For the Delhi High Court,it has been a case of lift delayed,not denied.
Last Tuesday,before it laid down a time-bound procedure for installation of a capsule lift in the court complex,the High Court realised that the delay was partly because a letter meant for the Registrar,Delhi High Court had been sent to the Registrar,Co-operative Societies.
The error was noticed by Justice Pradeep Nandarajog as soon as an official of the Public Works department (PWD) forwarded a copy of the letter to the bench during the hearing.
The official said the PWD had written a letter to the Registrar of the court in September last year and sent a reminder in January. We have submitted an estimate for installing the lift to the sanctioning authority and now await a nod, he said.
But this was denied by Additional Solicitor General A S Chandhiok who appeared for the High Court Bar Association in the matter pertaining to infrastructural development of the court complex.
At this,Justice Nandarajog began reading the copy of the letter and asked the officer if he realised that the letter would have never reached the court. How can a letter addressed to the Registrar,Co-operative Societies reach the Registrar General,High Court? We are certain this will be described as a typographical error. We are fed up with this bureaucratic approach of cut,copy and paste for everything. They dont want to waste even a minute writing something on their own and anything wrong is labelled a typographical error, said Justice Nandarajog,seeking personal appearance of the officer who posted the letter.
Later,the officer showed up in court,apologised and said the mistake would be rectified.
The court then passed the order directing the PWD to place a letter of intent with a private firm for installing the capsule lift and also obtain a nod from the High Court Building and Maintenance Committee for budgetary sanction.
Simultaneously,upon placing the letter of intent with the firm,the Engineering department of the PWD will commence the work, said the bench,also comprising Justice Pratibha Rani.
Shantanu Krishna,counsel for the National Monument Authority,also informed the court that they had altered the regulation in heritage bylaws that stipulated maximum permissible coverage on ground as 25 per cent of the area of the site and maximum permissible Floor Area Ratio (FAR) as 125 per cent of the site area. It has been changed to 30 per cent of the site area for an integrated office complex and FAR at 200 per cent to bring it in consonance with the Delhi Master Plan 2021,he said.