Inordinate delay in probe into illegal felling of 24,777 trees along Bist Doab canal

Rajmeet Singh

Chandigarh, December 7

An Additional Chief Secretary (ACS)-rank officer submits a report to the govt in June 2021 on illegal felling of 24,777 eucalyptus, sheesham and kikar trees along the 800 km-long Bist Doab canal. But it took top functionaries of the Forest Department more than a year (October 2022) to order necessary action on this report.

The report, prepared by Anirudh Tewari, holds former Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF) Kuldeep Kumar and former Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) Jagdev Singh responsible for procedural lapses. Both forest officers retired in 2019.

During the SAD-BJP government (2012-17), the Rs 270-crore project to widen the canal had kicked up a row last year after foresters and environmentalists cried foul over trees being uprooted from a land strip (on both sides of the canal), classified as a protected forest.

Subsequently, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) had directed the state Chief Secretary in September 2018 to get the case investigated by an officer not below the rank of the ACS and fix responsibility on officers responsible for violation of the Forest Conservation Act. Before becoming Chief Secretary in 2021, Tewari was ACS (Development).

“First it took the state government three years to complete the inquiry and then the Forest Department took another year to order necessary action. It seems various pulls and pressures were at play to delay implementation of findings of the report,” said an official privy to the movement of the file.

The NGT in its orders had observed that the forest officers deliberately ignored the fact that the trees stood in the area demarked as protected forest and there was wilful violation of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.

Findings of report

• No malafide intention on part of the forest officers. The permission for tree felling granted for public purpose and no personal benefit derived out of by any officer
• Due to difference in interpretation of the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, there is a procedural lapse. The officers should have sought prior approval from the Centre