Panaji: The Bombay high court on Thursday stayed the felling of 80 trees for highway widening between Cortalim and Margao. It pulled up the tree officer for permitting removal of 422 trees “without reasoning” and lack of a proper study.A division bench of Justices Valmiki Menezes and Hiten Venegavkar directed the PWD (highways) executive engineer to maintain status quo and appointed a three-member committee to begin joint inspection from Friday to assess how many trees can be saved by translocation. The panel will also examine 55 trees proposed for relocation and suggest methodology and sites.The committee comprises additional principal chief conservator of forests and chief wildlife warden Ramesh Kumar, Goa biodiversity board member secretary Pradip Sarmokadam and Indian Central Coastal Agricultural Research Institute (ICAR) senior scientist (agro forestry) Uthappa AR to carry out the joint inspection.The court also directed the panel to examine 55 trees proposed for relocation and suggest methodology and sites.Advocate general Devidas Pangam told the court that of the 422 trees approved for felling, 342 have already been cut, with 80 remaining. He also said that 55 are marked for translocation.In its interim order, the HC said the tree officer’s permission was “completely devoid of reasoning”. The court noted that none of the reports recommended felling; instead, they suggested an independent assessment to maximise translocation.“Prima facie, the record does not disclose the basis for allowing felling of 422 trees while permitting translocation of only 55,” the bench observed.The court found no material to show that the tree officer inspected the 477 trees, evaluated alternative replanting sites, or considered species and distribution for replantation. It also noted the absence of expert opinion prior to granting permission and said that the inspection report suggested all trees were assessed in a single day on April 26, 2025.The court said both the tree officer’s order and the highway authority’s records were silent on species-wise replantation and site assessment, underscoring procedural gaps in the clearance process.
