The Allahabad High Court has taken a serious view of the continued non-compliance by State authorities with its earlier directives in a long-running public interest litigation concerning the adoption of scientific methods for geo-tagging trees in the mango belt of Uttar Pradesh and related issues including illegal tree felling. The litigation dates back more than a decade when a petition was filed in 2013, raising concerns about environmental protection and the need for the State to adopt geo-tagging of trees so that they could be effectively monitored and protected. Despite the court having passed orders in January 2014 requiring information and action regarding geo-tagging and tree conservation, the authorities failed to provide a proper response or to demonstrate compliance with the court’s specific queries on this aspect. The High Court noted that subsequent affidavits filed by the State did not address the question of geo-tagging and fell short of satisfying the court’s directions, indicating a lack of seriousness and cooperation on the part of the officials responsible for implementing the orders.
Taking note of what it described as “apathy” and “intransigence” displayed by the Government officials, the Lucknow Bench of the High Court, consisting of Justices Rajan Roy and Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, expressed its displeasure at the conduct of the State authorities and their failure to comply with judicial directions. The court observed that despite having issued stringent orders as far back as November 12, 2025, the State’s legal representatives were unable to inform the court whether the costs previously imposed had been paid or whether any substantive compliance relating to geo-tagging had occurred. The bench emphasised that in a matter involving public interest and environmental protection, the obligation to comply with judicial directions and provide clear affidavits describing steps taken was crucial, and the absence of such compliance was not acceptable.
In response to the continued non-compliance and unsatisfactory responses, the High Court directed that several senior State officials personally appear before the court on January 13, 2026. The officials summoned included the Additional Chief Secretary or Principal Secretary of the Forest Department, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests for Uttar Pradesh, the Principal Secretary of the Department of Horticulture and Food Processing, and the Divisional Forest Officer of Lucknow. The court’s order made clear that these officials were being called upon to explain in person why the court’s earlier orders had not been fully implemented and why geo-tagging of trees and associated measures had not been carried out in accordance with its directives.
In addition to summoning the officials, the High Court imposed costs on the State government in recognition of its failure to comply with the earlier orders. The bench imposed a further cost of ₹25,000 in addition to an earlier cost of ₹15,000 that had been levied on November 12, 2025, making the total amount to be paid before the next hearing. The court directed that the amounts collected as costs be remitted to a social service organisation that operates a juvenile home for both girls and boys in Lucknow. This order was intended to reinforce the need for accountability on the part of State officials and to ensure that the costs of non-compliance are borne in a manner that benefits the public interest.
During the proceedings, the Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State, relying on instructions conveyed over the telephone, informed the court that geo-tagging of trees fell under the purview of the Department of Horticulture and that such tagging had been taking place since 2018. However, the court expressed dissatisfaction with this explanation on the ground that no written instructions or affidavits had been filed earlier to clarify this factual position. The bench stressed that if geo-tagging had indeed been carried out, the State should have provided documentary evidence and clear affidavits addressing the specific concerns raised in the litigation long ago, instead of leaving the court to infer the facts from oral representations.
The petitioner in the case, represented by senior counsel, highlighted that the court’s 2014 order had not only dealt with the need for geo-tagging but also broader issues relating to the felling of trees in the region, which falls within the responsibility of the Forest Department. The High Court’s actions underscored its commitment to ensuring that its orders are implemented diligently and not merely met with procedural filings that fail to address substantive compliance. The next hearing in the matter was scheduled for January 13, 2026, when the summoned officials were expected to appear and provide detailed responses on the steps taken by the State government to comply with the court’s directives on geo-tagging and tree protection.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.