The ongoing deforestation and urbanization drive in the Kanche Gachibowli area of Hyderabad has been one of the most debated topics in Telugu circles over the last few days. The matter has now reached the Supreme Court, and here is what the Apex Court had to say about the case.
Table of contents
- The questions raised by the Supreme Court to the Chief Secretary:
- What was the compelling urgency to undertake the developmental activities, including the removal of trees from the alleged forest area?
- Has the state obtained an environmental impact assessment certificate for such development activities?
- Has the state obtained the requisite permission for felling trees from the appropriate authorities, or under any other local statutes?
- What is the necessity of having officers at serial numbers 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10 in the committees constituted under the orders of the Telangana state?
Shortly after the case came up for hearing, the Supreme Court posed a series of questions to the Chief Secretary of Telangana in order to gain clarity on various aspects of the case. These inquiries were aimed at understanding the state’s stance and the legal implications involved. The court’s probing highlighted its intent to ensure a thorough examination of the issues at hand, reflecting the judiciary’s commitment to upholding justice and rule of law.
The questions raised by the Supreme Court to the Chief Secretary: #
What was the compelling urgency to undertake the developmental activities, including the removal of trees from the alleged forest area? #
Has the state obtained an environmental impact assessment certificate for such development activities? #
Has the state obtained the requisite permission for felling trees from the appropriate authorities, or under any other local statutes? #
What is the necessity of having officers at serial numbers 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10 in the committees constituted under the orders of the Telangana state? #
The Supreme Court further added, “We also request the CEC to personally visit the site in question and submit its report by the 16th of April.”
The Court directed, “Until further orders, no activity of any sort, except the protection of the trees already existing, shall be undertaken by the state. If we find that any of the directions issued by us are not complied with, the Chief Secretary of the state shall be personally responsible for the same.”
The Supreme Court made it very clear that the government must halt the deforestation drive immediately. In the event of any further actions taken in this regard, the Chief Secretary will be held personally responsible.
The Supreme Court’s order is now expected to put an end to the deforestation drive for the time being, until further orders are issued by the Court. This decision highlights the importance of environmental conservation and may lead to a reevaluation of policies related to land use and resource management. Stakeholders will likely watch closely for the implications of the ruling and its potential impact on efforts to preserve natural habitats.