LexTHE SECRETARY & CURATOR, VICTORIA MEMORIAL HALL versus HOWRAH GANATANTRIK NAGRIK SAMITY AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 3 S.C.R. 190 A THE SECRETARY & CURATOR, VICTORIA MEMORIAL HALL v. HOWRAH GANATANTRIK NAGRIK SAMITY AND ORS. (Civil appeal No. 2225 of 2010) B MARCH 09, 2010 (K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJ., DEEPAK VERMA AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] C Heritage - Monuments - Historic Museum - Writ petition filed alleging mismanagement, misuse and various types of abuses of the Victoria Memorial Hall (VMH) - High Court constituted Expert Committee for improving the environment of VMH - Recommendation made by Expert Committee D regarding further construction within VMH area, rejected by High Court while disposing of the writ petition - Application for modification of the order, also rejected - On appeal, held: High Court did not give any specific/good or relevant reason for rejecting the recommendation made by the Expert E Committee or while rejecting the application for modification - Special facts and circumstances of the case warrant review F G H - Application for modification of the earlier order passed in the writ petition allowed, albeit with clarifications - Victoria Memorial Act, 1903 - Public Interest Litigation. Administrative Law - Expert Body/Committee - Decision of- Scope for judicial review - Held: It would normally be wise and safe for the Courts to leave the decision to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the Courts generally can be. Judgment/Order - Duty and obligation of the Court to record reasons while disposing of the case - To show proper and due application of mind to the issue before the Court - 190 SECRETARY & CURATOR, VICTORIA MEMORIAL HALL v. HOWRAH 191 GANATANTRIK NAGRIK SAMITY Administration of Justice - Justice Delivery system - A Principles of natural justice Victoria Memorial Hall (YMH) is a historic museum situated in Kolkata, administered and managed by an autonomous Board of Trustees constituted under the 8 Victoria Memorial Act, 1903. Respondent no.1 filed writ petition in the High Court (as a Public Interest Litigation) alleging mismanagement, misuse and various types of abuses of the VMH. The High Court constituted an Expert Committee for C improving the environment of VMH. The Expert Committee recommended for having a centre and exhibition area in a separate building within the VMH compound. The High Court rejected the recommendation made by the Expert Committee regarding further D construction within the VMH area and disposed of the writ petition. Appellant thereafter filed an application for modification of the said order passed by the High Court E in the writ petition, seeking permission to raise construction upto height of 30 ft after demolition of the existent non-residential staff quarters. The application for modification was rejected by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. F Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The conclusion of the High Court, that if construction is permitted, it would not only adversely affect the ambience of the monument but would be G detrimental to the present structure, has been reached without giving any plausible reason whatsoever. [Para 18] [205-B} 1.2. The Expert Committee was appointed by the High Court itself. It consisted of experts of various H 192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 3 S.C.R. A subjects, rendering services in different fields. Therefore, it is unfortunate that the High Court not only brushed aside its report, so far as the instant issue is concerned, rather labelled it as a "so-called Expert Committee". The High Court failed to appreciate that the application was B filed by the appellant as it was not possible for VMH to get appropriate space nearby the monument in Kolkata. More so, neither the Pollution Control Board, nor Kolkata Municipal Corporation, nor the Suptd. Archeologist of Archeological Survey of India of Kolkata Circle, raised any c objection in respect of the construction ~fa new building. The building was proposed to be constructed by replacing the old existing constructions at a distance of at least 160 mtrs. from the monument. The Court failed to consider that museum ~ctiyities were to be expanded 0 by the appellant, which would not adversely affect the monument at all, particularly when there is no prohibition under the Victoria Memorial Act, 1903 to carry out such activities. [Para 19) [205-C-F] 1.3. The High Court failed ·to appreciate that the E proposed building would be designed with great care,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.