Supreme Court: In a set of two civil appeals against Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decisions in a public interest litigation, whereby the Court directed construction of verandah in front of Court Room No.1 and allowed the kutcha parking space to be used for parking of four wheelers visiting the High Court, the Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. allowed the appeals and upheld the decision of the High Court regarding the construction of the verandah in front of Court Room No. 1 in alignment with the pre-existing verandahs in front of the Court Room Nos. 2 to 9, holding that the same would not violate the guidelines because neither such verandah can be said to be a major restoration nor a new construction within the main structure of the High Court building.
Further, the Bench upheld the orders dated 07-02-2025 and 21-02-2025 passed by the High Court for placing green paver blocks in the open area being used for parking. However, the Court said that while proceeding to place such green paver blocks, the High Court administration may consult with the landscaping experts and ensure plantation of a suitable number of trees at appropriate intervals so as to facilitate parking of maximum number of vehicles and creating shade as well as shelter for the said vehicles and in addition thereto, increasing the green cover in the area. The Bench directed that this exercise should be monitored by the Committee concerned of the High Court.
Background
The Chandigarh Administration’s case was that the construction would cause loss of world heritage status of the Chandigarh Capitol Complex, which includes the Assembly, the High Court and the Secretariat, designed by the celebrated architect, Mons. Le Corbusier, who planned the entire city of Chandigarh. It was submitted that the High Court building forms part of the UNESCO World Heritage Site, and it may lose its World Heritage status owing to unauthorised deviation/modification in its façade/structure.
Analysis and Decision
Construction of verandah in front of Court Room No. 1
The Court perused the Operation Guidelines and said that the Outstanding Universal Value (‘OUV’) of the property is likely to be affected if major restorations or new constructions are attempted on the structure having World Heritage status. The Court underscored that the guidelines clearly indicated that the decision should not be such ‘that it would be difficult to reverse’.
Going through the letter dated 17-05-1956 forwarded by the Senior Architect of the Government of Punjab, Capitol Project to the Superintending Engineer, Capitol Project, Chandigarh, the Court noted that the construction of an additional verandah in front of main Court Room, i.e., Court Room No. 1 similar to the verandah in front of the small Court Rooms was in consideration of the Government authorities way back in 1956. However, the then Chief Justice of the High Court turned down the proposal based on his personal perception without any collective discussion.
The Court noted the submission that request to approve the proposal for raising the verandah was forwarded to the Foundation Le Corbusier, Paris, but no reply was received till date, however, the Court pointed out that none of the documents were placed on record by the CA giving any indication that any communication was actually made either with the Foundation Le Corbusier, Paris or the World Heritage Committee, UNESCO, seeking permission to raise construction of the verandah.
Agreeing with the submission of the High Court administration as per paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines, that construction of the verandah in front of Court Room No. 1 in alignment with the pre-existing verandahs in front of the Court Room Nos. 2 to 9, would not violate the guidelines because neither such verandah can be said to be a major restoration nor a new construction within the main structure of the High Court building, the Court viewed that the impugned decision directing the construction of the verandah was in alignment with the design of the pre-existing verandahs of Court Room Nos. 2 to 9 was absolutely justified and would not violate the UNESCO guidelines.
Adding that the modern architectural techniques have progressed by leaps and bounds, the Court said that new construction materials and techniques can be employed to construct a verandah in front of Court Room No. 1 exactly identical to the one which is existing in front of Court Room Nos. 2 to 9 without disturbing the aesthetic value of the main structure and without requiring any kind of modification/alteration in the main structure. The Court suggested that the additional verandah could even be in the form of a collapsible/removable structure, if required. This can be easily achieved by using the services of experts from IIT, Roorkee and would be helpful in not violating the mandate of paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines.
Regarding the reasons for the construction, the Court was in consonance with the High Court’s view and said that the High Court Administration was best suitable to take decision as to the precise requirements for preservation of the building and simultaneously provide protection to the stakeholders from the elements. The Court pointed out that, since the Court Room Nos. 2 to 9, have the preexisting verandahs, they provide shelter to the lawyers and litigants and at the same time the area in front of the Court Room No. 1 is unprotected and exposes the lawyers and the litigants to sun, winds and rain.
Laying of green paver blocks in open parking area
The Court noted that almost 3000 to 4000 four-wheeler vehicles are parked in the area (open land in front of the High Court) on any given working day, and this practice has been prevalent since last many years because the pre-existing parking facility has fallen woefully short with the efflux of time and increase of footfall into the High Court campus. However, the Court also said that the land in question is a part of the green belt under the Chandigarh Master Plan, 2031.
Underscoring that- for sustainable development, a balanced view is necessary, the Court referred to Rajeev Suri v. Delhi Development Authority, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 7, wherein, it was held that legitimate development activity can be carried on in harmony with the idea of environmental protection and preservation including sustainable development.
The requirement of a proper parking space for the lawyers and the litigants is imperative because the pre-existing facility in the High Court has fallen woefully short.
When the vehicular movement takes place on the open land, dust would be blown up thereby polluting the atmosphere and causing the risk of allergies, etc. In addition, thereto, the particles which blow up may precipitate on the High Court building thereby creating a layer of dust and pollutants on its exterior and disrupting its aesthetic façade. The Court said that the green paver blocks are scientifically known eco-friendly alternatives for regular paver blocks because in the middle of each paver block, there is an empty space for planting grass, etc. The Court also considered the suggestion by the Solicitor General to plant trees on this open area at regular intervals in between the green paver blocks, as it would simultaneously create a green cover on the ground and so also a vertical green cover, thereby enhancing the overall ecological balance of the area.
CASE DETAILS
|
Citation: Appellants : Respondents : |
Advocates who appeared in this case For Petitioner(s): For Respondent(s): |
CORAM :
