NEW DELHI: The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has issued notice to the Ministry of Defence and others over a suo-moto case registered for alleged felling of trees by the Army Headquarters in Central Ridge area of the city.The news report appeared in a daily disclosed that the army headquarter had cut various trees while clearing an area of 8.78 hectares in Central Ridge. As per the report, the army’s action had violated the Delhi Preservation of Tree Act, 1994, Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and Indian Forest Act, 1927.
“The news item discloses a substantial issue relating to compliance of the environmental norms,” a bench of NGT chairperson Prakash Shrivastava and Expert Member Dr. A. Senthil Vel noted in the order.It was also highlighted that its power to take up the matter in suo-motu exercise of power has been recognised by the Supreme Court in the matter of “Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Ankita Sinha & Ors.”
The tribunal also impleaded the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Head of Department, Delhi Vice-Chairman, Delhi Development Authority. While accepting the notice, Gigi.C.George, counsel appeared on behalf of the Ministry of Defence sought four weeks’ time to file the reply. Accordingly, the matter was posted for March 6 for further hearing.
The Central Ridge which spreads over 864 hectares is managed by various agencies including the forest department, Delhi Development Area, Central Public Works department, Municipal Corporation of Delhi and New Delhi Municipal Council.Considered the lungs of the national capital, the ridge is an extension of the Aravalli hill range in Delhi and is a rocky and forested area.
Counsel sought 4-week time to file response
The bench said, “The news item discloses a substantial issue relating to compliance with the environmental norms.” It made as parties or respondents the DDA vice-chairman, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and the defence ministry. After the green panel issued the notices, it noted that the ministry’s counsel sought four weeks to file a reply.