Residents and activists of the city took out a candlelight vigil on Monday to protest against the cutting of trees for the Metro 3 project. The Bombay High Court had recently lifted the stay on cutting over 5,000 trees.
Nina Verma, who filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court against the felling of trees, said, “We have an emotional connect with the trees.” The SLP reads, “The residents have contended that more trees than required are being cut. Metro’s assessment that 5,099 trees need to be cut is contrary to the Environment Impact Assessment report of RITES. The report said only 1,745 trees had to be cut or transplanted. Metro’s claim that 5,099 trees have to be cut is not backed up by any other authority.”
The SLP says, “The road width in Girgaon is 60 feet, in Hutatma Chowk 70 feet, and 120 feet in Churchgate. Trees line both sides of the road in Hutatma Chowk and Churchgate. The application envisages removal of all such trees. If the Metro is able to construct an underground station at Girgaon under a 60 feet wide road, then it does not need to remove trees on both sides of a 70 feet road or 120 feet road. This would save numerous trees from being destroyed.”
Mrs Verma, who was one of the petitioners in the High Court, said, “The corporation is going to use New Austrian Tunneling Method (NATM) technology for construction of seven underground stations. NATM technology will spare the surface, road/trees, except for the entrance/exit ducts. Two excavation shafts are required to be dug out at either end of the station and the road in between is not required to be excavated.”
The MMRCL officials said, “We don’t want to respond to this.” The Division Bench of Chief Justice Manjula Chellur and Justice G S Kulkarni have said during several hearings: “Don’t cut a single tree or even a branch and the authorities [Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority and Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation] need to handle the problem from the angle of how to save the trees. We understand that some loss will be caused to the environment for infrastructure development. But the difference is that we need to establish is if it is massacre or just a small obstacle. An optimistic and pragmatic approach is necessary to mitigate this temporary phase which would ultimately result in larger public benefit.”
(With inputs from Veydaant Khanna)
