Why Supreme Court issued contempt of court notice to DDA Vice-Chairperson

The Supreme Court on Thursday minced no words in objecting to the conduct of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in allowing and enabling the illegal felling of trees in the Ridge Forest area of the capital. [Bindu Kapuria v. Subhasish Panda].A Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan issued a suo motu criminal contempt of court notice to the Vice-Chairperson (VC) of the Delhi Development Authority."DDA was fully aware that without permission of this Court, not a single tree could be touched. In complete violation of law and orders of this Court, the work was started and completed. This shows that DDA has committed wilful breach of this Court's directions. Moreover, DDA was aware of needing leave of this Court. Matter does not end here," the Court said.In particular, the Bench took exception to the official having sent a proposal to the Lieutenant Governor for a committee to minimise the trees to be felled for construction work, even as the felling had already been done."The dishonesty does not end here. Based on observations in court, action was initiated to constitute a committee of eminent experts to minimise the trees felled. It is stated that this proposal was duly approved by the Delhi Lieutenant Governor in his capacity as DDA Chairperson. Therefore, highest authority of State was also misled based on observations of this Court. The VC has chosen to withhold the approval documents in court. We direct that they be produced...We hope Lieutenant Governor takes the issue very seriously in his capacity as DDA Chairperson and in official responsibility.".The Bench had pulled up the DDA on Tuesday as well, with the Vice-Chairperson accepting that trees were cut down both on DDA land and in forest areas.He had been asked to be present before the Court, and to file a personal affidavit on measures to restore the trees felled despite earlier orders.The Bench was not too pleased with same today..Justice Oka at the outset remarked,"I have been a judge in constitutional courts for over 20 years now and I have never seen a body misrepresenting facts and filing wrong affidavits like this. There has to be some limit, never before seen. Which authorities oversee the ridge board and DDA?"He added that the affidavit was extremely evasive."We will not hesitate in taking steps. Please note this. We will not accept these evasive replies. Wherever a tree has been felled, land has to be restored. We are very clear on this. Must be done in a time-bound manner. Tree plantation has to be done. We cannot trust DDA now."The Bench told Attorney General R Venkataramani, assisting the Court in the matter, that it should be not felt that only the Court is interested in protecting trees..The order described the state of affairs as being 'shocking', in particular the suppression of the fact that the trees had been felled without approval."Such conduct and suppression amounts to interference with due course of court proceedings and administration of justice...Assuming that VC has defence available, we expect him to disclose names of officers responsible for criminal contempt so we can issue notice to them...Considering the nature of destruction, it cannot be fully restored. Instead of time-bound schedule of restoring, the VC has given vague replies. Road construction work has been carried out."Since the trees were cut in a forest area, a probe needs to be conducted by the DDA, it added.It described the apology in the affidavit as mere lip service, while flagging the inconsistencies in the number of trees felled as cited.The DDA was directed to stop all further activities for road construction in the affected area, and to visit the site to verify the scale of destruction."We are of the view that 100 new trees for one tree felled has to be planted by DDA. We therefore direct Forest Survey of India Dehradun to visit the road stretches to find out how many trees possibly may have been cut and assess damages.".The Bench said it would take up the matter next in the summer break, given the seriousness of the issue."This might only be the tip of the iceberg in terms of environment," Justice Oka remarked.The Delhi Ridge Management Board was allowed to be impleaded, and directed to not approve of any projects to divert forest land..The Court was dealing with a batch of contempt petitions raising concern over large-scale tree felling by the DDA.On May 9, the Court issued notice on one such contempt petition and ordered the authorities not to fell any trees in the area.The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocates Huzefa Ahmadi and Madhavi Divan as well as Advocates Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Nikhil Rohatgi, Ankit Shah and Manan Verma.Advocate ADN Rao is the amicus curiae in the matter.Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani appeared for the DDA.