The Delhi High Court expressed deep concern regarding the deteriorating condition and subsequent demise of trees along the capital's roads due to inadequate maintenance. In response, Justice Jasmeet Singh's bench directed the Public Works Department (PWD) and the Forest Department to submit an affidavit detailing the reasons behind the neglect.

Justice Singh emphasized a perceived lack of commitment, remarking, "I personally feel there is a lack of will. Delhi seems to be neglected by all."

The court expressed its disappointment with government officials for not adhering to directives regarding the greening of primary roads in the national capital. This sentiment arose as the bench was notified that roughly 400 trees planted along the Ring Road had perished due to neglect and extensive car parking. In response, the court requested an affidavit outlining the status of the plantations and elucidating the reasons for their neglect.

The court directed the authorities to ensure that a dedicated monitoring room is set up for the trees by the next date of hearing in February. The court also questioned how many inspections were conducted by the authorities for the maintenance of 400 trees planted on the Ring Road.

During the hearing, advocate Aditya N Prasad, who was appointed court commissioner in the case related to tree plantations in the capital, informed the bench that there was gross negligence in following the court's instructions, and due to this, the planted trees suffered huge damage and were destroyed. 

He further mentioned that the said trees were purchased from the funds of the Green Delhi Account, and about 400 trees were planted on the Ring Road near South-West.

The court found that the amount was being spent on plantations from the green fund collected over several years through court orders. The court directed the government to file a reply on the matter. Let us inform that the High Court had directed the authorities to plant at least ten thousand trees in Delhi using more than Rs 70 lakh deposited by the convicted litigants as costs in several cases.

The court had previously stipulated that funds deposited with the court should be utilized for broader public welfare purposes.