Tree-Felling Permissions Under the Maharashtra Trees Act: Newspaper Notice Must Disclose Sufficient Particulars; Reasons Must Be Recorded

1. Introduction

In ABHIJEET MOHAN ANTURKAR v. TREE AUTHORITY DEPARTMENT, PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (Bombay High Court, 02-02-2026), the petitioner—an adjoining neighbourhood resident—challenged the Pune Municipal Corporation’s Tree Authority/Tree Officer permission allowing the felling of four coconut trees located in Respondent No. 5’s premises (Survey No. 59/27, Plot No.73/3/3, Bhakti Marg, Law College Road, Erandwane, Pune).

The core dispute concerned compliance with Section 8 of the Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection and Preservation of Tress Act, 1975 (as described in the judgment as the “Trees Act, 1975”), particularly the statutory requirement of public notice inviting objections before granting permission to fell trees. By the time the writ petition was heard, the trees had already been felled, shifting the matter’s practical centre of gravity from restoration to procedural accountability, future compliance, and the possibility of action under Section 21 (offences and penalties).

Key issues

  • Whether the “public notice” in the local newspaper was a meaningful notice under Section 8 or a perfunctory formality.
  • Whether publishing only a generic reference (and redirecting citizens to a municipal website for details) satisfies the Act and binding directions.
  • Whether the Tree Officer/Tree Authority must record reasons for permitting felling, and how such reasons should be made available for judicial review.
  • Consequential implications of non-compliance, including potential invocation of Section 21.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Division Bench (Bharati Dangre & Manjusha Deshpande, JJ.) held that the newspaper notice issued by the Municipal Corporation in this case was inadequate and amounted to a perfunctory exercise, since it did not contain essential particulars enabling the public to lodge informed objections. The notice merely pointed readers to the PMC website for details, which the Court found inconsistent with the statutory purpose of inviting objections.

While acknowledging that a notice had also been pasted on the trees (which did carry details), the Court emphasised that there was “no difficulty” in including such particulars in the newspaper notice itself. The Court treated non-compliance as contrary to both the Act’s object and the binding directions in Rohit Manohar Joshi Vs. Tree Authority, Thane & Ors..

As the trees had already been felled, the Court noted that “practically, no relief can be granted” to reverse the felling. Nonetheless, it issued significant guidance:

  • Authorities must strictly follow the Act and the directives in Rohit Manohar Joshi.
  • The Tree Officer/Authority should record and maintain reasons in the file when conducting the Section 8 inquiry and granting permission.
  • Contraventions must be treated seriously; on complaint, an offence under Section 21 may be registered even against an officer who failed to follow procedure.
  • The order was directed to be communicated to the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, for circulation to Municipal Corporations and Councils.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

Rohit Manohar Joshi Vs. Tree Authority, Thane & Ors. (201 9(1 ) Mh.L.J. (1 35))

This was the pivotal precedent. The Court used it in three interlinked ways:

  1. Object and strictness of compliance: The judgment recalls that Rohit Manohar Joshi explained the Trees Act’s aim: preservation of trees in urban areas and prevention of ecological imbalance caused by indiscriminate felling. This framing supports a strict procedural approach—permissions are not routine administrative clearances but exceptions that must be justified.
  2. Section 8 procedure is not ornamental: The earlier decision’s emphasis on public notice—newspaper advertising and affixation—was treated as integral to enabling objections and public participation.
  3. Binding direction on publication standards (para 64): The Bench relied on the specific directive noted from paragraph 64: when decisions are published on the website, “the entire text of the order will have to be published”, and the public notice must give a description of the property and mention that copies have been uploaded on a specified website. Applying that template, the Court found PMC’s newspaper notice defective because it lacked tree/property particulars and effectively shifted the burden to citizens to search online.

Importantly, the Court characterised Rohit Manohar Joshi as a binding decision and treated deviation from its directions as a serious infirmity.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

(a) The statutory purpose governs the meaning of “public notice”

Section 8 (as described by the Court) requires previous permission for felling and a process that includes public notice inviting objections. The Court interpreted “public notice” purposively: it must be a notice that actually enables objections. A notice that omits the location, applicant linkage, or sufficient identification of the trees undermines the very mechanism the Act uses to protect trees—community scrutiny before permission.

(b) Website-referencing cannot replace minimum particulars in the newspaper notice

The impugned newspaper notice (Lokmat, 02.07.2020) provided no meaningful details and simply stated that details could be obtained from the PMC website under a docket description. The Court held that this approach is not what the Act contemplates because:

  • Citizens cannot be expected to search a website across multiple entries merely to discover whether a cutting proposal affects their locality.
  • Objections are often targeted—residents object to a specific tree or site—so the notice must enable a “pinpointed objection”.
  • The notice requirement is a safeguard against predetermined outcomes; a vague notice weakens accountability and invites perfunctory decision-making.

(c) Affixing notice on trees is not a cure for a deficient newspaper notice

The Court noted that the pasted notice on the trees carried details, but still found the newspaper publication inadequate. The reasoning implies that Section 8’s dual modes of notice (newspaper + affixation) are complementary; compliance with one does not license dilution of the other, particularly where the statute’s objective is wider public participation beyond immediate passers-by.

(d) Reasons must be recorded and preserved to enable judicial review

The Court accepted the petitioner’s contention that when the Tree Officer conducts an inquiry and grants permission, reasons must support the conclusion. While the Court clarified that such reasons need not be printed within the public notice itself, it required that reasons be recorded and maintained on file so that, if challenged, the permission’s “justiciability” can be examined in writ jurisdiction—especially because the Court noted the absence of an appeal against such an order.

(e) Enforcement seriousness and Section 21 consequences

The Court drew attention to Section 21’s offence-and-penalty framework and expressed that contraventions must be treated “with all seriousness”. Notably, it observed that upon a complaint, an offence may be registered even against an officer who failed to follow the procedure. This is a strong accountability signal: procedural compliance is not merely administrative best practice but may have penal consequences when linked to contravention.

3.3 Impact

  • Higher publication standard across urban local bodies: By directing communication to the Principal Secretary for circulation, the Court sought systemic compliance beyond Pune—suggesting the ruling is intended as an operational norm for municipal tree-permission regimes.
  • Meaningful notice requirement: Municipalities can expect increased scrutiny of newspaper notices. A generic notice that forces citizens to find details elsewhere risks being struck down (or, where felling has already occurred, triggering accountability directions and potential penal scrutiny).
  • Record-based governance: The direction to record reasons in the file strengthens administrative law discipline: permissions must be supported by demonstrable reasoning, not merely outcomes.
  • Litigation and compliance behaviour: Petitioners can use this judgment to demand disclosure of the recorded reasons and to challenge permissions where notices are vague. Conversely, Tree Officers/Authorities will need to create auditable files anticipating writ scrutiny.
  • Enforcement pressure via Section 21: The Court’s explicit reference to penal implications—extending to officers—may influence internal municipal controls and inter-departmental coordination (including police assistance referenced by the Court).

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

“Public notice inviting objections”

This is not just an announcement that something happened. It must provide enough information—like the site and what is proposed—so that ordinary people can understand what is at stake and object in time.

“Perfunctory exercise”

A procedural step done as a formality, without genuinely serving its purpose. Here, the Court found that a vague newspaper notice defeats the purpose of enabling objections.

“Justiciability”

Whether an administrative decision can be meaningfully reviewed by a court. If reasons are not recorded, courts cannot effectively assess whether the decision was lawful, rational, and compliant with statutory purpose.

“Writ jurisdiction”

The High Court’s constitutional power to review administrative action for legality, fairness, and compliance with statutory duties—especially relevant where no statutory appeal is available.

5. Conclusion

The Bombay High Court’s decision in ABHIJEET MOHAN ANTURKAR v. TREE AUTHORITY DEPARTMENT, PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION strengthens procedural safeguards under the Trees Act, 1975 by insisting that newspaper notices must contain sufficient particulars to enable informed objections, and that reasons for granting tree-felling permission must be recorded and preserved. Even though the immediate relief became infructuous due to the trees already being felled, the ruling is significant for its forward-looking directions, its reinforcement of the binding mandate in Rohit Manohar Joshi Vs. Tree Authority, Thane & Ors., and its clear signal that non-compliance may attract serious consequences, including under Section 21.