IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.: 1158 of 2005 Date of decision: 14.8.2008 Raj Chauhan Petitioner. Versus BSNL and others Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting?1. No. For the petitioner: Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Advocate. For the respondents No.1, 2 & 4.: Mr. Ratish Sharma, Advocate. None for respondent No.3. Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Deputy Advocate General. Per Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner in the public interest. There is a building on the Mall Road, Shimla, in which the Telephone Exchange and Telegraph Office is housed. This building is popularly known as the Central Telegraph Office building (CTO building). This building is one of the finest built up structures in Shimla town. It is unique in its construction and is one of the landmarks of Shimla town. Under the H.P.Town and Country Planning Act, the State has the power to deal with the planning aspects of the State. The State has notified an interim development plan for Shimla town. Vide notification dated 22.8.2002 the respondent No.3, i.e. the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 Principal Secretary (Town and Country Planning) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh made certain amendments to the interim development plan for the town of Shimla. A heritage zone was created. No development for reconstruction is permitted in the heritage zone unless specifically permitted by the Heritage Advisory Committee. The area of one building depth on either side of the Mall Road starting from the gate of Indian Institute of Advance Studies upto Chhota Shimla Chowk via State Bank of India, Scandal Point, Shimla Club and Oak Over, amongst other areas, falls in the heritage zone. The CTO building falls within this zone. According to the petitioner, the respondents in utter disregard to the regulations, notifications and law have changed the basic structure of the heritage building by constructing additional rooms to provide residential accommodation to its Officers. It is also alleged that the building which is meant for housing the basic amenities of running telephone exchange is being utilized for residential purposes. Petitioner also complains that certain offices have been shifted from CTO building with a view to house the Officers and the offices have been shifted to far off places. As far as the shifting of offices, etc. is concerned, we are of the opinion that this Court cannot give any direction that the said offices should be housed in a particular area. We, however, are clearly of the view that the law must be followed in letter and spirit. According to the respondent-BSNL after the declaration of the heritage zone vide notification dated 22.8.2002 no material change in the structure has been made by the BSNL. According to the respondents, no major work has been done but some minor work of 3 constructing toilet, etc. was done in the already existing residential floor. Respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 in the reply also submitted that there is certain machinery to be used in the building which requires sensitive equipment and the further requirement is that there should be antistatic flooring, false ceiling, air conditioning, etc. The State in its reply has clearly stated that the CTO building is a heritage building falling within the heritage zone. It is also the stand of the State that no renovation, addition or alteration in the said building is permissible without the approval of the competent authority. According to the State, respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 have altered the heritage structure of the building by placing air conditioners and closing some of the existing windows. According to the State, notice has already been issued to the respondents under the H.P. Town and Country Planning Act for the alleged violation. As already indicated by us above, we are not inclined to take up any other matter except the matters relating to the heritage structure of the building. Keeping in view the fact that the CTO building is a heritage structure and is covered by the notification dated 22.8.2002, we dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:- 1. that no development for reconstruction or any other alteration or addition shall be made by the respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 in the building without taking approval of the Heritage Advisory Committee and/or any competent authority in this regard; 2. the respondent No.3 shall take follow up action on the notice issued to respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 and shall decide the same strictly in accordance with law; 4 3. the respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 shall be at liberty to raise all pleas before the appropriate authority, which will decide the said matter; 4. we may, however, clarify that the respondents can carry out normal repairs and annual maintenance of the building so long as the heritage structure of the building is not changed. In case, there is any violation, the respondent No.3 shall ensure that action in accordance with law is taken. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. 14th August, 2008 ( V.K.Ahuja ), J. ™