After going through the materials on record, the top court noted an ambiguity on certain aspects.
It wanted clarity on whether there was any discussion or intimation to the DDA chairperson on the top court’s permission for felling trees during his site visit on February 3.
“In the event of the answer to the one above being positive, what steps, if any, were taken to ensure that the permission of this court was taken,” it said.
The apex court further said if the answer was in the negative, when did DDA chairperson learn of the permission required.
It noted the actual felling of trees had allegedly commenced on February 16 even before a plea was moved before the top court and eventually dismissed. The top court will further be informed about the steps taken for the restoration — suggested in its orders — of the ecological damage. “What steps have been taken against the officers for the willful suppression before this court of the fact that the felling of trees took place before the application was filed,” it added. The Supreme Court directed the LG to further inform if any disciplinary proceedings and criminal action were initiated against the erring persons.
The bench posted the case for hearing on October 22 and said that the affidavit be filed on or before the next date of hearing.
The contempt case against DDA vice-chairperson Subhasish Panda and others over the alleged felling of trees in the Ridge area was being heard by a bench headed by the CJI.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan had previously heard the matter.
The earlier bench had issued a criminal contempt notice against Panda for allegedly allowing large-scale felling of trees in the southern Ridge’s Satbari area for the construction of a road from Chattarpur to the South Asian University.
It had expressed displeasure over a misleading affidavit filed by the vice-chairperson.
On July 24, another bench of Justices B R Gavai, P K Mishra and K V Viswanathan took note of two separate contempt proceedings pending before different benches over the felling of trees in Delhi’s Ridge area and said it believes in “judicial propriety” and does not want any conflicting orders to be passed.
Two different benches were hearing related but separate aspects of the contempt case against the DDA reportedly leading to a potential judicial standoff and possibility of conflicting orders.
