Summary and Analysis of Chandigarh Administration vs. Registrar General, High Court of Punjab and Haryana & Ors. (2025 INSC 786)

Case Details:-

• Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

• Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta

• Judgment Date: May 28, 2025

Case Background

1. Appellant: Chandigarh Administration (CA).

2. Respondents: Registrar General, High Court of Punjab & Haryana, and others.

3. Originating Proceedings:
   Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed before the Punjab & Haryana High Court seeking:
   (i) Construction of a verandah in front of Court Room No. 1 (to match existing verandahs in Court Rooms 2–9);
   (ii) Green paver blocks in a kutcha parking area to address acute parking shortages.
   High Court Orders: Directed CA to execute both projects, initiating contempt proceedings for non-compliance.

Key Issues

1. Verandah Construction:
   CA’s Objection: High Court building is part of the UNESCO World Heritage Site (Chandigarh Capitol Complex). Construction without UNESCO approval risks losing heritage status.
   High Court’s View: Verandah is a minimal, reversible addition (aligned with existing structures) and essential for litigants/lawyers’ protection from weather.

2. Green Paver Blocks:
   CA’s Objection: The area is a green belt under Chandigarh Master Plan 2031; paving would irreversibly damage ecological balance.
   High Court’s View: Green pavers (eco-friendly, water-permeable) with tree plantations balance parking needs and environmental concerns.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

1. Verandah Construction:
   UNESCO Guidelines (Para 172): Require prior approval for "major restorations/new constructions" affecting the site’s Outstanding Universal Value (OUV).
   Court’s Findings:
   Verandah is not a major alteration; it mirrors existing structures (Court Rooms 2–9) and can be designed as removable.
   Historical evidence (1956 letter) shows the proposal was mooted earlier but rejected by the then Chief Justice for administrative reasons.
   Ruling: High Court’s direction upheld. CA may seek ex-post facto UNESCO approval.

2. Green Paver Blocks:
   Sustainable Development: Cited Rajeev Suri v. DDA (2021) to balance development and environmental protection.
   Court’s Findings:
   Current Use: Area already functions as parking (3,000–4,000 vehicles/day); dust/mud issues necessitate paving.
   Eco-Friendly Solution: Green pavers (with grass gaps) and staggered tree plantations ensure water percolation and vertical greenery.
   Ruling: High Court’s order upheld with a directive to plant trees between pavers.

Final Judgment

• Verandah: Construction permitted as per High Court’s design. Contempt proceedings stayed for 12 weeks to allow CA compliance.

• Parking: Green pavers to be laid with tree plantations.

• Significance: Reinforces judicial deference to administrative needs while ensuring compliance with heritage and environmental norms.

Legal Principles Applied

• Public Trust Doctrine: Development must balance public interest and ecological preservation (Rajeev Suri).

• UNESCO Compliance: Minor, reversible modifications to heritage sites do not violate OUV if justified by necessity.

• Judicial Review: Courts may intervene in administrative decisions where rights or public welfare are compromised.