Punjab and Haryana High Court puts Sarangpur shifting plan on hold

Making it clear that “no feasible and viable solution” had come forth from the UT Administration and the Bar Association on the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s shifting to a new site, a Division Bench has for the time being reverted to the possibility of reviving the previously proposed holistic development plan for the existing court complex. It has called for exploring the feasibility of going ahead with the much-debated plan.

“Since there is no feasible and viable solution coming forth from either of the parties, it would be appropriate and in the fitness of things to revert back to explore the possibility of holistic plan being made feasible and viable,” the Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry asserted.

The Bench, at the same time, made it clear that its latest course of action should “not be an indication of this Court having given up the exploration for the alternative site for High Court at IT Park/Sarangpur village or any other site”.

The Bench added the Bar Association had agreed to hold a joint meeting with the competent authorities of the UT Administration on August 7. “Accordingly, both the parties are requested to deliberate on the issue of alternate site or for taking the holistic plan ahead. We request Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor-General, Government of India, to preside over the joint meeting,” the Bench added.

It directed the UT Administration to furnish all relevant documents, maps, and sketches to Bar office-bearers prior to the meeting. A report on the deliberations was directed to be filed before the next date of hearing on August 13.

The Bench added that the affidavit by the UT Administration should clarify: “Can the holistic plan attract approval of UT Administration as well as the heritage committee, if the requirement of court rooms

is reduced?” The query assumes significance as the proposed site at Sarangpur village was stated to be adequate to meet the High Court’s projected requirements for the next 50 years, including provision for 140 courtrooms.

In continuation, the court also directed the UT Administration to specify whether it had earlier agreed to approve the holistic plan subject to certain restrictions and what was its nature. Additionally, the affidavit was required to place on record: “Documentary proof of environmental objections qua IT Park area; sanction order issued by UT Administration and NOC documents issued by environmental authorities qua Lalit Hotel; and documents regarding IT Park area, restrictions imposed by Wildlife Board.”

Terming the relocation plan to Sarangpur as logistically problematic, the court asserted: ““The entire traffic of Chandigarh as well as Panchkula and partly of Mohali will take the route which passes through Sector 12, PGIMER, chauraha for reaching Sarangpur village. This in all likelihood will cause delay and inconvenience to the Judges, members of the Bar, employees, litigants as well as other stakeholders.”

Referring to the IT Park area, the Bench noted that the UT Administration had cited environmental and wildlife-related constraints, including objections from the Wildlife Board due to the area falling under the flying path of migratory birds at Sukhna Lake.

In related developments, the Bench observed a proposal for laying green pavers and developing kutcha parking with tree plantation had been placed before the building committee. It directed UT Senior Standing Counsel Amit Jhanji to share the proposal with the Bar Association’s office-bearers, who would within a week submit comments regarding the proposal. “The High Court Registry shall place the proposal of UT Administration, along with comments of the Bar Association, before the Building Committee of High Court for approval,” the Bench added

The court also took note of traffic snarls and ordered the deployment of two Deputy Superintendents of Police (Traffic) with adequate number of traffic police personnel at the High Court from 8:30-10:30 am and 3-5 pm daily.