Calcutta High Court: A PIL was filed by a Citizen Action Group called ‘People United For Better Living in Calcutta’ (PUBLIC) seeking for directions to Rail Vikas Nigam Limited (respondent 3) referred as Metro Rail to forthwith stop all construction work in the Maidan area adjoining Victoria Memorial, review of proposed project by independent experts in urban system and transport planning, direct the Metro Rail for setting up an Expert Committee to examine and submit a report on the feasibility of transplanting of the trees which has been proposed and prohibit all the respondents from proceedings with the plan to set up the Victoria Metro Station and writ of prohibition prohibiting all the respondents from proceeding with the plan to set up the metro station. A division bench of T.S. Sivagnanam and Hiranmay Bhattacharya, JJ., dismissed the petition as the requisite permission has been obtained by RVNL for the purpose of transplantation/felling of trees and those permission cannot be stated to be either arbitrary or unreasonable as they are subject to certain stringent conditions, thus, not making any case for the instant Court to interfere with the implementation of the project in question.
The project included the felling of trees in the Maidan area, raising environmental concerns from the petitioners, People United for Better Living in Calcutta (PUBLIC). The project’s purpose was to resolve traffic congestion and improve public transportation. The petitioner, PUBLIC, filed the petition primarily based on newspaper reports and public concerns about the ecological impact of the Metro Rail construction, specifically the felling of 356 trees. They claimed that the construction violated earlier court orders and did not adequately consider alternative alignments or the environmental repercussions. Previous orders had imposed restrictions on tree felling and construction activities in the Maidan area.
The Court noted that firstly, there is a necessity of balancing ecological concerns with development needs, emphasizing that the project aimed to prevent accidents at railway crossings, which had resulted in numerous fatalities. Secondly, the Court highlighted the environmental safeguards in place, such as the mandated compensatory afforestation (planting five trees for every tree fell) and the stringent conditions RVNL was following for tree felling and transplantation. Thirdly, the Court referred to previous litigation and orders that permitted underground construction to minimize surface impact, underscoring the shift from elevated to underground alignment to preserve the Maidan’s skyline. Finally, the Court also considered the recommendations of an expert committee appointed by the Supreme Court, which supported the construction of the Metro to alleviate congestion, emphasizing the project’s importance for public welfare.
The Court deemed the permissions obtained by RVNL for felling and transplantation of trees as valid, reasonable, and subject to stringent conditions. The Court acknowledged the detailed environmental planning and compensatory measures in place and reiterated the need for a delicate balance between ecological preservation and necessary developmental projects, emphasizing the importance of both public safety and environmental protection.
Thus, the court held that the project could proceed and dismissed the PIL as it was largely based on unverified newspaper reports, and the court found no merit in the allegations against the project’s legality or environmental management. No costs were awarded, and the interim orders preventing the project’s progression were vacated, allowing RVNL to continue with the construction.
[People United for Better Living in Calcutta v. State of WB, WPA (P)/569/2023, decided on 20-06-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Siddharth Mitra, Sr. Adv. Ms. Ajeya Choudhury, Adv. Mr. Dipendra Nath Chunder, Adv. Mr. Sagnik Mukherjee, Adv. .….For the Petitioner.
Mr. Anirban Ray, Ld. Government Pleader Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Sk. Md. Galib, Adv. Ms. Shamim ul Bari, Adv. Mr. Somnath Naskar, Adv. Ms. Sujata Mukherjee, Adv. …..For the State.
Mr. Ashoke Kumar Chakraborty, Ld. ASGI Mr. Kumar Jyoti Tewari, Adv. Mr. Tarun Jyoti Tewari, Adv. Mr. Tirtha Pati Acharyya, Adv. …..For the Respondent Nos. 2 & 5.
Mr. Sakya Sen, Adv. Mr. Suvadeep Sen, Adv. Mr. Ram Pada Biswas Adv. ….For the Respondent No. 3
Mr. Alak Kumar Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Arijit Dey, Adv. …. For the KMC
The post appeared first on .