1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Petition (MD) No.11464 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 LITTLES TRUST, rep. by its Managing Trustee, T.R.Paravatha Varthini, w/o.S.Arumugam, Door No.7/26, Venkataraman Nagar, N.G.O. Colony, Nagamalai Pudukkottai, Madurai - 625 019. ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The National Highways Authority of India, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport & Highways, G-5 & 6, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075. 2.Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Forest, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3.The Director General, National Highways Authority of India, G5 & 6, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi. 4.The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Madurai. 5.State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Environment & Forest, Secretariat, Chennai. 6.Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, rep. by its Chairman, Guindy, Chennai. 7.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 8.The Divisional Engineer, National Highways Division, Madurai. ... Respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 (R8 impleaded as per order of the Court dated 10.11.2011 made in M.P.(MD).No.2 of 2011) Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, to forbear the fourth respondent from cutting the trees located in NH-49 extension for expansion of Highways, without obtaining the Environmental Clearance, as per the notification of Ministry of Environment and Forests, dated 14.09.2006. For petitioner .. Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For respondents .. Mr.K.K.Senthilvelan, 1 to 4 & 8 Senior Central Government Standing Counsel For respondents 5 & 7 .. Mr.K.Mahendran, Special Government Pleader For 6th respondent .. Mr.C.Elaman ORDER (Order of the Court was made by K.N.BASHA, J.) The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of forbearing the fourth respondent from cutting the trees located in NH-49 extension for expansion of Highways, without obtaining the Environmental Clearance, as per the notification of Ministry of Environment and Forests, dated 14.09.2006. 2.Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a social service organisation and it is a centre for children and also actively involved in spreading the environmental awareness among the public. The learned counsel would submit that the National Highways Department has started cutting trees for the expansion of road in NH-49 extension and there are nearly 800 trees in the stretch of Nagamalai Pudukottai to Checkkanoorani Highway. It is contended that there is likelihood of removal of trees which could be saved and the road also could be widened. The learned counsel would contend that the Highways Department does not require to cut and remove all the trees and even without the same, they can very well widen the road. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also sought for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for inspecting the premises in the presence of both the parties viz., the petitioner and the departmental officials. 3.Per contra, Mr.K.Mahendran, learned Special Government Pleader would contend that the work of widening the road, carried out by the Highways Department, is only with the object of avoiding frequent road accidents. It is contended that number of road accidents took place in the particular place which is under the process of widening the road. The learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the department is also making arrangement to compensate the trees to be removed which are causing hindrance for widening the road, by providing new saplings at 1 % 10 ratio and as such, the question of causing environmental threat does not arise. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 4.Considering the submission of the both sides, this Court thought it fit to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the disputed place, where the work of widening process is going on, in order to find out the feasibility of saving certain number of trees. Accordingly, Mr.N.S.Ponniah, learned senior advocate was appointed as Advocate Commissioner to inspect the disputed premises for the above said purpose along with the petitioner and the Assistant Engineer, National Highways Division, Madurai and to submit a report. 5.The learned Advocate Commissioner has submitted a report today before this Court, which reads hereunder: "During the inspection it was concluded by the Advocate Commissioner that there are 16 number of live trees find out as listed below which are situated in almost close to the extreme end of widening portion which can be retained and few branches making hindrance to carry out the widening work may be cleared. 1 Km 10/4 Left Side Neem Tree 2 Km 11/4 Left Side Neem Tree 3 Km 12/6 Left Side Tamarind Tree 4 Km 12/8 Left Side Kondrai Tree 5 Km 13/6 Right Side Neem Tree 6 Km 13/8 (i) Left Side Vagai Tree 7 Km 13/8 (ii) Left Side Vagai Tree 8 Km 14/6 (i) Left Side Tamarind Tree 9 Km 14/6 (ii) Left Side Neem Tree 10 Km 14/6(iii) Left Side Tamarind Tree 11 Km 14/8 (i) Left Side Tamarind Tree 12 Km 14/8 (ii) Left Side Tamarind Tree 13 Km 14/8 (iii) Left Side Tamarind Tree 14 Km 14/8 (iv) Left Side Tamarind Tree 15 Km 14/10 (i) Left Side Kondrai Tree 16 Km 14/10 (ii) Left Side Neem Tree The above said 16 live trees were clearly marked with enamel yellow paint distinct the same from other cutting trees. The Advocate Commissioner has also suggested to provide pedestrian foot path in KM 11/2 - 11/4 (200.00 meter in Nagamalai Pudukkottai built-up area) Right side for the convenience of school, college students and pedestrians depending upon the availability of funds. The Advocate Commissioner also suggested to plant saplings of new trees in the widening stretch in possible locations and further recommended the National Highways, Madurai to supervise the cutting of trees for preventing the cutting of unmarked trees." 6.A reading of the above said report of the Advocate Commissioner makes it crystal clear that there are 16 number of live trees, as mentioned in the tabular column, as incorporated above, prescribed in the report of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 the Commissioner as serial Nos.1 to 16, are situated in the extreme end of widening operation and as such, the learned Advocate Commissioner opined that the said trees could be retained. It is also stated by the Advocate Commissioner in the said report that few branches, which may cause hindrance to the widening process, may be cleared. The learned Advocate Commissioner has also suggested for providing a pedestrian foot path in KM 11/2 - 11/4 for the convenience of school and college students, as the area coming under the school and college zone and nearly five thousand to ten thousand students are using the said road everyday. Apart from such proposal, the learned Advocate Commissioner further suggested to plant saplings of new trees in the widening stretch in possible locations, which can be supervised by the National Highways, Madurai and also suggested that the National Highways, Madurai may be directed to supervise the cutting of trees for preventing the cutting of trees unnecessarily. 7.The report also makes it very clear that the above said 16 trees could be saved, while carrying out the work of widening the road. We are constrained to state that the Highways Department is carrying out the widening work only for the benefit of the public at large. It is also equally important to safeguard the road safety. A recent report states that in the year 2010 as many as 15,409 people died in road accidents in Tamil Nadu and as such, the State is duty bound to take all necessary steps to prevent the road accident. One such step, in order to prevent the road accident, is to widen the road, by providing the number of lanes for the road traffic. Mere widening of road itself would not be sufficient to prevent frequent accidents. The authorities concerned should take stringent action against drunken driving and should create awareness among the public that traffic rules are to be strictly followed and crossing of the roads should be only at pedestrian cross and unnecessary overtaking of vehicles should be avoided, etc. It is also needless to state that in the interest of public, we have to balance the road safety and the protection of environment by saving the live trees. As far as the case on hand is concerned, the only grievance of the petitioner is that there is a threat of cut and removal of certain live trees, which could be otherwise saved. Now, the unbiased and fair report of the learned Advocate Commissioner revealed that 16 live trees can be saved as the same is situated in the extreme end of the widening operation. 8.Accordingly, we are constrained to direct the Divisional Engineer, National Highways Division, Madurai, viz., the eighth respondent herein not to cut and remove 16 live trees mentioned as Serial Nos.1 to 16 in the report of the Advocate Commissioner, dated 21.11.2011. It is made clear that in the event of any few branches of the said trees, which would cause hindrance to carry out the widening work, may be cleared by trimming the branches alone. The widening work should be supervised by the Superintending Engineer, National Highways, Madurai, periodically in order to ensure the retention of the above said 16 trees and unnecessary removal of trees which are not required for widening the road. 9.We are placing it on record of our appreciation to the learned Advocate Commissioner Mr.N.S.Ponniah, senior advocate, Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Mahendran, learned Special Government Pleader for taking efforts to save the trees, in order to protect the environment and also to protect the public from frequent road accidents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 10.With the above direction, the writ petition is hereby disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. SD/- Assistant Registrar(Crl.side) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To: 1.The National Highways Authority of India, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport & Highways, G-5 & 6, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075. 2.Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Forest, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 3.The Director General, National Highways Authority of India, G5 & 6, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi. 4.The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Madurai. 5.State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Environment & Forest, Secretariat, Chennai. 6.Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, rep. by its Chairman, Guindy, Chennai. 7.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 8.The Divisional Engineer, National Highways Division, Madurai. +1 CC to the Special Government Pleader, SR.NO.40830 gcg Order in W.P.(MD)No.11464 of 2011 21.11.2011 TR : 16.12.2011 : 5p/10c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/