1. Appeal against directions for constructing a verandah and laying green paver blocks for parking within a designated World Heritage Site. (Para 3 , 4 , 12 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 923
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
Chandigarh Administration – Appellant
Versus
Registrar General, High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s). 7249-7250 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 162-163 of 2025) With Civil Appeal No(s). 7251-7252 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 9042-9043 of 2025)
Decided On : 28-05-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Ms. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Bhuvan Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kant Dubey, Adv. Mr. Varun Chugh, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR Ms. Japneet Kaur, Adv. Ms. Vriti Gujral, Adv. Mr. Bikram Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Manu Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Aashish Chopra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Varun Aryan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Somiran Sharma, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Ms. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Bhuvan Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kant Dubey, Adv. Mr. Varun Chugh, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR Ms. Japneet Kaur, Adv. Ms. Vriti Gujral, Adv. Mr. Bikram Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Manu Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Aashish Chopra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Varun Aryan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Somiran Sharma, AOR
The court upheld the High Court's orders for constructing a verandah and laying green paver blocks, emphasizing the balance between development needs and heritage preservation.
Headnote:(A) Public Interest Litigation - Writ of Mandamus - Construction of verandah in front of Court Room No. 1 and laying of green paver blocks in kutcha parking area - High Court directed construction of verandah to provide protection from elements, aligning with existing structures, and to lay green paver blocks for sustainable parking solutions - Concerns raised regarding World Heritage status of Chandigarh Capitol Complex - Court emphasized need for balance between development and preservation of heritage (Paras 4, 26, 40).
(B) Heritage Conservation - Operational Guidelines for World Heritage Sites - Court noted that any construction affecting Outstanding Universal Value must be communicated to UNESCO - Emphasized that minor constructions like the proposed verandah do not constitute major restorations (Paras 27, 28).
(C) Environmental Considerations - Court recognized the necessity of adequate parking facilities while ensuring ecological balance through green paver blocks and tree plantation (Paras 41, 45).
Facts of the case:
The Chandigarh Administration appealed against High Court orders directing construction of a verandah and laying of green paver blocks, citing potential loss of World Heritage status.
Findings of Court:
The High Court's orders were upheld, emphasizing the need for protective structures and sustainable parking solutions.
Issues: The main issues included the legality of the construction concerning World Heritage status and the adequacy of parking facilities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the construction of the verandah aligns with existing structures and does not violate UNESCO guidelines, while also addressing the urgent need for parking.
Result: Appeals disposed of.
Act Referred
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- constitutional law
- environmental law
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over whether structural modifications and land-use changes in a heritage site violate UNESCO guidelines and urban master plans versus public utility needs. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )
3. Minimal protective additions and eco-friendly paving do not compromise heritage status or environmental goals when balanced with sustainable development and functional necessity. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 41 , 43 , 44 )
4. Legitimate development activities can coexist with environmental and heritage preservation through mitigating measures and the application of sustainable development principles. (Para 28 , 34 , 36 , 42 )
5. Appeals dismissed; directions for verandah construction and green paver installation upheld; contempt proceedings stayed for twelve weeks. (Para 39 , 45 , 46 )
6. Does a minimal protective addition to a World Heritage Site necessarily violate UNESCO guidelines?
No. If the addition is not a major restoration or new construction that irreversibly affects the Outstanding Universal Value of the property and aligns with existing structures, it does not violate the guidelines. (Para 27 , 28 , 34 , 36 )
7. Can land designated as a green belt be used for parking if eco-friendly materials are employed?
Yes, provided a balance is struck between environmental protection and development. Using green paver blocks serves as a mitigating measure, allowing for sustainable development by maintaining ground percolation and vertical greenery. (Para 41 , 42 , 44 )
8. Can an administrative decision made by a high-ranking official decades ago be reviewed for current infrastructure needs?
Yes, administrative decisions based on personal perceptions from the past can be reviewed when functional dynamics change and there is a dire need for updated facilities to serve stakeholders. (Para 30 , 31 )
JUDGMENT :
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. Chandigarh Administration1[Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘CA’ or “appellant”] 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[Hereinafter, referred to as the “High Court”] in a public interest litigation3[Civil Writ Petition (Public Interest Litigation) No. 9 of 2023 (O&M)] 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.
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.
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 undergro
