Row over tree felling: Supreme Court to seek stand of Delhi LG, DDA chairperson

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it will seek a personal affidavit from Delhi Development Authority (DDA) chairperson and Delhi Lieutenant Governor (LG) V K Saxena on issues concerning alleged felling of trees in the national capital's ridge area.

A bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing a contempt case against the DDA and others over the alleged felling of trees in the Ridge area.

The bench directed the DDA chairperson to explain if there was any information on discussions regarding the permission to cut trees. "Secondly, when was LG informed that permission is needed. Thirdly, the steps taken as remedial measures, and fourthly, what action was taken against the erring officers since the (SC) order was there to preserve pristine nature of the Ridge," the CJI said.

Delhi LG holds the position of the DDA chairperson.

The contempt case against DDA vice-chairperson Subhasish Panda and others over the alleged felling of trees in the Ridge area is now 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.