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.”
Source: Barandbench
