The DDA Vice Chairperson is facing a contempt case for cutting down trees in the capital's ridge forest contravening the directions of the Supreme Court.
Today, Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for the DDA Vice Chairman, told the bench that the DDA was trying to locate the records.
Unhappy with this response, Justice Oka observed, "You are put to notice and you cannot even find this simple thing?
You are only protecting the higher-ups and blaming the lower officers," Justice Oka said.
Also from the hearing - 'Heat Wave Now Because We Lost Green Cover' : Supreme Court Directs Delhi Govt, DDA For Replantation Of TreesCase Details: Bindu Kapurea v. Subhasish Panda Dairy No.
The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) came under the fire of the Supreme Court on Wednesday (June 26) for not giving information regarding the visit of Delhi Lieutenant Governor V K Saxena at the site where trees were cut in violation of the orders of the Court.
The DDA Vice Chairperson is facing a contempt case for cutting down trees in the capital's ridge forest contravening the directions of the Supreme Court. On June 24, a bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan noted that the emails sent by the Executive Engineer to the contractor had referred to the directions issued by the Delhi LG to cut the trees after visiting the site. As the Executive Engineer denied the emails, the Court directed the DDA to come clean on the aspect of the LG's visit and show the official records regarding it.
Today, Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for the DDA Vice Chairman, told the bench that the DDA was trying to locate the records. Unhappy with this response, Justice Oka observed, "You are put to notice and you cannot even find this simple thing? This is not correct, we do not appreciate this. We are not happy with this that you cannot get simple information on the record available."
Justice Oka asked Singh if the Vice Chairman had inquired with the concerned department, called for the reports or asked the officers who were present in the meeting.
"When the email says that LG has visited, was it not the function of the DDA to look into it? You are only protecting the higher-ups and blaming the lower officers," Justice Oka said. Singh reiterated that the LG's visit was to another site and not the site where the trees were cut.
In the order, the bench recorded its dissatisfaction :
"The DDA could not obtain information on the record of the site visit of the Hon'ble LG on 3rd Feb, 2024. is available with the DDA. The learned Sr Counsel for DDA seeks time. We don't think that the request for time to find such simple information is bona fide."
The Court granted the DDA Vice Chairman one more week to comply with the directions in the order passed on June 24.
Responding to the queries of the bench, Singh gave the name of an officer who was present at the time of the LG's visit- Ashok Kumar Gupta. The Court issued notice to the said officer and ordered :
"We therefore direct Ashok Kumar Gupta to file affidavit as to what exactly transpired and if any directions were issued by the Hon'ble LG. We make it clear that Mr Gupta files it not in the capacity of a DDA officer but as an officer of this Court."
The bench also expressed surprise at the authorities not locating the timber.
"When we made a query about the timber felled, the officer of DDA had no response...We are 100% sure that the timber must be taken away by the contractor," Justice Oka orally said.
"We are 100% sure that this is the tip of the iceberg, this must have happened in several cases, and trees must have been felled. That's why we are taking a strong view so that the message goes," Justice Oka stated.
At this instance, Justice Oka referred to a Sherlock Holmes story "Silver Blaze", in which the clue for the detective regarding the criminal was the failure of the watchdog to bark.
"We are curious to know why the dog did not bark. Because everything is covered up. Nobody wanted to raise any objections. When an insider does it, nobody barks. That is the morale of the (Sherlock Holmes) story," Justice Oka said.
Justice Oka also told the DDA Vice Chairman that the Court was not interested in sending him to jail for contempt of the court; but the truth of the matter must come out.
"We issued contempt notice. It doesn't mean we want him to go to jail...but he should come clean on who issued the directions. If the highest authority has done something wrong, there is nothing wrong in telling to the Court...the truth must come out."
The Court also pulled up the Delhi Government also for permitting the tree felling and issued notice to it, observing that several answers are needed from the Delhi Government. The Court observed that the Delhi Government "usurped" the powers of the Tree Officer under the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act 1994 while allowing the DDA to cut around 443 trees. The Court also observed that the records indicated that the DDA cut 200 trees in addition.
"The State Govt has to answer many questions including the question as to how the Govt can usurp the power of the tree officer for granting permission. The Delhi Govt. has to explain how such gross illegality can be done. Though the forest dept is fully aware of the gross violation by the DDA of the 1994 Act, no steps are taken to prosecute the criminal offenders," the Court observed in the order. Notice on the contempt petition was issued to the Govt of NCT of Delhi through the Principal Secretary of the Environment and Forest Department. The Secretary should file an affidavit explaining how Govt permitted the felling of trees and also why action was not taken by the DDA by July 22.
Also from the hearing - 'Heat Wave Now Because We Lost Green Cover' : Supreme Court Directs Delhi Govt, DDA For Replantation Of Trees
Case Details: Bindu Kapurea v. Subhasish Panda Dairy No. 21171-2024, In Re Subhasish Panda Vice Chairman DDA SMC(Crl) No. 2/202
