Shillong, Sept 26: The Meghalaya High Court has sought further consideration on its April 9, 2025 – order related to tree felling in the state.
The order had mandated certain procedures and guidelines for tree felling, which the state government has now sought to modify.
The Advocate General has submitted that the modification is necessary in view of the fact that though Rules and Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) as mandated by Supreme Court
orders are in place, the directions contained in the order dated 09.04.2025, effectively create a parallel mechanism through a Committee of officials and experts, which supplants and overrides the statutory authority vested in the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) and the appellate mechanism that is existing.
He stated that the procedure prescribed in the order dated 09.04.2025, has led to great difficulty and hardship on account of all tree felling work being stalled in the State, which includes projects of infrastructure and public welfare.
The Advocate General has referred to the details of the projects which require tree felling which have been illustrated in the petition and prayed that the order dated 09.04.2025 be modified accordingly.
The division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice HS Thangkhiew and Justice W Diengdoh has allowed the writ petitioner, Geraldine G Shabong, two weeks’ time to file an objection to the modification application. It noted that ample opportunity had been provided earlier, but no objection had been filed till date.
“This Court first notes that ample opportunity had been provided to the writ petitioner to file the reply or objection to the miscellaneous application but however, the same has not been filed till date. However, inspite of the clarification, seeing that the circumstances of the case require further consideration as to the purport and impact of the order dated 09.04.2025, the writ petitioner is allowed two weeks’ time to file an objection,” the bench said in its order passed on Thursday.
K Paul, senior counsel for the PIL petitioner while praying for further time to allow him to put in an objection to the prayer for modification on its merits, further submitted that the order dated 09.04.2025, does not in any manner affect the apprehensions that have been voiced by the Advocate General.
In this context, the senior counsel has referred to the order dated 09.04.2025, wherein this Court had clarified that the order “ very necessarily does not cover any case where the Central government had accorded permission for forest clearance under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 for any development purpose or any direction made by it for deforestation, afforestation and so on .”
According to him, though the order dated 09.04.2025 in view of the clarification does not require any modification, the issues raised require further consideration by this Court and has prayed that he may be allowed to file the objection and the matter be finally decided thereafter.
Meanwhile, the court has listed the matter for further hearing on October 7, 2025.
Earlier in its order passed on April 9, 2025, the bench had directed, “The Chief Secretary of the State will constitute a Committee of three officials in which the Chief Conservator of Forests should be the first, an expert in Botany whether in government service or private service should be the second and a senior administrative officer not below the rank of Secretary the third, who shall:
(a) Advise the government with regard to the steps to be taken to stop indiscriminate felling of trees throughout the State. The government will act in accordance with such advice.
(b) Scrutinize the above report filed before us which include the applications to permit felling along with the report of the local forest officers, make their independent enquiry and issue necessary directions to the Forest department to fell the trees or to refrain from doing so or to take any measures for their preservation.”
The bench had also directed, “(That the committee will) take District by District and deal with the applications for felling of the trees in those Districts in accordance with law passing suitable directions binding on the respondents and the local forest officials.”
The order was passed after a report submitted before the Court revealed that officers of the rank of Range Forest Officer or Beat Forest Officer have been processing the applications and that they have recommended large scale felling of trees on the ground that their position was such that they posed a threat to life and property.
The bench while underscoring that trees are very precious to this State contributing to its great natural beauty, environment and ecological balance had said, “We would only permit their felling if absolutely necessary for the preservation of life and property.”
