HC says TS panel didn’t seek Sectt demolition
Says committee lacked clarity on why new building is needed
The High Court observed that the technical committee report supporting the construction of the new Secretariat lacked clarity in explaining why it was needed. The court found fault with the committee not recommending alterations to the existing buildings.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Raghavendra Singh Chauhan and Justice Annireddy Abhishek Reddy, while dealing with PILs against the proposed demolition of the Secretariat, observed that the report was vaguely worded without mentioning specific contentions and recommendations to go for a new complex.
The bench pointed out that the report did not specifically throw light on what was lacking in the buildings and the specific reasons for the fire accidents which occurred in a few blocks. The court noted that the report did not mention the names of blocks where the fire accidents had occurred.
“It seems that the technical committee has not used its mind and I am sorry to say this,” Chief Justice Chauhan commented.
Defending the government decision, additional advocate-general J. Ramachandra Rao submitted that there was no separate parking for each block. A total of 10 lakh square feet of built-up area is required to house the offices of the Secretariat, he said.
He said that eight out of
10 blocks were facing plumbing and electrical wiring issues. Three blocks had suffered fire accidents in the last four years. He said ministers and bureaucrats needed a
500-seater conference hall to conduct meetings with the collectors, joint collectors, superintendents of police and other staff, Mr Rao said.
To this, the bench noted that the existing Secretariat had more than 9.16 lakh square feet of built-up area, which is not very different from the 10 lakh square feet that the government wanted.
“I am surprising that when the deficiencies can be addressed without touching the structures,, why has the technical committee suggested construction of a new complex,” Justice Chauhan observed.
Congress leader A. Revanth Reddy’s counsel, Tera Rajnikanth Reddy, submitted that there was a contradiction in the decision to demolish the existing building.
“Neither the report given by the technical committee nor the Cabinet resolution mentioned demolition of the existing buildings. They only recommended modification. How did the officials unilaterally take the decision to demolish the Secretariat and construct a new one,” Mr Rajnikanth Reddy asked.
“Demolitions for these silly reasons would be a sheer waste of tax-payers’ money because the cost of construction of the new Secretariat is `1,000 crore,” Mr Rajnikanth Reddy said.
The bench directed counsels for each of the petitioners to establish if at all there were violations of statutory and constitutional provisions by the government while taking the policy decision to bring down the old complex.
“We (judges) are not engineers, architects. We cannot question the wisdom of the technical committee report,” Justice Chauhan said. The cases were adjourned to October 21 for arguments by the remaining petitioners.