Meghalaya HC emits instructions for cutting trees in a shillong colony

The High Court Meghalaya recently guided the state authorities to train each applicant who has submitted applications in accordance with the rules of conservation of the meghalya trees, 1976, for cutting the trees in the lower area of ​​the lower colony, Laitumkhrah, to explain the details of how these trees “have become dangerous for life”.

The division bank that encompasses The chief of Judge IP Mukerji and Justice W. Diengdoh Next, several directions passed, including an inspection of property and tree or trees that stood by the state authorities before making a decision to fall.

The yard heard a pillar requesting directions to prevent illegal or irregular cutting of trees in the lower area of ​​the lower colony, Laitumkhrah.

Vide his order on February 7, the court guided the state respondents to submit a statement of declaration until February 28, revealing all the pending applications for cutting trees in the above region. The Court also indicated that these applications should be proceeded in accordance with Meghalya Tree Law in 1976 and the rules of Meghalaya Tree (Conservation), 1976.

It was directed that the decision in each of these requests should be revealed in the statement, together with the decisions already taken, allowing the fall of the trees, but which are not executed and the cut should be kept in the approach, and the decision revised by the respondent authorities.

The state respondents submitted the mentioned statement, whose annex-1 provides the number of pendent applications, the number of trees that must be requested in each of the applications, the reason quoted by each applicant for such cutting, an inspection and a status report for each request.

“We find that all applications are considered. The number of trees required to be cut in a demand varies from 2 to 89. The reason quoted by each applicant for cutting trees is “a tree that presents a danger to human life,” the court noted.

The court mentioned that these requests are in accordance with a format for Form-1 to Rule 3 (1) The rules of conservation of the meghalya tree, 1976 and cannot order the modification of the form.

“However, we guide the state respondents to train each applicant to defend as an annex of the form, in the explanation of the reason:” it has become dangerous for life and property “the details of how the tree became dangerous for life and property,” the court directed.

Next, the court was directed as follows:

• State respondents will subsequently inspect the property and tree or trees that stand on it. If he considers that a tree “has become dangerous for life and property”, first of all they will try to keep it taking appropriate measures, such as cutting the trunk and branches or cutting a part of it and keeping the rest.
• Only if this is not enough, a decision is made to fall. Only in the case of a tree that is so dangerous that the danger or damage is imminent, if the respondents would have fallen immediately.
• At this moment, no tree should be cut unless it is imminent dangerous and would cause substantial damage if left to stand, just before the court is able to hear Pil.

The problem is again listed on April 9.

Case title: Geraldine G. Shabong v. State of Meghalaya & Ors.

Case no.: Pil No. 2/2024

Click here to read/download your order