Advertisement
The court, addressing a contempt petition claiming that the vicinity around numerous trees in Vasant Vihar, South Delhi, was paved with concrete, instructed authorities on Tuesday. The high court directed entities in the national capital, including the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), to present a schedule for the elimination of concrete around roadside trees.
Justice Jasmeet Singh mandated the authorities to file affidavits outlining the overall count of trees surrounded by concrete and the number of trees where concrete has already been extracted.
The directive also requires an explanation for the delay in de-concretizing the remaining trees and the anticipated timeframe for completion.
The court issued an order stating, All respondents must submit an affidavit specifying the comprehensive count of trees that have been encased in concrete. Additionally, provide details on the total number of trees that were initially concretized, have since been de-concretized, and those that still await de-concretization.
The affidavit will also outline the reasons for the remaining trees not being de-concretized and specify the timeframe within which this will be completed, it further stated.
court addressed a contempt petition, presented by lawyer Aditya N Prasad, which asserted that the surroundings of numerous trees in Vasant Vihar, South Delhi, were concretized. The petition sought the preservation of these trees.
The counsel representing CPWD informed the court that they have de-concretized trees across all residential colonies in the city.
The court responded,This needs to be done throughout Delhi, not just limited to Vasant Vihar. The objective is city-wide.The court clarified that the affidavit from the respondents should specify the tree locations, and the de-concretization process will be verified.
In 2021, the high court remarked that images of the Vasant Vihar region illustrated the concretization of hundreds of trees, extending up to the tree trunk, which was evidently detrimental to them.
The petitioner argued that the authorities’ failure to preserve the trees constituted a violation of the orders issued by both the high court and the National Green Tribunal.
