Since the Bombay High Court has directed the tree authority to appoint more experts to its panel, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) will now have to come up with more names and once again take the authority’s consent before presenting them in the HC. A large number of infrastructure and construction projects are stuck as the tree authority has not sanctioned felling of trees.
In October last year, the HC while hearing a PIL filed by environmentalist Zoru Bhathena challenging the constitution of the tree authority, restrained the authority from deciding on applications on cutting trees until it had independent experts as nominated members. The BMC was then forced to invite applications from experts.
The BMC recently submitted the names of four experts to the HC, but the petitioner cited an April 2018 HC order that declared that the number of experts should be equal to the number of corporators on the tree authority. The BMC had contended that the Act does not stipulate this and simply calls for equal rights, that is, voting rights for nominated experts. The matter is now scheduled for June 3, when the BMC will file its response.
However, even if the BMC agrees to appoint 10 more experts (there are 14 corporators on the tree authority), it will have to repeat the process of their appointment.
“We had received 37 applications initially. We will now have to scrutinise if any more out of those can be nominated. But even if they can, we will have to place those names before the tree authority in the next meeting. Only after it approves them, we can present those names in the HC. Meanwhile, important projects like augmenting storm water drains at Hindmata are stuck,” a gardens department official said. The department will take a decision after a discussion with the municipal commissioner this week.
Mr. Bhathena said, “If they are so concerned about the Hindmata work, they should have at least initiated the process of inviting suggestions and objections. They have not done anything and are now citing the matter of the HC case as an excuse.”
According to Mr. Bhathena, the very advertisement on the basis of which the 37 applications were received was flawed. “They should have asked for expertise in transplantation, which they did not. Besides, they added conditions like applicant should be a resident of Mumbai, thus restricting people from applying. In fact, the HC had said that an NGO with a pan-India presence would be preferred.”