HC questions liability for tree felling, seeks accountability under ‘polluter pays’ norm

Axing of 113 fully grown eucalyptus trees in Sector 9

Advertisement

Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, August 2
Cutting through the UT Administration’s defences, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has asked it to explain whether its tree-felling committee was liable to pay damages or compensation based on the principle of `polluter pays’ following the axing of 113 fully grown eucalyptus trees in Sector 9. The Forest Secretary was also asked to submit details about the number of saplings planted after the trees were felled.
“Let an affidavit be filed by the Secretary, Department of Forest & Wildlife, Chandigarh, as to how many saplings have been planted in lieu of the trees cut. On the next date of hearing, the senior standing counsel for the UT shall also address the court `as to whether the tree-felling committee, which had felled 113 fully grown trees, is liable for damages or compensation based on the principle of polluter pays?” said the Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal.
The directions came on a bunch of two petitions, including one filed in public interest, after the fall of a heritage tree took the life of a Carmel Convent School student. Among other things, it was seeking time-bound probe by a sitting HC Judge.
Appearing before the Bench on behalf of petitioner Adityajit Singh Chadha, senior advocate DS Patwalia with Gauravjit Singh Patwalia and Lagan K Sandhu referred to the relevant record, which showed 113 eucalyptus trees were cut without following due process of law.
Senior Standing counsel Amit Jhanji, appearing on the UT’s behalf, on the other hand, disputed the fact and submitted that the due process of law was followed by obtaining prior permission before cutting the trees since these were “over mature and a threat to life and property of general public”. Jhanji also told the Bench that several “tree saplings” had been planted in lieu of the felling.
After hearing the arguments and going through the record, the Bench fixed the matter for further hearing on August 30, when the court would examine the affidavit and the submissions regarding the committee’s accountability. The directions are significant as the court’s focus on the “polluter pays” principle highlights the growing emphasis on environmental responsibility and the need for transparency in public and ecological welfare actions.