Arijit Banerjee, J. - (1.) These two Public Interest Litigations (in short 'PIL') have been filed essentially to restrain the respondent authorities from felling trees for construction of Railway Over Bridge (in short 'ROB') at Kazipara, Ashoknagar, Habra-I, Habra-II and Bongaon and for expansion of National Highway 112 i.e. Jessore Road. The main prayers in WP 12788(W) of 2017 are as follows:- "(a)Issue a writ of or in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to set aside all purported permits dated July 22, 2016 by which permission was granted for felling trees for construction of Road Over Bridge at Kazipara, Ashoknagar, Habra-I, Habra-II and Bongaon; (b) Issue writ of in the nature of Mandamus by directing the respondents to conduct Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in terms of the EIA notification of September 14, 2006 and its amendment dated December 1, 2009 before initiating the expansion work of National Highway 112 i.e. Jessore Road; (c) Issue a writ of or in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondents from felling trees standing on the both side of National Highway No. 112 in between Barasat to Petrapole, North 24 Parganas; (d) Issue a writ of or in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to carry on the expansion and/or widening of National Highway No. 112 in Between Barasat to Petrapole, North 24 Parganas in such a manner that trees standing thereon are not cut down illegally;" Contention of the petitioners:-
(2.) Both the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in the two writ petitions mainly argued that permission has been obtained by the State respondents for felling trees for the purpose of constructing ROBs and expanding Jessore Road from the competent authority without complying with the relevant provisions of law. No Environment Impact Assessment has been carried out. The provisions of the West Bengal Trees (Protection and Conservation in Non Forest Areas) Act, 2006 (in short 'the 2006 Act') are being flouted. Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, Ld. Sr. Counsel, referred to a letter dated 11 January, 2017 written by the Divisional Forest Officer, 24 Parganas (N) Division who is the competent authority under the 2006 Act, to the Executive Engineer, NH Division, No.-V, PW (Road), Directorate, Barasat informing that felling permission in respect of 4036 number of trees for widening NH-35 was extended by three months from the date of the said letter. The competent authority granted such permission without ensuring that the provisions of the 2006 Act are complied with. Mr. Raghunath Chakraborty, Learned Adv., appearing in support of the other writ petition referred to Rule 5(2) of the West Bengal Trees (Protection and Conservation in Non Forest Areas) Rules, 2007 (in short 'the 2007 Rules') and submitted that no certificate of clearance was obtained by the respondent authorities from the competent authority prior to the said authorities granting permission to fell huge number of trees as is mandatorily required under the 2007 Rules. Both the learned Counsel extensively referred to the Special Officer's report dated 17 August, 2017 filed in this Court pursuant to this Court's order dated 25 July, 2017. By the said order Joint Special Officers were appointed for holding local inspection of the area in question and for filing a report in this Court indicating whether: (a) the trees which have been identified for felling are in accordance with the species mentioned in the affidavit filed by Vinod Kumar Singh on behalf of the State on 12th June, 2017 at pages 19 to 28; (b) the number marked on the trees to be felled are in accordance with the list annexed to the affidavit; (c) the site for the compensatory plantation tallies with the site indicated in the affidavit of Vinod Kumar Singh; (d) the distance between the trees is in accordance with the concerned guidelines; (e) the number of trees to be planted will be in accordance with the 2006 Act and the 2007 Rules framed thereunder; (f) the trees to be felled belong to endangered species or have been given the status of heritage.
(3.) Referring to the said report, Mr. Raghunath Chakraborty, learned Advocate, submitted that it would appear that a large number of Mehogini trees were proposed to be felled. However, Sec. 21(2) of the 2006 Act provides that without the permission of the competent authority no trees specified in the schedule to the said Act would be cut down notwithstanding that under sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 21, the State Government may, in public interest, by notification in the Official Gazette, exempt any area or any species of tree or a specified number of trees of any species from the protection of the provisions of the said Act. He submitted that the schedule to the said Act specifically mentions Mehogini trees but no permission has been obtained for felling such trees. He further submitted that the expansion of Jessore Road could be undertaken by preserving the age-old trees standing on the said road. He further referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Chairman, Railway Board & Ors.- vs.-Chandrima Das (Mrs) & Ors., 2000 2 SCC 465, in support of his submission that there are several international covenants and declarations adopted by the United Nations which prescribe the conservation of green environment which necessarily means preservation of trees. India is a signatory to some of such Conventions and Treaties and it is a prima facie presumption that neither the legislature nor the executive intends to act in breach of international law including specific treaty obligations.;