UNION OF INDIA Vs. B G VERGHEESE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . This appeal was filed by Union of India aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge who has restricted the height of the National Police Memorial at Chankayapuri to 30 meters instead of 45 meters. Mr. P.P. Malhotra, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for Union of India now submits that the appellant without prejudice to its rights and contentions and in order to seek an early resolution of the matter has decided to lower the height of the National Police Memorial as per suggestion of the Delhi Urban Art Commission contained in its affidavit dated 27th October 2005 filed before us pursuant to its meeting held on 17th October, 2005. The submission has been made on the basis of an affidavit of Mr. Devinder Gupta, Executive Engineer, Development Project Circle, CPWD.

(2.) At the outset, we are surprised at the keen interest shown by the CPWD in this Memorial. In order to decide the matter certain facts which are discernible from the record are to be borne in mind. We inter-alia observed in our order dated 20th May, 2005 as under :- .............What surprises us is that in December 2, 2002 meeting of the DUAC, the advisers who were experts in the field i.e. Prof. A.G. K. Menon, Shri Sumit Ghosh, Shri D.D. Mathur and Shri S.K. Das were of the following opinion :- New Delhi is world famous for its capital complex designed by Sir Edwin Lutyens. It is also surrounded by important historical buildings. It may be because of this reason that it is being considered as a World Heritage City by UNESCO. We as Advisers to the DUAC had reviewed the design scheme on 2nd of December. It was presented in the commission meeting without its vital context of the Rashtrapati Bhavan and its axial relation to the Shantipath. As one is aware, that Shantipath is traditionally a VIP road and has become an entrance to the city of Delhi. It is from here that one has the first glimpses of Rashtrapati Bhavan. If the proposed Police Memorial is seen in this context it would be absolutely clear that the design is completely out of context, out of proportion and out of scale. In spite of the above expression of opinion by eminent experts the then DUAC did not take their advice seriously and approved the proposal. We had also recorded in our order of the same date that once expert persons were called their opinion should not have been brushed aside in the manner in which it was done by the DUAC .

(3.) The same DUAC in its written statement filed before the learned Single Judge on 10th February, 2003 had taken the following stand : It is submitted that the proposed Police Memorial does not affect the vicinity or aesthetic sense of the area nor any adverse impact on the Rashtrapati Bhavan, on the contrary, it will enhance the beauty and aesthetic sense of the area when the construction is complete and landscaping is done as advised by defendant No.4. At the relevant time it was headed by one Additional Secretary of the Ministry of Urban Development and its constituted Members. In our order dated 20th May, 2005 we had further observed as under :- The next note of the DUAC still gives further interesting reading :- In the meeting held on January 21, 2003, in respect of the concern of DUAC itself in the previous meeting with regard to the height taken into consideration about 30 meters and the overall impact on the surroundings particularly on the axis of the Shantipath in the backdrop of Rashtrapati Bhavan just after two days on 4th December, 2002, the then Chairperson of the NDMC approved the proposal revising the height from 31.50 meters to 47.22 meters and the same was approved by the DUAC which was restricted in view of some letter from the Civil Aviation Ministry to 41.68 meters. The height as the proposed planning of the National Police Memorial is 44.5 meters. How this could have happened? In the next meeting which was held on January 21,2003, the experts who had dissented, i.e., Prof.A.G.K.Menon, Shri Sumit Ghosh and Shri S.K.Das were not called in the meeting. The apprehension expressed in the meeting note of 2nd January, 2002 by the DUAC was given a go-bye on 21st January, 2003 and on whose authority and behest the Chairperson of the NDMC could have raised the height from proposed 31 meters to 47.22 meters? These are the questions which require answers.