In the case of Rajeev Suri v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors. (05 January 2021), the Central Vista Project of the Government of India was heard today in the Supreme Court. The plan was objected to by the Development Authorities holding concern over land use, development permissions, environment and heritage conservation.
Some of the objectives of the plan laid down by the Central Secretariat-
-No common secretariat building,Rent for hired premises to accommodate ministers amounts to thousands of crores,
-Most of the buildings have outlived structural life and not earthquake resistant,
-Administrative inefficiency and difficulty in inter-department coordination due to lack of common secretariat building,
-To curb Long travelling, traffic congestion and pollution,
-To improve conditions leading to inefficient use of land, inadequate facilities and outdated infrastructure,
-Integrated functioning of all offices of the Central Government,
-Modernization of Govt. work spaces for enhanced productivity and efficient management of human resources,
-Promote the concept of green buildings and sustainable with the needs of future generation,
-Connect all the ministerial offices through an underground shuttle transportation system for smooth performance of routine administrative functions.
Observations made by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari
1. We hold that there is no infirmity in the grant of:
(a) “No Objection” by the Central Vista Committee (CVC);
(b) “Approval” by the Delhi Urban Art Commission (DUAC) as per the DUAC Act,1973; and
(c) “Prior approval” by the Heritage Conservation Committee (HCC) under clause 1.12 of the Building Byelaws for Delhi, 2016.
2. The recommendation of Environmental Clearance (EC) by Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) and grant thereof by MoEF is just, proper and in accordance with law including the 2006 Notification. We uphold the same along with appropriate directions therein to ensure that the highlighted mitigating measures are followed by the project proponent in their letter and spirit.
3. The project proponent may set up smog tower(s) of adequate capacity, as being an integral part of the new Parliament building project; and additionally, use smog guns at the construction site throughout the construction phase is in progress on the site.
4. The stage of prior permission under clause 1.3 of the Building Bye Laws of the Heritage Conservation Committee (HCC), is the stage of actual development/redevelopment etc. work is to commence and not the incipient stage of planning and formalisation of the Project. Accordingly, the respondents shall obtain aforementioned prior permission of the designated Authority before actually starting any development/redevelopment work on the stated plots/structures/precincts governed by the heritage laws including on plot No. 118, if already not obtained.
Dissenting Judgement by Justice Sanjiv Khanna-
1. There is legal challenge to change in the land use of six plots in the Central Vista under the Delhi Development Act, 1957, and the permissions/approvals granted by the Central Vista Committee, the Delhi Urban Arts Commission under the Delhi Urban Arts Commission Act, 1973 and the clearance/no-objection for construction of a new Parliament House under the Environment Protection Act, 1986. Failure to take prior permission/approval of the Heritage Conservation Committee as per Annexure II of the Unified Building Bye-Laws is alleged.
2. The Government of India, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Central Public Works Department in September 2019 had published a handbook called “Conservation and Audit of Heritage Buildings”. The handbook emphasises on the need to protect and conserve heritage which was described as tangible and intangible values passed on to us from the past. Conservation of built heritage is generally perceived to be in long term interest of the society.:
3. The handbook on the basis of criteria identifies Rajpath in Lyutens’ New Delhi as a heritage building/precinct because of its distinct town planning features like squares, streets and avenues
4. The core issue in the present case is whether or not the respondents have performed their duty to consult the public, followed the prescribed procedure and the authority competent had acted to modify/amend, in terms of the Development Act and the Development Rules.
5. The matter and dispute before us relates to the validity of delegated legislation on the ground that the procedure prescribed by law, namely the Development Act and Development Rules has not been followed.
6. In the present case, there is violation of the Section 45 as public notice of hearing fixed on 6th and 7th of February 2020 was issued by way of public notice dated 3rd February, 2020 published on 5th February, 2020. SMS and email were issued at the last moment. Lack of reasonable time, therefore, prevented the persons who had filed objections and given suggestions to present and appear orally state their point of view.
7. Prior approval/no objection certificate from the Heritage Conservation Committee was mandatory and necessary before notifying the ‘land use’ changes of the six plots within the Central Vista, provided the plots/area were falling with the ‘Listed Buildings’
Also read- The Tamil Nadu Non- Gazetted Govt. Officers v. Registrar of Trade Union - 'Labour Law'
0 Comments