Posted On Saturday, February 04, 2012 at 02:02:21 AM
|
The Bombay High Court has denied relief to Raymond Ltd’s head honcho Gautam Singhania in criminal proceedings initiated for allegedly getting 586 trees chopped at the company’s Thane plant.
In a private complaint filed on September 26 last year, Thane Municipal Corporation (TMC) Tree Authority alleged that trees at Raymond’s Thane plant were illegally chopped with a view to redevelop the property. Thane’s Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) then issued summons to Singhania and the plant’s administrative manager, Retd Colonel Indrapal Singh.
On Friday, Singhania’s lawyers contended that it was mandatory for the Tree Authority to conduct an inquiry before proceeding with the prosecution as per the provisions of Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection and Preservation of Trees Act, and the procedure wasn’t followed.
However, Justice Ranjit More observed that conducting an inquiry was mandated in a different section of the Act – pertaining to a tree falling/destroying by wind, fire, lightening or torrential rain – and not in the section used against Singhania.
Singhania’s petition said that the company received a notice by Tree Authority on the evening of September 21 last year, giving them only four days’ time to respond. The petition alleges that the fourth day from receipt of the notice being a Sunday, they sent a reply on Monday – September 26. But the Tree Authority proceeded to file a private complaint before JMFC on the same day, presumably without even looking at their reply. The petition alleges that this act “reeks of ulterior motives, colourable exercise of powers and non-application of mind by the authority”.
But when Justice More observed that the complaint can’t be quashed at this initial stage, Singhania withdrew his petition to avoid the court’s rejection of his petition, which could have harmed his case.
But before the case was withdrawn, the court allowed Singhania, represented by senior advocate Ashok Mundargi and advocate Subodh Desai, to approach Sessions Court against summons issued by Thane’s JMFC.
Earlier in the court, advocates submitted that the land was owned by the company but only Singhania has been asked to stand trial by the JMFC. To this, the HC observed that a person need not be the owner of the land on which trees have been allegedly destroyed. “If someone is responsible for felling a tree nearby (say HC), he can be prosecuted as per this law. He doesn’t have to own that land,” Justice More said.
Singhania’s petition also challenged the panchnama drawn by the Tree Authority. According to the Tree Authority’s complaint before the JMFC, they had inspected the compound on September 19 and 20 last year, and a panchnama was drawn on the 20th. Singhania’s petition says that “the panchnama is a got-up (manufactured) document” since it was not signed by any representative of the company, nor does it reveal presence of any officer of Raymond Ltd at the time of inspection.
The petition also says that the complaint does not attribute any specific role to Singhania, neither does it give the number of trees that were there in the compound before the alleged tree felling happened.
However, the company’s reply to Tree Authority on September 26, 2011, accepted that certain weeds and plants within the campus were uprooted, fallen or destroyed due to torrential rains accompanied with gusty winds. The reply further said that these were cleared from the campus as they were causing danger to life and property in the compound.
Even the submission by Singhania’s advocate that his client had received accolades from the same corporation for participating in flower shows and maintaining greenery in the campus could not impress the court to grant any relief.
The court remarked, “All this cannot be considered in this case.”
Up a tree: Gautam Singhania’s Raymond Ltd maintains that they only cleared certain weeds and plants within the campus that were uprooted by rains |
Comment (1 Comments Received)
In a private property, if the trees are planted by the owner, does he not have the right to do what he wants.
01:17 PM
I wud assume that not cutting of tree wud apply to trees owned by the municipality or on a declared Forest Land.
devkumar, dka0034@gmail.com Dated : Thursday, February 09, 2012