TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Key Considerations for New Parliament Building Approval: Planning, Compliance, Public Consultation</h1> <h3>RAJEEV SURI Versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.</h3> RAJEEV SURI Versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Parking and vehicular movement2. Rationalization of open spaces and integration with old buildings3. Urban form and aesthetics of the new Parliament building4. Environmental and sustainability features5. Approval process by DUAC and subsequent revisions6. Parking requirements and environmental concerns7. Compliance with heritage conservation laws and change in land use8. Environmental Clearance (EC) process and categorization of the project9. Public consultation and transparency in the approval processDetailed Analysis:1. Parking and Vehicular Movement:The judgment highlights the need for proper planning of parking spaces as per statutory requirements. The interface between vehicular and pedestrian/visitor movement needs to be indicated, and issues with the gate opening towards Rafi Marg Circle require resolution.2. Rationalization of Open Spaces and Integration with Old Buildings:The DUAC emphasized the rationalization of open spaces around the proposed new building and the integration of the new building with the old building. This includes ensuring that the new development complements the existing structures aesthetically and functionally.3. Urban Form and Aesthetics of the New Parliament Building:The DUAC noted that the urban form and aesthetics of the new Parliament building need improvement. The elevation design should be less overbearing and more representative of India's diversity and democratic ideals. The facade facing the present Parliament should be appropriately treated to maintain a symbolic connection. The new building's form as visible from Vijay Chowk should be visually scaled to the present Parliament building.4. Environmental and Sustainability Features:The DUAC recorded observations on the building's interiors, windows, natural light, ventilation, skylights, and sustainability features in accordance with green building provisions in Delhi. Despite these observations, the initial proposal was 'Not Approved.'5. Approval Process by DUAC and Subsequent Revisions:After an initial rejection, the project proponent submitted a revised proposal, which was scrutinized and approved by the DUAC after detailed discussions. The revised proposal incorporated the DUAC's observations, particularly concerning parking and environmental concerns.6. Parking Requirements and Environmental Concerns:The revised proposal addressed parking requirements by suggesting the distribution of parking across several plots around the complex. The DUAC recommended exploring the possibility of Multi-Level Car Parking (MLCP) to consolidate parking in one plot, accommodating all users, including MPs, staff, media, and visitors. The DUAC also advised enhancing natural lighting features and appropriately locating trees to ensure pedestrian pathways are not disturbed.7. Compliance with Heritage Conservation Laws and Change in Land Use:The judgment addresses concerns about compliance with heritage conservation laws. The new Parliament building project does not directly involve heritage conservation issues as the plot is not an enlisted heritage property. However, its proximity to the existing Parliament building, a Grade-I structure, raises concerns about its impact. The judgment discusses whether the project breaches the Unified Building Byelaws for Delhi, 2016, and whether approval from the Heritage Conservation Committee (HCC) is required at the development stage.8. Environmental Clearance (EC) Process and Categorization of the Project:The judgment examines the validity of the EC granted to the new Parliament project. It discusses whether the project was miscategorized to reduce scrutiny, whether the EC process was thorough, and whether the project proponent complied with the 2006 Notification and related guidelines. The court concludes that the EC was granted after a detailed scrutiny process, but emphasizes the need for ongoing monitoring and compliance with environmental conditions.9. Public Consultation and Transparency in the Approval Process:The judgment underscores the importance of public consultation and transparency. It criticizes the lack of detailed information provided to the public during the consultation process and emphasizes the need for meaningful public participation in such significant projects. The court calls for better disclosure of project details to ensure informed public input and adherence to legal requirements.Conclusion:The judgment highlights the need for thorough planning, compliance with statutory and heritage conservation requirements, and meaningful public consultation in the approval process for significant development projects like the new Parliament building. It emphasizes the importance of integrating new developments with existing structures, ensuring environmental sustainability, and maintaining transparency and public participation throughout the process.
TaxTMI 