|
|
|
|
|
Chandigarh skyline in danger
New Delhi, October 7 A Bench comprising Justices RM Lodha and Shiva Kirti Singh also issued notice to Punjab, Haryana, Chandigarh and the Centre asking them to give their views on the petitions within eight weeks. The company’s senior counsel Abhishek Singhvi assured the Bench that his client would “maintain status quo” which the SC recorded in its order. Justice SS Sodhi (retired) and 16 others, who had filed one of the petitions, agreed to replace their names with Sarin Memorial Legal Aid Foundation (through Justice Sodhi) as the petitioner following technical objections raised by the company as well as the Bench. The second petition has been filed by advocate Alok Jagga, a resident of Chandigarh who had approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court with a PIL on the issue. The petitioners have challenged the HC’s August 21, 2013 order, giving the green signal for the Tata project subject to the company getting all necessary clearances from the authorities concerned. Arguing for the petitioners, senior counsel PS Patwalia, Aryaman Sundaram and Ranjit Kumar contended that allowing the project would destroy Chandigarh and the fragile ecology of the region, comprising the Sukhna Lake, Shivalik Range and Wildlife Sanctuary. During the arguments, the Bench acknowledged that the matter “is extremely significant” as Chandigarh was one of the few planned cities in the country. Rejecting Singhvi’s plea for dismissing the petitions, the Bench said “these are matters which should not be thrown out on technical grounds. The situation may become irretrievable if the constructions are permitted and ultimately it is found that they suffer from some illegalities.” After ascertaining from the litigants that construction had not begun yet, the Bench remarked: “Even a brick should not be laid.”Singhvi said the company was not in a position to start work as it was still awaiting clearances from the Union Forests and Environment Ministry and the wildlife authorities. In fact, the Bench dictated an order directing the company to maintain status quo, but Singhvi got it
changed assuring the court that his client would maintain status quo on its own. The petitioners’ counsel told the bench that 52 acres of agriculture land was allotted to MLAs, sitting and former, in 2007 who, in turn, gave it to the company after bargaining for a flat and Rs 80 lakh to each of them. Contending that the project was in the catchment area of the lake, they said this would make the lake dry up. Singhvi disputed the argument.
Allowing the construction of 19 towers with 7 to 28 stories each would prove to be catastrophic, the petitioners pleaded. The Bench clarified that status quo would cover even processing of the company’s applications for clearances.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Letters | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
