MP HC Rejects Bid To Stop Rani Sarai Metro Tree-Felling, Orders Phased Cuts Under At Least Two Bird Experts’ Supervision

The petitioner brought a public interest litigation under Article 226 challenging the proposed felling of trees at Rani Sarai, the Superintendent of Police office premises in Indore, for construction of an underground metro station.

He contended that the trees provided roosting and nesting habitat for large numbers of birds, including parakeets, and sought to prevent their removal, require compliance with the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and obtain directions on tree transplantation and conservation

The Metro Rail Corporation maintained that the station’s alignment and location had been approved, that the site was technically suitable, and that the necessary permissions had been obtained; it also undertook compensatory planting of 2,500 trees for 182 trees proposed to be felled

The Court conducted a site visit and considered alternative locations suggested by the petitioner and intervener

The Corporation also relied on an earlier Division Bench decision rejecting a challenge to the metro alignment

Article 226 empowers the High Court to review public authorities’ decisions, but the Court treated the approved metro alignment as constrained by the coordinate Bench’s final decision in Raj Lakshmi Foundation v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, W.P. No. 10909 of 2024, which had declined to disturb that alignment; the principle of stare decisis required the Court not to take a course inconsistent with that decision

The Court also invoked the principle that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly: changing the proposed station location would necessarily alter the alignment already considered by the coordinate Bench

The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 was raised by the petitioner, while the Corporation asserted that required permissions had been obtained; the judgment did not decide a separate statutory violation under that Act

The Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978 and the Government of India’s 27 January 2015 memorandum were relied on by the Corporation in support of proceeding with the approved project

The Court considered that moving the station to an alternative site would entail a change to the metro alignment and therefore conflict with the coordinate Bench’s earlier decision, which had attained finality.

It accordingly declined to reassess the station location or interfere with the project, despite acknowledging the birds’ dependence on the Rani Sarai trees.

Nevertheless, following its site visit and recognising the birds’ likely displacement, the Court issued mitigation directions governing the timing and manner of tree removal, protection of nests and injured birds, and replacement planting.

The respondents were ordered not to fell the trees all at once or randomly; removal and pruning were to be phased under the supervision and advice of at least two ornithologists or bird experts, with wildlife rescue personnel present to protect nests, eggs, and young birds

The respondents were also directed, where space permitted, to plant the same types of trees nearby, fulfil their undertaking to plant 2,500 trees, and file a report within one year, followed by annual reports with Google images in April

The intervener could suggest bird experts, each to receive remuneration of ₹10,000