1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 110 OF 2009 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 93 OF 2009 Deepak Balkrishna Vahikar. .. Applicant. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr. V.S. Kapse for the Applicant. Mr. P.P. Killedar for Orig. Petitioner. Dr. Sadhana Mahashabde for respondents nos. 2 & 3. CORAM : J. N. PATEL & A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 4TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C. : Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The intervenors has sought leave of the Court to intervene in the matter and direction to respondent nos. 2 and 3 to grant permission for cutting, / uprooting 2 and replanting of trees as per the Report of Tree Committee dated 17.9.2009 situated on the Plot No. 121, CTS No. 581, situated at Kothrud, Pune and Plot No. 109, CTS No. 580, situated at Kothrud, Pune. Along with the application, the intervenor has annexed his property record, 7 X 12 extract and Index No. II in support of their contention for seeking permission to cut trees and also the report of the Committee of Experts dated 17.9.2009. 2. The main objection raised by the petitioner in the matter of grant of permission is that the Committee of Experts appointed by the Municipal Commissioner will have to consist of five persons whereas the present report is signed by only three persons. Our attention is also drawn to the fact that the other two members were also not informed in the matter. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation states that the Expert Committee has been appointed on the directions of this Court which consists of members of the teaching faculty and it is very difficult for them to be available at one and the same time. Further, there is huge pendency numbering of approximately 600 applications which requires to be scrutinized by the Expert Committee and the Committee has been able to inspect till today only 3 17 sites. 4. In so far as the Expert Committees are concerned, nothing prevents the Tree Authority from appointing more than one committee of experts. We may make it clear that taking into consideration that out of five members three members have inspected the sites and submitted the report should be considered as sufficient check by way of social audit for the reason that it is difficult for five persons to be available and this Court while directing the Tree Authority to have an expert committee of five members principally did not consider the various practical difficulties which may come in the way of the committee of experts in getting together for inspection of a particular site at a particular time as all may not be available and, therefore, we clarify for all purposes that if the 2/3rd members of the committee i.e. minimum three out of five, inspect the site and furnish the report that should be treated as sufficient check on the working of the Tree Authority as the principal purpose and object of directing the Three Authority to have a Committee of Experts was to have a social audit in respect of the recommendations/permissions which they give to persons for cutting trees. 5. We further clarify that the members of the committee 4 should not have any conflict of interest in respect of the subject matter and further it should work in a harmonious manner. We are, therefore, satisfied that the application can be allowed and, therefore, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). ( J. N. PATEL, J.) ( A. A. SAYED, J.)