A day after the Punjab and Haryana High Court made it clear that court functionality in Gurugram could not be put to jeopardy “for any fault on the authorities’ part”, the State on Thursday told a Division Bench that the new judicial court complex—“The Tower of Justice”—was now “complete in all respect and all pending works have been completed”
Taking a note of the developments, the Bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor permitted the State authorities to ensure that the court complex’s shifting was carried out forthwith “awaiting formal statutory approvals from the Pollution Control Board and the Fire Department and that the formal inauguration, etc., of the complex –Tower of Justice – be proceeded with”.
“Considering the peculiar facts prevailing at the District Judgeship, Gurugram, where the judicial work is severely curtailed, we are of the view that the shifting of the District Judgeship, Gurugram, to the new judicial courts complex—the Tower of Justice—is inevitable in the predominant public interest,” the Bench observed.
The directions came in a “court on its own motion” public interest litigation. At the onset, the Bench observed that suo motu cognizance was taken on April 29 following inordinate delay in the completion of the Tower’s construction work.
It was earlier scheduled to be completed by October 30, 2020. “Despite repeated assurances, the construction was not completed on account of which cognizance was taken of the cause by this Court. The matter has remained pending. Assurances have been extended from time to time by the State authorities, that the ongoing construction work would be concluded, for which time was lastly extended till June 19”.
The Bench observed that the State authorities during the matter’s pendency informed the District Judgeship that the complex would be completed by June 30. In the meantime, however, a fire incident occurred at the existing Court Complex, resulting in destruction of a large part of court records and collapse of a substantial portion of the existing court building. The State authorities declared the entire existing Court building unfit for occupation. “This has posed a serious threat to the functioning of the District Judgeship at Gurugram itself,” the court observed.
The Bench added the courts thereafter shifted to a guest house from where they were presently functioning. “It is quite obvious that the regular functioning of the Court has been severely hampered, and only urgent matters are being attended to. This situation calls for immediate intervention. It is in this context that the State authorities were requested to expedite the ongoing construction process so that the Court could be shifted to the new complex on its re-opening after summer vacations,” the Bench observed.
When the matter was listed on July 1, the Engineer-in-Chief (Buildings)-cum-HOD, Haryana, PWD (B&R), Chandigarh, placed on record a communication addressed to him by the Executive Engineer stating that the newly constructed building was complete and ready for handing over. The communication stated that intimation had been sent to the District and Sessions Judge, Gurugram, to initiate the process of handing over the building. “It was also recorded in the said communication that the formal inauguration of the court complex is proposed on July 12,” the Bench observed.
Taking note of the communication, the High Court sought a report from Gurugram District and Sessions Judge. The report, submitted after inspections conducted on July 1 and July 2, stated that exterior as well as interior work of the building remained incomplete at several places. It found that the exterior fascia required repairs and final touches, interior work remained incomplete at many places, and furniture had not been supplied and installed in the court premises.
The District and Sessions Judge further reported that the basement area of the new judicial courts complex had been inundated during rain on July 7 because sewerage water had backfired. The Municipal Authorities had been asked to resolve the issue. The report also stated that the Environmental Clearance (EC) certificate from the Pollution Control Board and clearance from the Fire Department were still awaited. The Executive Engineer further informed the District and Sessions Judge that the clearances and permissions required for operation of the lifts and escalators installed by the concerned company would also be obtained.
The Bench observed Haryana Additional Advocate-General was confronted with the District Judge’s report, when the matter came up for hearing the previous day. The State then sought time till Thursday to obtain appropriate instructions.
As the case came up for resumed hearing, the Engineer-in-Chief (Buildings)-cum-HOD, Haryana, PWD (B&R), appeared before the court. On the basis of instructions received from him, the Additional Advocate-General stated: “The building is now complete in all respect and all pending works have been completed.”
The State further stated: “If any further shortcoming is found, the same shall be rectified without any further loss of time.” The court also recorded that an affidavit had been filed stating that all statutory norms had been complied with and an application had been submitted for obtaining the environmental clearance certificate.
Regarding fire safety clearance, the Bench recorded that the authorities had already applied for the necessary permission and the fire department had inspected the premises. According to the State, fire officials had informed it that there was no shortcoming in the building according to applicable norms and that the necessary certificates would be issued within a day or so.”
As regards the environmental clearance, the court was informed that a detailed statutory process had to be undertaken and that the process had already been initiated. The Engineer-in-Chief also stated: “There is no deviation from the norms in the complex prescribed for EC, and that the building complies with all statutory norms for EC.” He further stated that permission from the authority concerned was likely to be obtained shortly.
“Ordinarily, we may have waited for all such steps to be taken, but as we find that the judicial work in the District Court Complex is severely curtailed, any further delay in the shifting of the Court would be prejudicial to the public at large,” the Bench added.
The court also recorded the Engineer-in-Chief’s statement that “in the event any shortcoming is still noticed in the building, the same shall be rectified forthwith.” Before parting with the order, the Bench directed that an affidavit reporting compliance with its directions be filed before the next date of hearing and adjourned the matter to July 21.