Forced to think about shifting premises: HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Thursday said it was being forced to think about shifting the High Court elsewhere due to the UT Administration’s adamant attitude in not clearing the “holistic development plan”.

As the development plan case came up for resumed hearing, a Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel asserted that it (shifting) should be the last thing to do.

“We are forced to think about an alternative site for the High Court…. Such a good and unique building you have. I haven’t seen such a building in the entire country. And yet, you are compelling people to leave it by your adamant attitude,” the Chief Justice told the UT Administration.

The Bench said it had asked Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association president Sartej Singh Narula to place before the court their opinion “whether they are ready and willing to shift from this place to an alternative site”.

Also, the High Court ruled out the IT Park area for shifting purpose. “No, IT Park is difficult because of the wildlife board and all those things…. Migratory bird passage… lot many obstacles.... They (UT Administration) are not ready for that”. The Bench, at the same time, pointed out that the IT Park area had a hotel and questioned how it got the required clearances.

The High Court said another option was Sarangpur. “They are ready to give us about 70-80 acres. However, the bottleneck around the PGI will have to be removed. But before that, the Bar has to furnish its opinion on leaving the current site,” the Bench observed.

UT told to construct verandah, preferably within a month

A day after the Supreme Court paved the way for the construction of a verandah in front of the Chief Justice’s courtroom on the High Court premises, the Bench today directed the UT Administration to carry out the construction “preferably within a period of four weeks”. Referring to the urgency, the Bench made it clear that the monsoon would start in a month’s time.

The Bench also asked the UT Administration to follow the directions contained in the SC judgment on laying green pavers in the kutcha parking area. The apex court had, among other things, suggested that the High Court administration might consult the landscaping experts and ensure plantation of “a suitable number of trees at appropriate intervals so as to facilitate parking of the maximum number of vehicles and creating shade as well as shelter for the said vehicles and in addition thereto, increasing green cover in the area”. Setting a week’s deadline, the Bench directed the UT to submit the proposal for laying pavers and landscaping, including trees, to the High Court’s building committee. The committee, in turn, could meet virtually during the summer break before considering and finalising the proposal expeditiously.

‘Seems UT not respecting India’s sovereignty’

The Bench rapped the UT Administration for not respecting the country’s sovereignty by always heading towards UNESCO. At the very onset, the Bench referred to UNESCO as the “bogey” the UT Administration created and was “like a ghost before us”.

The UT counsel, during the course of hearing, told the Bench that “UNESCO, in fact, does not say ‘permission’, they say that you run (route) it through us…. They say that before you do anything that will change the outstanding universal value, you have to run the project by first getting the heritage impact assessment conducted and then run (route) it through us. The UNESCO does not use the word ‘permission’ because they are aware that we are sovereign”.

The Bench, in turn, asserted: “It is we who are not respecting our sovereignty…. Here, it seems, the UT Administration is not respecting India’s sovereignty by always heading towards UNESCO or the Le Corbusier foundation”.

“The city was created for a population of 5 lakh. Now it is 15 lakhs, 10 lakhs, I do not know how much. You have to make appropriate changes in your plans itself, your policy decisions itself. How long will you keep living in 1960s?” the court questioned.