PANAJI
The High Court of Bombay at Goa has hit the brakes on further tree felling for the NH-66 expansion, finding prima facie gaps in the process that led to permission for cutting 422 trees.
The Division Bench of Justices Valmiki Menezes and Hiten Venegavkar stayed the felling of the remaining 80 trees and the proposed translocation of 55 others along the Cortalim-Margao stretch of NH-66, while questioning the basis on which permission was granted to cut 422 trees for the highway widening project.
“...for all these reasons, the Executive Engineer, PWD, Highways shall maintain status quo at the site insofar as 80 standing trees, recommended for felling out of 477 applied for and 422 granted and 55 trees recommended to be relocated till the next date of hearing,” the Bench said while hearing a Public Interest Litigation filed by Shohail Francis Furtado and another.
The court noted that recommendations before the authorities consistently stressed exploring the possibility of saving and translocating the maximum number of trees before resorting to felling.
The challenge relates to a permission granted on April 15, 2026, allowing the cutting of 422 trees and relocation of 55 trees out of a total of 477 trees sought to be removed for the NH-66 widening project. Petitioners argued that the approval violated provisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu Preservation of Trees Act, 1984, and disregarded directions issued by the High Court in an earlier judgement concerning tree-felling permissions.
During the hearing, the State informed the court that 342 trees had already been felled, leaving 80 standing trees yet to be cut, apart from the 55 earmarked for translocation. The court said these remaining trees would now be the subject of scrutiny while considering interim relief.
A key concern raised by the Bench was that expert assessment recommended by a joint inspection committee was never obtained before granting permission. The court noted that a joint inspection conducted by officials of the Forest Department and the Goa State Biodiversity Board had suggested that attempts be made to preserve and translocate the maximum possible number of trees after obtaining opinions from empanelled tree-translocation experts. However, no such expert opinion was sought before the approval was issued.
The judges also found that records before them did not show that the Tree Officer had personally inspected the 477 trees or assessed alternative sites proposed for replantation and relocation. The order granting permission was described as being “completely devoid of any reasoning” and failing to indicate what material had been considered while arriving at the decision.
“Prima facie, the record presently before us does not disclose the basis on which the Tree Officer ultimately arrived at a conclusion that permission ought to be granted for felling 422 trees while directing the translocation of only 55 trees. The nexus between the recommendation contained in the reports and the conclusions reached by the Tree Officer is not immediately discernible,” it said.
“We have also taken note that there is no report, of the Tree Officer even having inspected the 477 trees or inspected the alternative sites for replanting of trees or even considered which species of trees were required to be replanted and the manner of distribution of such replanted trees. The order also considers the alternative site for relocation of the 55 trees, which the tree officer recommended for relocation.”
The Bench also found prima facie non-compliance with directions issued in its October 2025 judgement, which required authorities to critically examine whether trees could be saved from felling, whether translocation was possible, and to clearly specify replantation and translocation plans, including locations, species and timelines. The Tree Officer’s order, the court noted, did not contain these details.
3-member expert panel constituted
PANAJI: The High Court has constituted a three-member expert committee comprising Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Chief Wildlife Warden Ramesh Kumar, Goa State Biodiversity Board Member Secretary Dr Pradeep Sarmokadam, and ICAR-CCARI Senior Scientist (AgroForestry) Dr Uttappa A R, to independently assess the situation.
The committee has been directed to inspect the 80 standing trees, the 55 proposed for relocation, and the alternative sites identified for replantation and translocation. It must submit its report and recommendations to the court by June 24.
Pending the committee’s findings, the High Court ordered the Public Works Department to maintain status quo at the site, effectively halting any further felling of the remaining 80 trees and preventing movement of the 55 trees earmarked for relocation. The matter will next be heard on June 24.
