Punjab and Haryana HC weighs shortcut to speed up plan to decongest complex

The Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association sought the immediate appointment of a design firm for the holistic redevelopment of its complex.

Parties will present alternatives on December 5 as the court seeks a balanced “via media.”

The High Court is considering a faster, legally sound method to appoint a consultant for its redevelopment to avoid missing UNESCO’s timeline. (File Photo)

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Saturday heard a plea from the High Court Bar Association seeking a modification of last month’s order directing the Chandigarh administration to publish an expression of interest (EoI) for appointing an architect and project consultant for the holistic redevelopment of its complex.

Senior advocate Rupinder Khosla, appearing for the Bar, submitted that the EoI route would delay the project by at least six to seven months, jeopardising the December-January window in which the proposal must be sent for inclusion in the UNESCO World Heritage management plan. He urged the bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry to instead permit an immediate appointment of the existing firm, Design Associates, in consultation with the administrative committee of the court.

Reading from the Bar’s application, Khosla said the first part of paragraph 7 of the court’s November 21 order, requiring the UT to appoint a consultant with experience in court infrastructure and heritage sites, was unexceptionable. The difficulty, he said, arose from the second part of the paragraph, which mandated publication of the EoI. “This will consume time and delay initiation of the project, which is critical for the court’s immediate requirements,” he submitted.

Senior advocate Amit Jhanji, representing the UT administration, cautioned against bypassing established procedure. He placed on record the step-by-step process followed during the last redevelopment attempt in 2013-15, including architectural competition, jury evaluation, selection of consultants, preparation of the proposal, heritage impact assessment and approvals from the Chandigarh Heritage Conservation Committee and its technical subcommittee.

He argued that if the High Court were to directly appoint a consultant, it could face legal challenges from architects who were not given opportunities to participate. “Bypassing the procedure can create a problem later,” he said, while adding that the administration had “no impediment” to assisting the project and was aligned with the court’s urgency.

When Khosla pointed to the risk of missing the UNESCO deadline, Chief Justice Nagu agreed that delay was the primary concern. The bench asked all sides to suggest a legally sustainable “via media”, with Jhanji proposing a short, seven-day notice period for applications to expedite the process.

Additional Solicitor General Satya Pal Jain, appearing for the Union of India, told the bench that certain procedural hurdles could be resolved if the administration acted under Article 240 of the Constitution, which empowers the President to issue regulations for Union Territories. “If this goes through, we need not go to Parliament for small things. A notification by the President would suffice,” he said.

Story continues below this ad

Jain also outlined the broader approval chain: once the High Court finalises its plan and the UT’s heritage committees vet it, the proposal must be cleared by the International Standing Council of partner countries before the Ministry of Culture forwards it to UNESCO’s advisory body.

Also Read | ‘There can’t be a building’: HC refuses to interfere with NGT order directing restoration of Ludhiana park to its original form

The bench directed issuance of notice on the Bar Association’s civil miscellaneous application to the UT administration and the Union government. The matter will be heard next on December 5.