Mumbai, Feb 07: Reinforcing that urban tree protection is central to environmental balance, the Bombay High Court has directed municipal corporations that public notices issued for tree-felling permissions must be clear, specific and informative, holding that such notices cannot be reduced to a mere procedural formality.
PMC criticised for ‘perfunctory’ approach
A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande criticised the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) for adopting what it called a “perfunctory” approach while granting permission to fell trees, warning that statutory safeguards cannot be treated as a mere ritual.
Lack of essential details in public notice
The court observed that the municipal notice under challenge failed to disclose essential details required for citizens to effectively raise objections under the statutory framework.
It held that the publication did not meet the standards prescribed under Section 8 of the Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection and Preservation of Trees Act, 1975, as it lacked material particulars necessary for meaningful public participation.
Petition challenges 2020 tree-felling approval
The court was hearing a petition filed by Abhijeet Mohan Anturkar challenging the PMC Tree Authority’s 2020 approval to cut four coconut trees in Erandwane, Pune. Opening its order on a reflective note, the court observed, “Trees are a poem which the earth writes upon the sky,” underscoring the ecological and social value of urban greenery protected under the Act.
Arguments from both sides
The petitioner’s advocates — Abhay Anturkar, Harshvardhan Suryavanshi and Ajinkya Udane — contended that the mandatory procedure under Section 8, particularly the requirement of issuing a public notice inviting objections, was not meaningfully followed.
Although PMC advocate Vishwanath Patil argued that notices were published and pasted on the trees, the bench found merit in the grievance that the newspaper notice lacked essential particulars.
Court outlines minimum disclosure requirements
The court stressed that anyone wishing to object must be informed of the “location of the trees, the reason why the trees are sought to be felled and at whose instance”.
Expecting citizens to search municipal websites for such details diluted the very purpose of statutory notice, the judges said, describing the publication as a “perfunctory exercise” that failed to enable a “pinpointed objection” from environmentally concerned residents.
Reliance on earlier ruling
Relying on its earlier ruling in Rohit Manohar Joshi v. Tree Authority, Thane, the bench reiterated that the law seeks to prevent ecological imbalance caused by indiscriminate tree felling and therefore demands strict procedural compliance by civic authorities.
Penal consequences highlighted
While noting that the four trees had already been cut pursuant to the 2020 permission — leaving little scope for restorative relief — the court highlighted that Section 21 of the Act provides penal consequences, including fines and imprisonment, for violations, even extending to officials who fail to follow due process.
Also Watch:
Directions to municipal bodies
The bench directed that reasons for granting tree-felling permissions must be recorded and preserved for scrutiny, emphasising accountability in environmental decision-making. Calling for vigilance, it urged municipal bodies to strictly follow statutory safeguards and ordered circulation of its directions to urban authorities across Maharashtra before disposing of the petition.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
