Allegations In Matrimonial Disputes Must Be Specific And Supported By Foundation Facts To Avoid Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Supreme Court Modifies Sentence To Period Already Undergone Citing Medical Condition And Expression Of Remorse Qualification Of '10+2 System' Cannot Be Equated With Other Certifications Absent An Equivalence Clause: Supreme Court Essential Qualifications In Recruitment Cannot Be Diluted Or Subject To Judicial Equivalence: Supreme Court Court Has Discretion To Decide Genuineness Of Signature By Comparison; Not Essential To Invoke Expert Opinion In All Cases: Supreme Court Civil Disputes Cannot Be Converted Into Criminal Offences To Recover Money: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 420 IPC Taxing Authorities Must Classify Goods Based On Form At Time Of Sale, Not End Use: Supreme Court Suit For Declaration Of Status Must Seek Consequential Relief To Avoid Bar Of Proviso: Allahabad High Court Illegal Detention | Police Failure To Maintain CCTV Footage Invokes Adverse Presumption Under Sec 119 BSA Against State: Allahabad High Court Section 138 NI Act | Accused Rebuts Presumption By Proving Intimation Of Misplaced Cheque To Bank And Lack Of Documentation For Alleged Settlement: Andhra Pradesh High Court Garnishee Proceedings Under CPC | Disputed Debt Cannot Be Summarily Adjudicated Without Leading Evidence: Bombay High Court Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act 2022 | Magistrate’s Power Under Section 5 To Direct DNA Profiling Is Not Conditional Upon Consent: Calcutta High Court Conviction Based On 'Assumption And Presumption' Cannot Be Sustained: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Limitation Act | Suit For Specific Performance Must Be Filed Within Reasonable Time Even If No Date For Performance Is Fixed: Delhi High Court Enrolment As Advocate | Bar Council Must Consider 'Equivalent Qualifications' Under Rule 4(a) Rules Of Legal Education: Karnataka High Court Section 482 BNSS | Pre-Arrest Bail Is Not A Matter Of Course; Must Show Special Case For Invoking Extraordinary Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Hindu Succession Act | A Co-parcener Cannot Alienate Entire Property; Non-Impleaded Legal Heir Not Bound By Previous Decree: Madras High Court Purchaser During Pendency Of Suit Bound By Compromise Decree, Cannot Treat It As Void In Collateral Proceedings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 23 Rule 1-A CPC | In Partition Suits, Defendants Asserting A Share Can Seek Transposition If Original Plaintiffs Withdraw: Patna High Court Section 69 BNS | Suppression Of Subsisting Marriage Or Live-In Relationship During Marriage Proposal Constitutes 'Deceitful Means': Kerala High Court Anticipatory Bail | Mere Apprehension Of Investigating Agency Is Insufficient To Deny Bail Without Demonstrating Necessity Of Custodial Interrogation: Telangana High Court Income Tax Evasion | Criminal Prosecution Under Section 276C IT Act Cannot Sustain Once Foundation Assessment Order Is Set Aside: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Expedite Drone Survey Permissions for Heritage Assessment in Chandigarh: Punjab and Haryana High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Court mandates prompt actions and adherence to deadlines for IIT Roorkee’s evaluation project amid red zone restrictions and bureaucratic delays.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has mandated expedited actions concerning the drone survey for the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) in Chandigarh. The directive, issued on May 28, 2024, emphasizes the need for swift permissions and strict adherence to project timelines by IIT Roorkee, highlighting the importance of evaluating the city’s historical architecture amidst bureaucratic delays and red zone complications.

Project Status and Delays: The court reviewed a status report from IIT Roorkee’s Registrar, Prashant Garg, detailing the progress and challenges faced in conducting the necessary assessments. The report noted that visual evaluations and preliminary site visits had been completed, and non-destructive testing (NDT) activities were underway for multiple buildings. The final reports for these evaluations are scheduled for completion by July 2024.

Drone Survey Challenges: A significant point of contention was the delay in obtaining clearance for a drone survey, crucial for acquiring Geographic Information System (GIS) data needed for the HIA report. Despite an application submitted to the Ministry of Civil Aviation on May 25, 2024, permissions remained pending due to the site’s red zone designation. The proposed drone operations initially scheduled for late May were postponed, further affecting the project timeline.

“The clearance to fly drones in the site due to red zone implications is stated to have not been received,” the court observed, stressing the need for immediate action. The court also emphasized the importance of coordination among various authorities, stating, “We direct the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh, to issue necessary instructions to all concerned so that necessary permission is granted.”

The court underscored the project’s significance, highlighting the balance between bureaucratic processes and timely project completion. The judgment emphasized that delays in the drone survey directly impacted the HIA, a critical component for future preservation and development plans in Chandigarh. The court mandated the Ministry of Civil Aviation and local authorities to expedite the necessary permissions and provide a clear timeline for the project’s completion.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s directive aims to accelerate the Heritage Impact Assessment project in Chandigarh, addressing bureaucratic hurdles and ensuring timely completion. This judgment underscores the importance of heritage conservation while navigating the complexities of modern regulatory frameworks. The court’s emphasis on prompt action and adherence to deadlines is expected to set a precedent for future projects involving heritage assessments and urban planning.

Date of Decision: May 28, 2024

Vinod Dhatterwal and others Vs. Union of India and others

Latest Legal News