Mumbai City-based NGO Shivtej Foundation filed a public interest litigation (PIL) at the Bombay high court (HC), alleging irregularities in the transplantation of estimated 800 trees, which were affected by the construction of the Metro-7 line from Andheri (E) to Dahisar (E).
Though the PIL (No. 32 of 2022) was initially filed in November 2019, it was held back due to administrative delays and on technical grounds for a significant period of time before being taken by the Chief Justice of the Bombay HC on May 2.
“The main contention of the petitioner is that out of the 800 trees which were affected by the development, there is no comprehensive report or data to prove that a) the trees were indeed transplanted, and b) that the transplanted trees are in good health. On the contrary, it seems that the authorities have simply treated the trees as hurdles to the implementation of the metro and have felled them without any consideration,” said Veer Kankaria, lead counsel for the petitioner.
The number of trees affected by the Metro-7 line were first revealed in an RTI response to the petitioner in March 2019, whereas the transplantation of the 800 trees began in September 2016 and went on till October 2019, executed by three contractors appointed by the MMRDA. The trees were ostensibly planted in Aarey Colony, Goregaon and at a casting yard in Bandra west.
However, when the petitioners visited the Aarey Colony plantation site at dairy units no. 19 and 20 (which was to receive 39 trees per the sanctions of the BMC’s gardens department), they were “shocked to see that there was no sign of 39 trees in the area.”
The petitioners say they have also visited numerous other plantation sites “to determine whether proper care of these trees was taken. However, to the utter shock of the petitioners, none of the trees were being handled (post transplantation) in the manner as subscribed in the standard journals.”
In May 2019, the petitioner received a response to an RTI request from the MMRDA, by which the latter had sought further clarity on the number of transplanted trees, their plantation sites and their subsequent management.
“The MMRDA replied to the RT Application providing photographs of the affected / transplanted trees. On receiving this data… the Plaintiff realised that MMRDA was providing wrong information. The Petitioners were provided two-year-old photographs of the trees, which is so established because MMRDA had been submitting the same photographs in various monthly, quarterly, half yearly and yearly reports to BMC Tree authority and other RTI petitioners,” states a copy of the admitted PIL, which has been reviewed by HT.
“Even in places where my client identified transplanted trees, the trees have not adjusted to the new environment. The site selection and transplantation methodology is in question. On account of this negligence, major transplanted trees are now dead. We will wait for the respondents, including the BMC and MMRDA, to submit their response in court before filing our rejoinder,” said Kankaria.