Daijiworld Media Network – Panaji

Panaji, Jun 19: Environment activists and residents along the NH-66 corridor in Goa have welcomed an interim order of the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court staying the felling of 80 trees and appointing a three-member expert committee to examine the site and submit a report within six days.

A division bench comprising Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Jiten S. Venegavkar granted interim relief by staying the operation of a Tree Officer's order dated April 15, 2026, insofar as it permitted the cutting of 80 standing trees and the relocation of 55 others for the highway widening project.

The order came in response to a public interest litigation challenging the tree-felling permissions granted for the expansion of National Highway 66. The court heard arguments over two days before issuing its directions.

While acknowledging that the highway widening project is of national importance, the bench stressed the need to balance development requirements with environmental protection.

“An endeavour is required to assess the necessity of felling the 80 trees standing at the site, whether all or some of them can be translocated, and to identify those trees which cannot be saved and may therefore be allowed to be felled,” the court observed.

The committee appointed by the court comprises Ramesh Kumar, Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Chief Wildlife Warden; Dr Pradeep V. Sarmokadam, Member Secretary of the Goa Biodiversity Board; and Dr Uttappa A.R., Senior Scientist (Agroforestry) at the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), Old Goa.

The panel has been directed to inspect the site, assess the condition of the 80 standing trees and the 55 proposed for relocation, evaluate alternative sites suggested by the Public Works Department, and submit its findings to the High Court by June 24.

The court also directed that status quo be maintained at the site until further orders.

In its observations, the bench noted apparent procedural shortcomings in the decision-making process. It said the records before the court did not clearly indicate how the Tree Officer concluded that 422 trees should be felled while recommending relocation of only 55 trees.

The judges further observed that there was no material to show that the Tree Officer had personally inspected all 477 trees, examined alternative planting sites, or considered species-specific replantation requirements.

The order also pointed out the absence of a detailed tree-planting plan and a clear framework for relocation of the affected trees, as required under the relevant provisions of law.

Local residents welcomed the court's intervention. Many expressed concern over the loss of tree cover along the Verna stretch of NH-66, which has witnessed extensive tree cutting as part of the highway expansion works.

Committee member Dr Pradeep Sarmokadam said efforts would be made to recommend the preservation of native tree species wherever possible, while excluding non-native acacia varieties from conservation recommendations.

The matter is scheduled to come up again before the High Court after the committee submits its report.