LG submits affidavit, claims ignorance of SC approval requirement for cutting Delhi Ridge Trees

On October 16, the Supreme Court set a deadline for Lieutenant Governor Vinai Kumar Saxena to take action against officials from the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for illegally cutting down trees. The court demanded answers about the cutting of over 1,100 trees without the necessary permission. The court is handling a contempt petition related to this issue.  

In his affidavit, Saxena claimed he was unaware that he needed the court’s permission to cut trees in Delhi’s Southern Ridge. He said he only learned about the tree felling in June when the court was reviewing a contempt case against the DDA. Saxena stated that he had visited the site where 642 trees were cut down but believed they were only awaiting permission under the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act.  

ALSO READ: India and Pakistan extend Kartarpur Corridor agreement for five more years, strengthening cross-border pilgrimage

ALSO READ: Supreme Court urges Centre and States to take immediate steps for full implementation of POSH Act

Actions taken  

Saxena described the tree felling as unfortunate but said there was no fault on the part of DDA vice-chairman Subhasish Panda. He requested that Panda be removed from the contempt proceedings. Saxena mentioned that departmental and criminal actions have been started against an executive engineer and two assistant engineers for instructing a contractor to cut down trees without proper approval.  

The Supreme Court questioned Saxena about his site visit on February 3 and his awareness of the tree cutting. Saxena said he believed the only pending permission was from the forest department. He was informed about the tree cutting on March 21 after the court directed the DDA to create an expert committee.  

Saxena learned about the tree cutting for the first time on June 10 when he received a letter from Panda, who was on medical leave when the DDA applied for permission to cut the trees without disclosing that the trees had already been chopped. The DDA blamed the executive engineer and the two assistant engineers for the cuts, but the court indicated that the decision should have been approved by higher officials.