"In the light of the aforesaid stand taken by the respondent, the writ petition,along with the pending application, is disposed of by directing the respondent to decide the petitioner's complaint dated December 8, 2020 by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of six weeks from today, " the court said in its October 11 order.
Justice Rekha Palli, with this direction disposed of the petition filed by environmentalist Bhavreen Kandhari.
The petitioner Bhavreen Kandhari has filed its petition through advocates Aditya N Prasad and Dhriti Chhabra. The petitioner has sought to direct the Respondent, the Deputy Conservator of Forest (DCF), South and Tree Officer to take necessary action/decision on the Complaint filed by her.
The petitioner said that despite her complaint dated December 8, 2020 submitted to the respondent pointing out instances of violations of the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994, no action has been taken thereon till date.
Advocate Satyakam, appearing for the respondent submitted that the respondent has no objection to deciding the petitioner's complaint expeditiously.
The Petitioner, said acting in consonance with Article 51(A)(g) of the Constitution of India, discharged her fundamental duty to make efforts to protect and improve the natural environment by sending a Complaint dated December 8, 2020 to the Respondent/Tree Officer, bringing his attention to the issue of 77 missing trees in Sarvodaya Enclave, New Delhi.
According to the petition, the complaint was predominantly based on the inconsistencies between two Tree Censuses that were conducted in Sarvodaya Enclave, New Delhi in the years, 2011 & 2012 and 2018 & 2019 as per which it was found that 77 trees had gone missing in the colony over a span of 7 years.
Through the said Complaint, the Petitioner requested the Respondent/Tree Officer to issue necessary directions to the Commissioner, South Delhi Municipal Corporation and the Engineer-in-Chief, Public Works Department, GNCTD under
Section 20 of the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994 for the prevention of further commission of offences/felling of Trees under the said Act.
Additionally, the complaint also contained therein a request for the respondent to initiate necessary proceedings under Sections 8 read along with Section 24 of the aforementioned Act to ensure that the parties responsible for the illegal felling were identified and swift action was taken against them under the confines of the law.
The petitioner said that despite having been duly informed of the matter, the respondent neither acknowledged nor acted upon the requests contained in the complaint.
As the trees are natural air purifiers known for their prolific ability to sequester carbon from the air, the petitioner pointed out the alarming deterioration of air quality in the national capital. The petitioner said that the maintenance of green cover is essential for the health of Indian Citizens.
"In view of this, the Respondent's inaction and failure to act in furtherance of the requests made in the complaint of the petitioner evidentially affects her fundamental right to a healthy environment guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is therefore personally affected and aggrieved, "the petitioner said. (ANI)