2010 (3) TMI 1059 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the appellant be permitted to raise the construction upto the height of 30 ft. at the same place where it has cluster of constructions which is being used as a non-residential staff quarters? Whether if such a construction is permitted, whether it would, by any means, hamper the preservation or protection of the monument?

Issues Involved:
1. Removal of hawkers from the vicinity of the Hall.
2. Modernisation of the Gallery.
3. Environmental Management Plan.
4. Parking of vehicles, traffic signals, and stopping goods vehicles.
5. Burning of dry leaves in the VMH Area.
6. Shifting of Administrative Office.
7. Further construction within the VMH Area.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Removal of Hawkers from the Vicinity of the Hall:
The High Court initially dealt with the issue of removing hawkers from the vicinity of Victoria Memorial Hall (VMH) as part of its broader directive to preserve and maintain the historical monument.

2. Modernisation of the Gallery:
The High Court addressed the need for modernization of the gallery within VMH, emphasizing the importance of upgrading facilities to meet international standards. The Expert Committee recommended enhancing the existing facilities to make VMH an eminent center for art and culture of international standard.

3. Environmental Management Plan:
The High Court considered the environmental management plan, taking into account various issues relating to maintaining ecological balance, environment, and problems relating to vehicular traffic. The National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) had given various suggestions for better preservation and maintenance of VMH, which were largely unattended.

4. Parking of Vehicles, Traffic Signals, and Stopping Goods Vehicles:
The High Court issued directives concerning the regulation of vehicular traffic around VMH, including parking arrangements and traffic signals, to reduce pollution and protect the monument.

5. Burning of Dry Leaves in the VMH Area:
The High Court addressed the issue of burning dry leaves within the VMH area, which contributes to pollution and affects the preservation of the monument.

6. Shifting of Administrative Office:
The High Court directed the shifting of the administrative office outside the VMH campus, arguing that this space could be better utilized for extending the gallery. The appellant contended that having administrative offices within the campus is common in major museums worldwide and essential for VMH's functioning.

7. Further Construction within the VMH Area:
The most contentious issue was the proposed construction within the VMH area. The High Court rejected the recommendation of the Expert Committee, which suggested constructing a new building within the campus to replace dilapidated structures. The High Court held that any new construction would adversely affect the monument's preservation and protection.

The appellant moved an application to modify the order, seeking permission to raise construction up to 30 ft. in an area already housing non-residential staff quarters. The High Court rejected this application, emphasizing the need to maintain the monument's ecological balance and aesthetic value.

The Supreme Court analyzed the High Court's decision and the Expert Committee's recommendations. It noted that the Expert Committee, appointed by the High Court, had recommended the construction of a new building within the VMH campus to enhance its facilities. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had dismissed these recommendations without providing valid reasons.

The Supreme Court emphasized that judicial orders must be supported by reasons, ensuring transparency and fairness. It criticized the High Court for not giving specific reasons for rejecting the Expert Committee's recommendations and for not considering the practical difficulties faced by VMH in acquiring alternative space.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order dated 21.08.2009. It permitted the appellant to proceed with the proposed construction, ensuring that it would be in consonance with the existing ambience and compatible with the architecture of the monument. The Court clarified that the landscape of the monument should not be disturbed by the new construction.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, permitting the construction of a new building within the VMH campus, provided it aligns with the existing architectural and environmental standards. The decision underscores the importance of expert recommendations and the necessity for judicial orders to be well-reasoned and transparent.

← Previous Next →