HC refuses to intervene in axing of karuvelam trees on Jawadhu hills

The first bench comprising Chief Justice A P Sahi and Justice Subramonium Prasad before whom he plea came, said “We find such issues being the matter of expertise, cannot give rise to a scope for any such scientific inquiry by us at this stage, unless, the matter is looked into by the government itself or by any such expert body. Even otherwise, an environmental issue can always be raised before the National Green Tribunal, the bench whereof, is available at Chennai.”

The petitioner A Sankar had contended that there are large number of rare species of birds, animals, flora and fauna, that would be widely affected on account of felling of these trees. He also contended that previously, a survey had been conducted and the survey reports do indicate that keeping in view the environment of the area, the existence of the trees is necessary and that any attempt to remove the trees would imbalance the environment of the area to a considerable extent.

The petitioner also contended that he has approached this Court with promptness as and when the Krishnagiri forest and district authorities have proceeded to issue the notification for auction, without considering his representation.

Countering this, the counsel appearing for the State submitted that this particular tree is botanically known as Prosopis Juliflora, which is not fauna friendly and therefore, any such contention that the felling of such trees would affect the animal life of the area, is not justified.

However, the bench on holding that it is not inclined to entertain the petition, disposed the plea with liberty to the petitioner to approach the State government for the redressal of any such grievance.“In the event, if the petitioner is still aggrieved, it is open to him to bring it to the notice of the National Green Tribunal for any appropriate action in the matter. It will be open to the government to consider the representation filed by the petitioner and inform him accordingly, about the outcome thereof,” the bench added.