CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATIONversusREGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

                 [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1179 : 2025 INSC 786

                 Chandigarh Administration
                             v.
    Registrar General, High Court of Punjab and Haryana,
                  Chandigarh and Others
                  (Civil Appeal No(s). 7249-7250 of 2025)
                                 28 May 2025
              [Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Whether the High Court of Punjab and Haryana was justified in
       directing the appellant-Administration for construction of verandah
       in front of Court Room No.1 and laying of green paver blocks in
       the kutcha parking, the open area used for parking.

                                  Headnotes†
       UNESCO World Heritage Site – Construction of verandah,
       not violation of UNESCO guidelines – High Court of Punjab
       and Haryana issued mandamus to the appellant to construct
       verandah in front of Court Room No.1 – Non-compliance,
       contempt issued – Plea of the appellant that the Chandigarh
       Capitol Complex which includes the High Court building is a
       UNESCO World Heritage Site and it may loose such status, if
       the verandah is constructed without procuring the requisite
       permissions/approval from the World Heritage Committee,
       UNESCO:
       Held: High Court justified in directing construction of the verandah
       in front of Court Room No.1 in alignment with the design of the
       pre-existing verandahs in front of Court Room Nos.2 to 9 and the
       same does not violate the UNESCO guidelines – Neither such
       verandah is a major restoration nor a new construction within
       the main structure of the High Court building – If required, the
       administration may seek ex-post facto approval for this minimal
       protective measure which is considered necessary – Further, the
       orders for placing green paver blocks and plantation of trees in
       the open area being used for parking are also upheld – Impugned
       orders not interfered – Constitution of India – Arts.226, 136.
       [Paras 39, 34, 45]

* Author
1180                                                     [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


                              Case Law Cited
    Rajeev Suri v. Delhi Development Authority [2021] 15 SCR 283 :
    2021 SCC OnLine SC 7 – referred to.

                                List of Acts
    Constitution of India.

                             List of Keywords
    UNESCO World Heritage Site; Chandigarh Capitol Complex;
    High Court building; High Court of Punjab and Haryana; Writ of
    mandamus; Construction of verandah in front of Court Room;
    Laying of green paver blocks; Open parking area; World Heritage
    Committee, UNESCO; Green paver blocks; World Heritage Status
    of the UNESCO guidelines; Operational Guidelines; World Heritage
    Convention; Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the property;
    Foundation Le Corbusier, Paris; Parking space for lawyers,
    litigants; Chandigarh Master Plan, 2031; Sustainable development;
    Green cover; Ecological balance; Modification in facade/structure
    of the building.

                             Case Arising From
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 7249-7250
    of 2025

    From the Judgment and Order dated 29.11.2024 and 13.12.2024 of
    the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP-(PIL)
    No. 9 of 2023

    With

    Civil Appeal No(s). 7251-7252 of 2025

                        Appearances for Parties
    Amicus Curiae:
    P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv., Ms. Natasha Dalmia

    Advs. for the Appellant:
    Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Ms. Kanu Agrawal, Bhuvan
    Kapoor, Krishna Kant Dubey, Varun Chugh, Shreekant Neelappa
    Terdal.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                              1181

    Chandigarh Administration v. Registrar General, High Court of Punjab
                  and Haryana, Chandigarh and Others

        Advs. for the Respondents:
        Nidhesh Gupta, Aashish Chopra, Sr. Advs., Ashok Mathur,
        Ms. Japneet Kaur, Bikram Dwivedi, Manu Bhardwaj, Varun Aryan
        Sharma, Somiran Sharma.

                        Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                                 Judgment

        Mehta, J.

1.      Heard.
2.      Leave granted.
3.      Chandigarh Administration1 is in appeal against the orders dated 29th
        November, 2024; 13th December, 2024; 7th February, 2025; and 21st
        February, 2025 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
        Chandigarh2 in a public interest litigation3 whereby the High Court
        directed as below:-
                “Order dated 29th November, 2024
                Construction of Verandah in front of Court Room No.1
                Submissions
                Learned Senior Standing Counsel for UT Administration
                informs that proposed map of the Verandah covering outside
                of Court Room No.1 has been sent to Archaeological Survey
                of India for approval: It is also informed that in the 24th
                meeting of Chandigarh Heritage Conservation Committee
                (CHCC) held on 19.09.2024 in-principle proposal was
                granted for construction of the said Verandah in front of
                Court Room No.1 subject to contacting Foundation Le
                Corbusier Paris for sharing the required drawings/data
                related to this project.



1     Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘CA’ or “appellant”.
2     Hereinafter, referred to as the “High Court”.
3     Civil Writ Petition (Public Interest Litigation) No. 9 of 2023 (O&M).
1182                                                     [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                      Supreme Court Reports


        This Court on 13.11.2024 had refrained from issuing any
        direction in the backdrop of assurance that Chandigarh
        Heritage Conservation Committee are being consulted and
        the UT Administration after due consultation shall revert
        back within 10 days. This Court had passed a preemptory
        order that in case, the aforesaid assurance does not turn
        out to be true by the next date of hearing, then this Court
        will be compelled to issue a writ of mandamus to the UT
        Administration for construction of verandah in front of Court
        Room No.1, which is dire need of the hour.
        Directions
        A writ of mandamus is issued to UT Administration to
        start construction of verandah in front of Court Room
        No.1 in line with and of the same type as already exists
        in front of Court Rooms No. 2 to 9, within a period of
        two weeks and complete the process of construction
        within four weeks thereafter.
        Order dated 13th December, 2024
        Construction of verandah in front of Court Room No. 1
        On the last date of hearing, in this regard, a Writ of
        Mandamus was issued directing the U.T. Administration
        to start construction of verandah in front of Court Room
        No. 1 in line with and of the same type as already existing
        in front of Court Rooms No. 2 to 9 within a period of two
        weeks and complete the process of construction within
        four weeks thereafter.
        Despite lapse of two weeks from the last date of hearing,
        no effort has been taken by the U.T. Administration to
        show that the process of construction has commenced.
        As such, this Court directs the Registry to implead
        Shri C.B. Ojha, Chief Engineer, U.T. Administration
        as party and on doing so contempt notice be issued
        against Shri C.B. Ojha to explain as to why contempt
        proceedings be not commenced and he be not
        punished for causing contempt of Writ of Mandamus
        issued on 29.11.2024.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                         1183

 Chandigarh Administration v. Registrar General, High Court of Punjab
               and Haryana, Chandigarh and Others

           Order dated 7th February, 2025
           (As regards Kutcha Parking)
           It is informed by learned counsel for the High Court that
           on the suggestion made by this Court under this head
           vide order dated 24.01.2025, the Building Committee was
           unsuccessful in convincing the U.T. Administration to allow
           green pavers to be laid in the area of kutcha parking with
           adequate number of trees to be planted so that the green
           cover can be restored and the vacant space can be used
           for parking purposes.
           This Court is of the considered view that the suggestion
           made by this Court on earlier occasion for restoration
           of green cover and simultaneously laying green pavers
           for parking was not only reasonable but a step towards
           sustained development.
           There is extreme shortage of parking space in the open
           areas provided for parking behind the heritage building of
           Punjab and Haryana High Court. On any given hour, during
           working session of the High Court, about 3000-4000 four
           wheelers daily visit the High Court out of which at least
           2000; if not more, are permanently parked. The existing
           underground multilevel parking which has three tiers can
           accommodate only 600 four wheelers while the remaining
           vehicles are parked in the open parking areas which also
           fall short and therefore, there is need to use the kutcha
           parking area which is opposite the three tiers multilevel
           underground parking.
           The green pavers are meant to allow water to percolate
           down to replenish ground level water and therefore,
           are much beneficial and eco- friendly as compared to
           pavements or roads. In this manner, the objection of
           U.T. Administration that the said area of kutcha parking
           is earmarked within the capital complex as a green belt/
           forest, will also be taken care of and the dire need for
           parking space can be satisfied. More so, the plantation
           of at least 200 or more trees in the said kutcha parking is
           possible to increase the green cover and facilitating the
           four wheelers to be parked.
1184                                                    [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                      Supreme Court Reports


        Despite the U.T. Administration having made available
        the additional parking space of about 200 four wheelers
        near the junction of Janmarg and Uttar Marg, the said
        facilitation does not resolve the problem of acute
        shortage of space for parking within the High Court
        premises. As such, this Court is constrained to pass
        the following directions as regards kutcha parking:-
        Writ of mandamus is issued to the U.T. Administration
        to lay green pavers in the kutcha parking and plant
        sufficient number of trees at reasonable intervals with
        tree guards providing space for parking and allow this
        kutcha parking to be used for parking of four wheelers
        visiting the High Court
        Order dated 21st February, 2025 (Dismissing application
        seeking recall of order dated 7th February, 2025)
        3. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid extract of the
        order dated 07.02.2025 pertaining to kutcha parking, it is
        obvious that this Court had dwelt upon all the pros and
        cons and the acute problem of dire scarcity of space for
        parking in the High Court premises before passing the
        said order. This Court had also, taken note of the anxiety
        expressed by the U.T. Administration that the said area of
        kutcha parking is notified as a green belt while directing
        that the kutcha parking space, which is presently denuded
        of trees, will not only be laid with green pavers, but also
        plantation of 100 to 200 trees will take place, so that the
        green belt is preserved and so also the need for parking
        is catered to.
        3.1 In the considered opinion of this Court, the order
        passed by this Court on 07.02.2025 facilitates sustained
        development and, therefore, is rather in the interest
        of the U.T. Administration and would greatly help in
        resolving the crisis of acute shortage of parking space
        in the High Court.
        4. Consequently, no ground for recalling of the order
        dated 07.02.2025 is made out and, therefore, CM-49-
        CWPIL-2025 in CWP-PIL-9-2023 stands dismissed.”
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                          1185

    Chandigarh Administration v. Registrar General, High Court of Punjab
                  and Haryana, Chandigarh and Others

4.     Addressing the first issue regarding construction of verandah in front
       of Court Room No. 1 of the High Court, Shri Tushar Mehta, learned
       Solicitor General of India, appearing for the CA vehemently and
       fervently urged that the administration does not have any quarrel in
       principle with the proposed construction of the verandah in compliance
       of the order dated 29th November, 2024 passed by the High Court.
       However, the administration is concerned with imminent possibility of
       the 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 is a matter of grave concern to the
       CA that the High Court building forms part of the UNESCO4 World
       Heritage Site, and it may loose its World Heritage status owing to
       unauthorized deviation/modification in its façade/structure.
5.     He submitted that the Chandigarh Capitol Complex which includes
       the High Court building, was designated as a UNESCO World
       Heritage Site in the year 2016 as a part of the Trans-Border Serial
       Nomination for the Architectural Works of Mons. Le Corbusier, which
       consists of 17 sites spread across 7 countries. As per the applicable
       guidelines, any proposed changes in the World Heritage Site are
       to be communicated to the World Heritage Committee, UNESCO in
       advance and their concurrence is to be sought, failing which, there
       is a risk of the site losing its World Heritage status.
6.     Shri Mehta urged that CA has already communicated with the
       Foundation Le Corbusier, Paris and the World Heritage Committee,
       UNESCO, to forward the original maps of the High Court building
       so that the issue of constructing the verandah can be proactively
       examined and a considered decision can be taken without posing
       any threat to the World Heritage status of the High Court building.
7.     Shri Mehta submitted that the CA is also alive to the situation that the
       open area in front of Court Room No. 1 of the High Court building is
       exposed to the elements. CA does not dispute the fact that litigants
       and lawyers who use this area have no protection from sun, winds
       and rain. He urged that it would not cause any harm if the matter
       could be deferred by a few weeks so as to give some breathing
       space to the CA for procuring the requisite permissions.


4     United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
1186                                                          [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                                   Supreme Court Reports


8.    It was contended that the authorities have been able to procure hand
      drawn maps prepared by Mons. Le Corbusier wherein there is no
      provision for a verandah in front of Court Room No. 1 of the High
      Court building which is an integral part of the World Heritage Site.
9.    He thus, urged that the Division Bench of High Court was not
      justified in exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction so as to issue
      a writ of mandamus directing changes in the façade of the building
      without waiting for the requisite permissions from the World Heritage
      Committee, UNESCO.
10. For finding a logical solution to the problem of exposure, the
    Department of Urban Planning, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT),
    Roorkee (Uttarakhand) has been requested to conduct Heritage
    Impact Assessment (HIA) of the proposed verandah and to provide
    a suitable design which, in turn, would be forwarded to the World
    Heritage Committee, UNESCO for approval and only thereafter,
    can the idea of constructing a verandah over the said area can
    be materialized while protecting the World Heritage status of the
    Chandigarh Capitol Complex which includes the High Court building.
11. Shri Mehta also drew the Court’s attention to the mail forwarded
    by the Architect of CA to the Architect at Foundation Le Corbusier,
    Paris, requesting for the drawing plans of the original building so
    that the alterations, if any, could be undertaken by adhering to the
    protocols and guidelines as applicable to the World Heritage Sites
    and to ensure that the authenticity of Outstanding Universal Value5
    of Chandigarh Capitol Complex of which the High Court building is
    an integral part, can be maintained.
12. Regarding the issue of the green paver blocks for creation of
    parking space in the open area near the High Court building as
    directed by the Division Bench, it was the contention of Shri Mehta
    that this open area is part of the green belt under the Chandigarh
    Master Plan, 2031 and can be used for planting trees only and no
    deviation is permissible under the Master Plan. Shri Mehta urged
    that the importance of vertical greenery in the city of Chandigarh
    cannot be understated and if the green paver blocks as proposed
    in the impugned order dated 7th February, 2025 are affixed on this


5    Hereinafter, referred to as “OUV”.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                        1187

    Chandigarh Administration v. Registrar General, High Court of Punjab
                  and Haryana, Chandigarh and Others

       open space, the very character of the green belt area will be altered
       irreversibly thereby eliminating any possibility of restoring vertical
       green cover on the said land.
13. Shri Mehta urged that the CA is taking proactive measures to sort
    out the issue of providing parking spaces for the lawyers and other
    visitors to the Court Complex and it has proposed to plant sufficient
    number of trees with green guards on the subject land area at
    regular intervals thereby providing green cover for the vehicles to
    be parked in that space.
14. Shri Mehta further submitted that the writ petitioner had earlier sought
    a mandamus for the construction of multi-level parking on the aforesaid
    open area. However, during the 45th Session of the World Heritage
    Committee, UNESCO at Riyadh Conference, a recommendation was
    made on 6th October, 2024 that the said project shall be suspended
    in view of the negative impacts resulting from the HIA reports, which
    recommended finding alternative solutions for ensuring that the OUV
    of the property is not impacted.
15. Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel appearing as Amicus
    Curiae, also supported the submissions advanced by learned Solicitor
    General, Shri Tushar Mehta. He submitted that the very same proposal
    was put up in the year 1956 when the then Chief Justice turned
    down the suggestion of the Superintending Engineer of the Capitol
    Project, Chandigarh to construct an additional verandah in front of
    Court Room No. 1. He urged that the administration retracted the
    said proposal on the instructions of the Chief Justice and thus, no
    deviation is permissible. The decision once taken at the appropriate
    level cannot be reviewed in exercise of the writ jurisdiction.
16. Shri Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
    the High Court administration, has supported the impugned orders.
    He urged that as per paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines for
    the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention6, relied upon
    by the CA in its additional affidavit dated 5th May, 2025, restriction
    is placed on major restorations or new constructions which may
    affect the OUV of the property. The convention requires that notice
    should be given, as soon as possible, before drawing up the basic


6     For short “Operational Guidelines”.
1188                                                      [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


     documents for specific projects and before making any decisions
     ‘that would be difficult to reverse’, so that the Committee may assist
     in seeking appropriate solutions and ensure that the OUV of the
     property is fully preserved.
17. Shri Gupta submitted that the Court Room Nos. 2 to 9, which are
    in the same alignment as the Court Room No. 1, already have a
    pre-existing verandah which is 12 feet high and provides wholesome
    protection from sun, winds and rain, etc. to the stakeholders, i.e.,
    the litigants, lawyers, etc. who frequent the High Court premises.
    The proposal to construct a verandah in front of Court Room No. 1
    was approved by the Division Bench after extensive deliberations
    and taking opinions from experts. The proposed verandah would be
    exactly in sync and alignment with the pre-existing verandah in front
    of Court Room Nos. 2 to 9 and will not have any adverse impact on
    the OUV of the World Heritage Site. He urged that paragraph 172 of
    the Operational Guidelines only provides that any major restorations
    or new constructions which may affect the OUV of the property and
    are irreversible should be undertaken after due approval from the
    World Heritage Committee, UNESCO.
18. Shri Gupta submitted that the verandah proposed to be constructed
    cannot be said to be a permanent structure which cannot be removed.
    Hence, the additional verandah cannot be termed to be a structure
    which can never be removed and the decision is not irreversible.
19. Shri Gupta further referred to the letter dated 17th May, 1956 placed
    on record by the CA along with the additional affidavit dated 5 th
    May, 2025 wherein it is clearly provided that the construction of
    the additional verandah in front of Court Room No. 1 similar to
    the verandah in front of the smaller Court Rooms i.e., Court Room
    Nos. 2 to 9 had been proposed by Chandigarh Administration and
    refers to a suggestion made by the Architect Mons. Le Corbusier.
    The proposal was forwarded to the High Court and the then Chief
    Justice acting in his personal capacity turned down the proposal
    on the ground that it would cause disturbance in the Court work
    as people would collect in front of the main Court Room i.e., Court
    Room No. 1 and chat.
20. Shri Gupta submitted that this observation as resonating in the letter
    dated 17th May, 1956 was based on the personal perception of the
    Chief Justice and was a decision taken after consultation in the full
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                       1189

 Chandigarh Administration v. Registrar General, High Court of Punjab
               and Haryana, Chandigarh and Others

     Court. It is not such a decision which cannot be reviewed even on
     the administrative side. He submitted that the dynamics of Court
     functioning have altered significantly over the last 70 years, and
     the High Court administration felt a dire need to provide a verandah
     for the stakeholders. He further submitted that the verandah would
     be of immense help in preserving the structure and ambience of
     Court Room No. 1 as it would protect the same from the elements.
     Shri Gupta pointed out that there have been numerous instances
     when rainwater seeped into Court Room No. 1 owing to the lack
     of protective covering thereby damaging the interiors and caused
     severe inconvenience in the functioning of the Court.
21. Regarding the aspect of green paver blocks, Shri Gupta urged that on
    any given working day, almost 3000 to 4000 vehicles of advocates,
    litigants and officials are being parked in the open area where the
    High Court has directed the laying of the green paver blocks. He
    urged that by their very design, the green paver blocks merge with
    the natural surroundings and they allow rainwater to percolate into
    the ground. The significant advantages which would be gained by
    laying of such blocks are (i) eliminating the possibility of blowing of
    dust and sand because of frequent movement of the vehicles on the
    open area; and (ii) eliminating the possibility of formation of sludge
    and muddy surfaces during rainy season.
22. Shri Gupta urged that the submission of learned Solicitor General
    that a parking area can be created by planting trees on the open
    land can still be visualized by ensuring that same number of trees
    are planted at regular intervals between the green paver blocks.
23. Shri Gupta thus urged that no interference is called for in the
    impugned orders which were passed after objective consideration of
    all the prevailing facts, after seeking scientific opinion and analyzing
    the ground realities.
24. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions
    advanced at the bar and have gone through the impugned orders
    passed by the High Court.
25. In compliance with the order dated 9th May, 2025 passed by this
    Court, Shri Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing on
    behalf of the High Court administration, has filed written submissions.
    However, despite opportunity being granted by this Court, the CA
    (appellant herein) has not filed its written submissions.
1190                                                      [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


26. We shall deal with the two issues arising from the impugned orders
    separately.

     A.   Issue of construction of verandah in front of Court Room
          No. 1
27. The most fervent submission of learned Solicitor General appearing
    for the CA (appellant herein), in assailing the orders passed by the
    High Court was that the same may lead to the structure of the High
    Court and the Chandigarh Capitol Complex losing the World Heritage
    status. In support of this contention, an additional affidavit has been
    filed annexing therewith extract of paragraph 172 of the Operational
    Guidelines which is quoted hereinbelow:-
          “172- The Word Heritage Committee invites the States
          Parties to the Convention to inform the Committee,
          through the Secretariat, of their intention to undertake or
          to authorize in an area protected under the Convention
          major restorations or new constructions which may affect
          the Outstanding Universal Value of the property. Notice
          should be given as soon as possible (for instance, before
          drafting basic documents for specific projects) and before
          making any decisions that would be difficult to reverse,
          so that the Committee may assist in seeking appropriate
          solutions to ensure that the Outstanding Universal Value
          of the property is fully preserved.”
28. A careful and holistic perusal of the aforesaid guidelines would
    indicate that the 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 guidelines give a clear indication
    that the decision should not be such ‘that it would be difficult to
    reverse’.
                                              [Emphasis supplied]

29. At this stage, we may refer to the letter dated 17th May, 1956 placed
    on record by the appellant, i.e., the CA along with an additional
    affidavit. The said letter was forwarded by the Senior Architect of
    the Government of Punjab, Capitol Project to the Superintending
    Engineer, Capitol Project, Chandigarh, and is extracted below: -
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                           1191

 Chandigarh Administration v. Registrar General, High Court of Punjab
               and Haryana, Chandigarh and Others

           “                              D.O. No. 168-Arch 56/ 2664
           Dated Chandigarh 17th May 56.
           Subject: High Court Building- Additional Verandah in
           front of the Main Court Room.
                             …………………..
           My dear Mr. Khanna,
           Kindly refer to our discussion on the above mentioned
           subject.
           2. You proposed that an additional verandah similar to
           the verandah in front of the small court room suggested
           by Mons: Le Corbusier, should be constructed in front
           of the main court room as well.
           3. On 14th instant, Mr. A.N. Bhandari, Chief Justice, desired
           me to send my assistant Mr. Malhotra to him to explain
           some of the drawings which we had sent him. I am told by
           Mr. Malhotra that during the explanation of the drawings,
           the Chief Justice desired not to have any verandah in
           front of the main court room as he thought that it would
           cause disturbance in his work because the people would
           collect in front of the main court room and chat. He is of
           the opinion that the people who will be waiting for the next
           hearing in his court could wait in the new verandah which
           is to be built in front of the small court.
           Keeping in view the desire of the Chief Justice, I think
           we should not change at this stage the original proposal
           made by Mons: Le Corbusier.
                                                      Yours Sincerely,
                                                                   Sd/-
                                                    (Pierre Jeanneret)
           Mr. G.C. Khanna,
           Superintending Engineer,
           Capital Project, Chandigarh.
                            ……………………..
1192                                                      [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports



          No: 168-Arch-56/2665           Dated the 17th May, 1956.
          A copy is forwarded to the Registrar, Punjab, High Court of
          Judicature, Chandigarh, for the information of the Hon’ble
          the Chief Justice.
                                                                Sd/-
                                                  (Pierre Jeanneret)
                                  Senior Architect to Govt. Punjab,
                                                     Capital Project.
                        ……………………….. ”
                                              [Emphasis supplied]

30. The letter makes clear reference to the fact 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.
    It is a different story that the then Chief Justice of the High Court
    proceeded to turn down the said proposal based on his personal
    perception without any collective discussion.
31. Hence, we have no doubt in our minds that the construction of the
    verandah in front of the main Court Room i.e., Court Room No. 1
    was being mooted by the Concerned Authority way back in 1956
    and had the Chief Justice consented, the construction would have
    happened long back. The only contention of the appellant for opposing
    the construction of the verandah is that the request to approve the
    proposal for raising the verandah has already been forwarded to
    the Foundation Le Corbusier, Paris but reply has not been received
    till date. Learned Solicitor General, Shri Mehta was very fair and
    candid in his submissions that the CA is not agitating this issue as
    an adversarial litigation and the only concern of the authorities is
    that the building may loose its OUV and consequently the World
    Heritage status, if the verandah is constructed without procuring the
    requisite permissions from the World Heritage Committee, UNESCO.
32. On going through the record, we find that none of the documents
    placed on record by the appellant give any indication to the effect
    that till date any communication has actually been made either with
    the Foundation Le Corbusier, Paris or the World Heritage Committee,
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                       1193

 Chandigarh Administration v. Registrar General, High Court of Punjab
               and Haryana, Chandigarh and Others

     UNESCO, seeking permission to raise construction of the verandah
     in front of the main Court Room i.e., Court Room No. 1.
33. The proposal given by Shri Patwalia, learned senior counsel that
    till the approval is received from the Foundation Le Corbusier,
    Paris and the World Heritage Committee, UNESCO, a temporary
    tin/metal shed can be put up in front of Court Room No. 1 does
    not merit consideration. Putting up any such contraption in front of
    Court Room No. 1 would completely destroy the aesthetic value of
    the High Court building.
34. We are satisfied with the submission of Shri Gupta appearing for
    the High Court administration that even as per paragraph 172 of
    the Operational Guidelines, 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 aforesaid
    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.
35. Going by the pictures of the building placed on record, we find that
    the pre-existing verandahs in front of Court Room Nos. 2 to 9 are
    in the form of projections supported by steel/metal pipes.
36. Needless to state, that the modern architectural techniques have
    progressed by leaps and bounds. New construction materials and
    techniques are available in the market which 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 additional verandah can even be in the form of a collapsible/
    removable structure, if so required. This can be easily achieved by
    using services of experts from IIT, Roorkee [It may be mentioned
    here that the administration itself, on the issue of green paver blocks,
    has taken the expert opinion from IIT, Roorkee]. Such an addition
    would unquestionably not violate the mandate of paragraph 172 of
    the Operational Guidelines (supra) thereby posing a risk to the OUV
    of the High Court building.
37. The reasons for the construction of the verandah have been
    highlighted in the order of the High Court and we have no reason to
    take a different view. The High Court administration is best placed to
1194                                                      [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


     take a suitable decision as to what are the precise requirements for
     preservation of the building and simultaneously provide protection
     to the stakeholders from the elements. It cannot be gainsaid that
     the High Court administration is under an obligation to provide
     appropriate facilities for the lawyers and the litigants who throng
     the Courts. The coloured photographs of the building taken during
     the working hours of the Court demonstrate that while Court Room
     Nos. 2 to 9, which have the pre-existing verandahs, 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.
38. Shri Gupta pointed out that during heavy rainfall, rainwater seeps into
    the Court Room No. 1 because the lack of the protective projection
    makes it difficult to prevent the inflow of water into the Court room.
39. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the decision
    of the High Court in directing construction of the verandah in front of
    Court Room No. 1 in alignment with the design of the pre-existing
    verandahs in front of Court Room Nos. 2 to 9 is absolutely justified
    and would not violate the UNESCO guidelines. At the same time, if
    so required, the administration would not be precluded from seeking
    ex-post facto approval for this minimal protective measure which is
    considered necessary without admitting any exception. The impugned
    orders dated 29th November, 2024 and 13th December, 2024 do not
    warrant interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under
    Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

     B.   Laying of green paver blocks in open parking area
40. Now, coming to the aspect of laying green paver blocks on the open
    land in front of the High Court building as directed vide order dated
    7th February, 2025.
41. It is not in dispute that the said area is already being used by the
    lawyers and litigants to park their vehicles during Court hours. This
    Court was apprised that almost 3000 to 4000 four-wheeler vehicles
    are parked in the area on any given working day. 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. True, it is that the land in
    question is a part of the green belt under the Chandigarh Master
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                        1195

    Chandigarh Administration v. Registrar General, High Court of Punjab
                  and Haryana, Chandigarh and Others

       Plan, 2031, however, this Court has time and again addressed this
       issue and has provided that for sustainable development, a balanced
       view is necessary.
42. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to the judgment of this Court in
    the case of Rajeev Suri v. Delhi Development Authority7, wherein
    inter alia a challenge was laid to the change in the land use of certain
    plots in connection with the Central Vista Project without taking prior
    permission/approval of the Heritage Conservation Committee. The
    Central Government defended the decision by urging that suitable
    deviations including change in land use can be allowed and the public
    trust doctrine does not prohibit the Government from utilizing the
    resources held in public trust for the advancement of public interest
    itself. The said submission made on behalf of the Government found
    favour with this Court and it was held that legitimate development
    activity can be carried on in harmony with the idea of environmental
    protection and preservation including sustainable development.
    Relevant excerpts from the said judgment are extracted hereinbelow: -
              “374. Indubitably, environment and development are
              not sworn enemies of each other. It would be an
              anomalous approach to consider environment as a
              hurdle in development and vice-versa. The entities
              like EAC and NGT are created to strike a just balance
              between two competing interests and a time-tested
              principle of striking this balance is timely invocation
              of mitigating environmental measures amidst a
              development activity. True that mere application
              of certain mitigating measures may not alleviate
              environmental concerns in all matters and in some
              circumstances, the project is simply incomprehensible
              with the environment. But as long as a legitimate
              development activity can be carried on in harmony with
              the idea of environmental protection and preservation
              including sustainable development, the Courts as well
              as expert bodies should make their best endeavour
              to ensure that harmony is upheld and hurdles are
              minimized by resorting to active mitigating measures.


7     2021 SCC OnLine SC 7.
1196                                                      [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                       Supreme Court Reports


        379. The proper balance of judicial review in environmental
        matters in a constantly developing society is a matter of
        great debate across all jurisdictions. In Ethyl Corporation v.
        EPA377, the observations of Judge Wright present a just
        balance. He observed thus:
             “There is no inconsistency between the deferential
             standard of review and the requirement that the
             reviewing court involve itself in even the most
             complex evidentiary matters; rather, the two
             indicia of arbitrary and capricious review stand
             in careful balance. The close scrutiny of the
             evidence is intended to educate the court. It
             must understand enough about the problem
             confronting the agency to comprehend the
             meaning of the evidence relied upon and the
             evidence discarded; the questions addressed
             by the agency and those bypassed; the choices
             open to the agency and those made. The more
             technical the case, the more intensive the court’s
             effort to understand the evidence, for without an
             appropriate understanding of the case before it
             the court cannot properly perform its appellate
             function. …”
             He then notes the need for realising the limits
             of judicial function thus:
             “But the function must be performed with
             conscientious awareness of its limited nature.
             The enforced education into the intricacies of
             the problem before the agency is not designed
             to enable the court to become a superagency
             that can supplant the agency’s expert decision-
             maker. To the contrary, the court must give due
             deference to the agency’s ability to rely on its
             own developed expertise. The immersion in
             the evidence is designed solely to enable the
             court to determine whether the agency decision
             was rational and based on consideration of the
             relevant factors. It is settled that we must affirm
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                         1197

 Chandigarh Administration v. Registrar General, High Court of Punjab
               and Haryana, Chandigarh and Others

                decisions with which we disagree so long as
                this test is met…”
           380. They must always look for a careful balance
           when two equally relevant interests compete with
           each other. The task may not be easy, but is the only
           reasonable recourse. For the proper application of
           these principles, the first and foremost thing to be
           kept in mind is the nature of the project……………”
                                                 [Emphasis supplied]

43. It cannot be gainsaid that 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. It was meant to
    cater to 600 four-wheeler vehicles but reportedly, 3000 to 4000
    four-wheeler vehicles access the High Court campus on any given
    working day, and the number is bound to rise with the passage of
    time. Undeniably, 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.
44. 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
    suggestion given by learned Solicitor General to plant trees on this
    open area can still be visualized by planting suitable number of
    trees at regular intervals in between the green paver blocks. This
    would simultaneously create a green cover on the ground and so
    also vertical green cover, thereby enhancing the overall ecological
    balance of the area.
45. In view of the above, we hereby uphold the orders dated 7th February,
    2025 and 21st February, 2025 passed by the High Court for placing
    green paver blocks in the open area being used for parking.
    However, 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
1198                                                       [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


     and creating shade as well as shelter for the said vehicles and in
     addition thereto, increasing the green cover in the area. This exercise
     shall be monitored by the concerned Committee of the High Court.
46. In order to give a breathing space to the CA (appellant herein), it is
    provided that the contempt proceedings initiated vide order dated
    13th December, 2024 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of twelve
    weeks so as to enable the CA (appellant herein) to comply with the
    order dated 29th November, 2024 passed by the High Court.
47. With these observations, the appeals are disposed of.
48. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeals disposed of.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey