CWP No. 2761 of 2009 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: 16.07.2009
(1) CWP No. 2761 of 2009
Dr. Gaurav Chhabra ..Petitioner
versus
Union of India and others ..Respondents
Present : Mr. APS Shergill, Advocate
for the petitioner
Mr. O.S.Batalvi, Advocate
for respondent No.1 Union of India.
Mr. Jasmandeep Singh, Advocate for
Mr. Anupam Gupta, Sr. Standing Counsel
for respondent No.2-UT Administration.
-----------
(2) CWP No. 8348 of 2009
H.S.Johal and another ..Petitioners
Versus
Chandigarh Administration and others ..Respondents
Present : Mr. R.D.Sehgal, Advocate
for the petitioners
Ms. Amanpreet Singh, Advocate for
Ms. Lisa Gill, Advocate for respondent No.1
U.T. Administration
————
CWP No. 2761 of 2009 [2] CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR,CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
*****
T.S.Thakur, C.J. (Oral)
This petition has been filed in public interest. It brings into
focus what according to the petitioner is uncalled for interference with
what happens to be a heritage site of considerable importance from the
educational point of view comprising a large water body surrounded by
thick natural vegetation and abundant bio-diversity in Sector 26 of
Chandigarh.
The petitioner’s apprehension is that the site in question
which is frequented by people living in the city of Chandigarh and
school children is sought to be taken over by the Administration for
setting up of a Civil Services Officers Institute for IAS officers. Any
such take over of the area would, according to the petitioner be against
public interest as the same would deprive the citizens of the green
patch which has been traditionally used as a green spot supporting
bio-diversity in the area.
Mr. Shergill, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
argued that there was need for maintaining and preserving the flora and
fauna of green patches in Chandigarh, as also in the site mentioned
above, which is sought to be taken over for a purpose totally different
from the one for which it has been hithertofore used.
CWP No. 2761 of 2009 [3]
In response to a notice issued by this Court, Union
Territory Administration, Chandigarh has filed a reply on the affidavit
of Sanjay Kumar, IAS, Finance Secretary cum Secretary, Urban
Planning, UT Chandigarh, in which the allegation that the
Administration was taking over the site for setting up Civil Services
Officers Institute has been denied. The affidavit further states that the
Administration proposes to set up a Butterfly Park at the site in question
and a proposal in that behalf has been approved by the Administrator,
UT Chandigarh on 29.03.2009. The said park shall comprise 7.144
acres within the area in dispute, although, the detailed design of the
park has not been worked out. It is further stated that the park will be
consistent with basic the character of the existing site and its existing
natural features such as trees and the water body(pond). It is also stated
that the natural environment of the site will be maintained.
In the light of the specific stand taken by the respondent-
Department, we see no basis for apprehension that the site in question
may still be used by the Administration for setting up any institute for
the officers or otherwise.
Mr. Shergill, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
next argued that the efforts to dry up the area by making it thirst for
water and consequent destruction of its basic character are still on as
the Municipal Corporation which was earlier supplying water to the
pond is no longer doing so. This position is disputed by learned counsel
for the Administration who submits on instructions that the water
supply for the pond continues as before and the allegation that the pond
will be made to dry up in due course is without any basis.
CWP No. 2761 of 2009 [4]
Apart from the fact that there is no allegation in the writ
petition that the pond is not being fed with water in an attempt to make
it go dry, even the Municipal Corporation has not been impleaded as a
party to these proceedings. No relief against the Municipal Corporation
to continue the supply of the water has been prayed for. The argument
that the water supply is being disconnected appears to have been
advanced without there being any factual foundation in the pleadings
for any such assertion at the bar. In the circumstances and especially in
view of the statement made on behalf of the Administration that the
water supply to the pond continues as before , we have no hesitation in
holding that the allegation regarding disconnection of the water supply
needs notice only to be rejected.
That brings us to Civil Writ Petition No. 8348 of 2009 in
which too the subject matter of the proceedings happens to be the very
same area. The petitioner’s grievance in the said petition, inter-alia, is
that setting up of a Butterfly park may not be an ideal concept for the
area in question. More importantly, petitioner No.2 in the said petition
appears to be having an obvious personal interest in filing the said
petition in as much as he intends to carry on his activities as President
of the Environment Society of India in the said area, where he appears
to have kept some ducks and a few cages for them. It is submitted by
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the said petition that the
proposed Butterfly park will not only displace petitioner No.2 society
but also result in removal of fruit trees nursery which is also being run
in the neighbourhood.
CWP No. 2761 of 2009 [5]
Having heard learned counsel for the parties to this petition
also at some length and after perusing the record, we are of the view
that the petitioners have not made out any case for our interference with
the proposed Butterfly Park in the area. We say so because the existing
conditions in and around the area do not appear to be all that conducive
to the continuance of the area without any further development. A
report submitted by the Conservator of Forests dated 10.2.2009 to
Secretary, Forest, a copy whereof has been enclosed as Annexure P-2 to
the writ petition, suggests that the area in question was inspected on
4.2.2009 by the Conservator of Forests only to find that there was no
fencing around the area which made it highly prone to encroachments.
It is also noticed that lot of fruit trees which are at fruiting stage, are
also growing and are prone to damage by intruders in the absence of
any fencing around the area. The water body which the petitioners
describe as a place of heritage also requires to be maintained as it has
in its present state been described “as a water pond having dirty water”
with few cages in which some Ducks have been kept by petitioner No.2
Society. The Conservator of Forests has in that view proposed that the
area needs to be secured by putting a fence on the periphery.
The report made by the Conservator of Forests also appears
to be based on the discussion with Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun
which is said to be possessing necessary expertise on Butterflies and
can provide technical know-how for the establishment of a ‘Butterfly
Park’. The proposal for development of the area as a Butterfly Park and
for small Interpretation Centre referred to in the report made by the
Conservator of Forests does not appear to us to be an unachievable
CWP No. 2761 of 2009 [6]
target so as to call for our interference in exercise of our writ
jurisdiction. Suffice it to say that the questions whether a Butterfly Park
is an ideal project for the area? whether fencing is necessary around the
area? and whether the area needs to be cleared from encroachments and
improvements brought above in the same and if so the extent and the
nature of the improvements, are all the matters which are better left to
the wisdom of the Administration. We would not, therefore, like to
interfere with the ongoing project of the Administration so long as it
does not intend to convert it into an institute for the officers as was
alleged by the petitioners. for developing the area whether as a
Butterfly Park or as an ‘Interpretation Centre’ for the said park as
proposed by the Conservator of Forests.
In the result, both these petitions are dismissed. We hope
and trust that the Administration shall take steps and measures that
would enhance the beauty of the area as a green and natural spot with a
water body to preserve the flora and fauna of the region. No costs.
(T.S.THAKUR)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
16.07.2009
‘ravinder’