Uttarakhand HC prohibits tree felling at Mussoorie college for construction activities, oak trees at centre of row

DEHRADUN: Uttarakhand high court (HC) has imposed a ban on tree felling at Hussain Gunj in Mussoorie and ordered all respondents including the divisional forest officer, nagar palika parishad, management committee of MPG College through its chairperson and the district magistrate, to file counter affidavits within three weeks, after a PIL alleged that the municipal council had felled Banj (oak) and Syaaru trees without permission from the forest department.The PIL was filed by Pravesh Singh Rana, president of the MPG College student union and an environmental activist, who alleged that the nagar palika parishad had undertaken road-widening work in Hussain Gunj — a notified forest area — without obtaining valid forest department clearance. The bench of Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay, hearing the matter on Wed, directed that no trees shall be felled without valid permission from the competent authority until further orders. The matter has been listed for the week commencing April 27.The court's intervention came after the state's own forest officials confirmed the violations on record. A forest range officer who inspected the site on March 13 found that four Banj trees and three Syaaru trees had been illegally felled without authorisation. The concerned persons have since been challaned and the nagar palika stated that work has been stopped pending inquiry.Rana, in his petition, noted that Mussoorie's tree cover — particularly its oak forests — is ecologically significant, and that institutions such as MPG College, which spans about two acres, have a responsibility to preserve such species. He cited the UP Private Forest Act, 1948, which requires prior authorisation for felling Banj trees, and submitted that a formal representation sent to the civic body on March 16 had been ignored.During the hearing, the municipal council disputed photographs of the felled trees presented by the petitioner, claiming the images did not correspond to the site. The forest department, however, confirmed that the photographs were taken at the disputed location, and the state govt acknowledged that no permission had been granted for the felling.