Making it clear that visions do not make laws,the Punjab and Haryana High Court today tested the bonafides of the petitioner who has challenged the much-debated Tata Camelot housing project coming up in Kansal. The High Court also questioned D S Patwalia,counsel for the petitioner,Aalok Jagga as to why the scope of the petition has been narrowed down to Punjab and why the violations done by Haryana in the periphery have not been objected to. Observing that the petitioner is skating on thin ice,the division bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Mahesh Grover questioned what the illegality is in the proposed Camelot project construction. The Bench today asked Patwalia to demonstrate how the housing project has violated the law. The observation visions do not make laws was made by the Bench responding to the petitioners averment that the proposed housing project is contrary to the vision of the city envisaged by Le Corbusier. The development took place during the resumed hearing of the PIL today. Peeved over the delay caused by the UT Administration in filing its response (after over 14 months) and causing delay in the adjudication of the PIL,the Bench imposed an exemplary penalty of Rs 50,000 on the Administration. The penalty will be paid by the Administration to Hash Builders and Tata Housing. Also,the Bench has made it clear that on the next date of hearing (February 14),the case will be heard for final arguments. The parties involved have been directed to file their responses by February 9. Asking the petitioner to demonstrate whether any law has been violated,the division bench remarked that the case cannot be filed on the basis of individual likes and dislikes. If there is any violation,show us the violation, added Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi. Speaking for the Bench,Justice Mahesh Grover remarked that violations have been done not only by Punjab and Haryana but also by Chandigarh. Even though it is assumed that your case is accepted,at the most permission is required by the developer for the construction, the Bench remarked,which also questioned the counsel if there is any absolute embargo on the construction. We do not see why have you taken 1,000 pages to raise this issue. Everything hinges on the clearance to be given, the Bench quipped. Renowned lawyer and Congress spokesperson Abhishek Manu Singhvi,counsel for Tata Housing,argued that the petitioner does not possess even a single document to challenge the housing project. It is at a premature stage. The Ministry of Environment and Forests is feeling fettered and not entertaining the application of the builder because of the stay prevailing, contended Singhvi. He demanded a vacation of the stay granted by the High Court (on January 20,2011) and disposal of the PIL. However,the Bench adjourned the case to February 14 for final adjudication.
