The advantage of hindsight is that one can always step back and ascertain the bigger picture. But when one extrapolates disparate developments, one can often land up with a picture that is disturbing.
This is what Bangalore Mirror has found by examining court orders (both interim and final) passed in three distinct writ petitions that were filed over time in the Karnataka High Court, tracking the process of amending the Karnataka Preservation of Trees (KPT) Act, and tree-felling by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) for road-widening projects, particularly under the TenderSURE initiative.
The analysis is clear: both the Karnataka government and the BBMP have not only violated the Karnataka Town and Country Planning (KTCP) Act and the KPT Act, they have also brazenly disregarded court orders.
The petitions and violations
- 2004: BBMP pushes for road-widening projects in Bengaluru, earmarking 91 roads running across 400km through the length and breadth of city
- May 30, 2008: Karnataka HC admits PIL by Environment Support Group (ESG) against road-widening by BBMP (WP 7107/2008)
- March 16, 2009: HC bench issues interim order in WP 7107/2008 case, saying roads can be widened only in compliance with Karnataka Town and Country Planning (KTCP) Act and Karnataka Preservation of Trees (KPT) Act
- May 13, 2009: PIL filed by ESG over tree-felling by BMRCL (WP 13241/2009)
- May 2010: State govt of BS Yeddyurappa unsuccessfully tries to amend KPT Act by extending list of trees that can be felled without permission from 11 to 41
- November 16, 2010: HC bench headed by JS Khehar orders state govt and BDA to follow procedures under KTCP Act (in WP 13241/2009)
- December 28: 2010: Bangalore Mirror carries news item on plans to fell 1,223 tree for road-widening
- January 11, 2011: Justice DV Shylendra Kumar writes to HC registrar-general over Mirror article, asks for a petition
- February 14, 2011: HC admits suo motu PIL based on concerns raised by justice Shylendra Kumar (WP 7288/2011)
- September 6, 2011: First TenderSURE meeting where concept was presented by Bangalore City Connect Foundation (BCCF) and Janaagraha to chief minister DV Sadananda Gowda
- October 3, 2012: HC bench headed by chief justice Vikramjit Sen points out two loopholes in KPT Act and asks state government to fix anomalies (in WP 7107/2008 case)
- October 17, 2012: BBMP’s pro-active chief conservator of forests, Brijesh Kumar transferred out of palike
- November 5, 2012: Transfer order of Kumar revoked by state urban development department
- December 6, 2012: First call for tenders under TenderSURE project
- August 1, 2013: First TenderSURE contractor finalised
- August 7, 2014: HC bench headed by chief justice DH Waghela invokes October 2, 2012 order, and asks state govt to fix loopholes in KPTA (in WP 7288/2011 case)
- December 11, 2014: Brijesh Kumar shunted out of BBMP
- December 20, 2014: New KPT Act passed by voice vote at Belgavi session of Assembly; amended act retains all loopholes pointed out in October 3, 2012 and August 7, 2014 HC orders
- June 8, 2015: WP 7107/2008 rejected by HC on a technicality
- August 18, 2016: BBMP's Tree Authority constituted finally; includes BBMP representative
Three public interest litigations (PILs) were filed between May 2008 and January 2011, all of which challenged the manner in which trees were being felled in the city for various projects, particularly by the BBMP for road-widening and by the Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd (BMRCL) for Namma Metro.
The most significant of the petitions came after Bangalore Mirror published a news item on December 28, 2010, pointing out that 1,223 trees in Bengaluru were likely to be chopped down for road-widening. This was noticed by justice DV Shylendra Kumar, who wrote to the Karnataka HC calling for a petition. The suo motu PIL was drafted by the registrar-general of the court, and admitted in February 2011.
The petition was meticulously drafted by the registrar-general who noted that the KPT and KTCP Acts were being brazen violated by the BBMP, and that there was no justification that tree-felling would result in improvement of traffic flow and reduction in congestion of traffic. It pointed out that “in the absence of the Tree Authority (of the BBMP), which is obligated to maintain optimum green cover and ecological balance in urban areas, any action of the Tree Officer in ordering felling of trees is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.” The petition also mentioned the stranglehold of a tree mafia over public officials.
The court appointed advocate Vaishali Hedge as its amicus curiae to assist in the proceedings that went on for over three years. This PIL remained the most significant of three mainly because it had not been filed by an individual or organisation, but was a suo motu petition by the court itself.
When the bench headed by chief justice DH Waghela finally passed a judgment in August 2014, it was seen by many to be a landmark one. As detailed in Bangalore Mirror yesterday, the court invoked sections from an interim order passed earlier by another bench in October 2012 over a different PIL that also related to tree-felling in the city, and asked the state government to fix the anomalies in the KPT Act.
The state government did amend the Act, during the December 2014 Belgavi session of the Karnataka Assembly; however, it retained the two very loopholes that had been pointed out by two different benches of the court. The first was about transparency, and the second about the presence of BBMP representatives in the Tree Authority (that would eventually hear complaints about the BBMP itself).
A semblance of transparency was introduced when Brijesh Kumar was the chief conservator of forests (CCF) with the BBMP. The application process for tree-felling was then moved online. The overall data, however, remains inaccessible on the BBMP website; one can only check the status of one’s own application. Kumar, known to be an honest officer, was shunted out less than 10 days before the KPT was amended.
The state government remained violative of the other directive of the court till August this year when the Tree Authority was finally constituted. The five-member authority includes a representative of the BBMP, and is in consonance with the amended KPT Act. However, the authority itself is in violation of both the 2012 and 2014 orders of the Karnataka HC.
Moreover, all tree-felling between August 2014 and August 2016 would be questionable in the absence of a legally-mandated Tree Authority. This would necessarily include all roads that either have been upgraded or are marked for modification under the TenderSURE initiative. That is because the TenderSURE concept (irrespective of whether it is flawed or not), when applied to individual roads, would need to comply with different provisions of both the KTCP Act as well as the KPT Act.
The door for legal remedy—in what seems to be a relatively unknown fact—has been kept open by the court itself. The last sentence of the order issued by chief justice Waghela in August 2014 read, “It is also made clear that the court may initiate suo motu proceedings, if it finds any shortcomings or deficiencies in the functioning and implementation of the aforesaid subjects.”
