Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010139112025 2025:GAU-AS:12854-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : PIL/28/2025 1: MAHESH DEKA SON OF SRI DANDIRAM DEKA, R/O HNO 13, BHAGADUTTAPUR, KAHILIPARA, GUWAHATI, ASSAM 781019 2: SRI JAYANTA GOGOI SON OF MOTILAL GOGOI R/O RAJGARH ROAD GUWAHATI ASSAM 78101 VERSUS 1: THE STATE OF ASSAM and ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM PUBLIC WORKS(ROADS) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI 3:THE SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM ENVIROMENT FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI 4:THE ASSAM STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REPRESENTED BY THE MEMBER SECRETARY BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHAT For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.N. Choudhury, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. A.J. Sarma, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Saikia, Advocate General, Assam, assisted by Mr. D. Nath, Senior Government Advocate, Assam; Ms. M. Devi, Government Advocate, Assam and Ms. P. Barua, Advocate. Page No.# 2/3 – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 18.09.2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. A.J. Sarma for the petitioners and Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam, assisted by Mr. D. Nath, Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondents. This PIL was filed for bringing to the notice of the Court that a large number of trees were about to be felled for construction of the elevated GNB Road Fly-over. However, the State, taking the issue seriously, brought about certain changes in the alignment of the fly-over, which made the felling of trees highly avoidable. Even then, approximately 77 trees were identified which had to be translocated even after the change in the alignment of the Fly-over. 76 out of the 77 trees, this Court was informed, was translocated at different places and the current status of those trees, as informed to us by the learned Advocate General, is that all of them have sprouted and foliages have come, indicating that those trees have survived. The learned Advocate General has submitted that for translocation of trees, necessary consultation has been made with the expert bodies and very shortly, an SOP shall be developed for future translocation of trees, if at all that would be required. The learned Advocate General submits that the SOP would be all inclusive, namely, the steps to be taken for translocation; the identification of the place where it would be translocated; effective monitoring of the trees so that they survive even after translocation, and the other follow up actions. Page No.# 3/3 Considering this aspect of the matter, we do not deem it necessary to continue with this Public Interest Litigation and hence we close it. However, the petitioners would have the liberty to approach this Court again if there is any other translocation without following the SOP. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant