responsible officer of the CPWD should file an affidavit indicating the survival rate and the health of the transplanted and the compensatory plantation done.
[Bhavreen Kandhari v. CD Singh, CONT. CAS(C) 1149 of 2022, decided on 26-3-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Gautam Narayan, Senior Advocate (Amicus Curiae) with Asmita Singh, Anirudh Anand, Tushar Nain, Punish Handa, Advs. Piyush Sharma, Pratyush Jain, Advocates; Ankit Jain, Senior Advocate (Amicus Curiae) with Eish Kesarwani, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Farman Ali, SPC, Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, SPC with Usha Jamnal, Harshita Chaturvedi, Siddhant Nagar, Advocates; Sanjay Kumar Pathak, SC with SK Jha, MS Akhtar, Mayank Madhu, SS Siddiqui, Advocates; Sarosh Ali, Advocate for North Forest Division; Manish K Bishnoi, Khubaib Shakeel, Advocates
