JUDGMENT : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been instituted before this Court seeking a command to the respondent no. 1-High Court, to immediately stop the demolition or defacement of the ancient Heritage building known as the ‘Pant Sadan’ situated in the premises of the High Court of Uttarakhand. In addition thereto, a further writ in the nature of mandamus has been called for commanding the respondents to ensure the protection and conservation of the ‘Pant Sadan.’ 2. Having considered the pros and cons of the issue, it transpires that the building, in question, popularly known as ‘Pant Sadan’ was handed over to the High Court of Uttarakhand by the State Government way back in the year 2001 and it was being used as a residence of Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the Court. 3. Since then, it was being felt that the building has been quite old, inasmuch as, it was in a dilapidated condition, so the wide contemplations, with regard to maintenance of existing structure or to get it reconstructed after demolishing the same, were underway. Thorough correspondences were being made for last several years inter se from each and every corner, including the Regional Archeological Survey of India, Almora (a branch of the Archeological Survey of India, New Delhi), Central Building Research Institute, Roorkee and other construction agencies like Public Works Department, National Building Construction Corporation Ltd. High Court itself in its administrative side as also the State Government. 4. It has been argued by learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the building is of immense importance, so much so that even Maharshi Aurbindo along with his consort stayed for a considerable time more than 115 years ago in the same; thereafter, a number of dignitaries of national and international repute also used the building for their provisional abode and later, it became the residence of Bharat Ratna Pt. Govind Ballabh Pant and further, before carving out of the State of Uttarakhand and the foundation of the High Court, it was being used most cherishedly to accommodate the visits of VIPs and VVIPs including the Officers of the State and Central Governments. So, it has vehemently been stressed by learned counsel for the petitioner that pondering over the issue of historical significance of the building, in question, the same must be preserved as the ‘heritage’ in nature. 5. So, it has vehemently been stressed by learned counsel for the petitioner that pondering over the issue of historical significance of the building, in question, the same must be preserved as the ‘heritage’ in nature. 5. Refuting the above arguments, Mr. A.S. Rawat, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the High Court, has contended that the decision has not been taken overnight but it is the result of wide deliberations for over five years between all the bodies, as aforementioned. It would be pertinent to mention here that the Central Government can declare a particular building, as protected monument, under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (Act No. 24 of 1958), whereas, the State Government enjoys the same power under the Model Heritage Regulations, 2011 issued by the Town & Urban Country Planning Organisation, Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India. 6. It was thoroughly explored by the State Government that the building, in question, was never declared as protected monument or heritage, either by the Central Government or the State Government. Even though, in order to make an attempt to preserve the same, a scientific study was conducted by the CBRI at the instance of the Government and the fact, so revealed, was that if the building is renovated, then it would incur the expenditure to the tune of Rs.313.53 lakh approximately and even after doing so, the maximum life of the renovated building would not be more than 10 years and on the top of it, still the structure would not be safe from the seismic/earthquake aspect. 7. On the other hand, the whole expenditure, which the State Government may incur in the reconstruction of a bungalow for the Hon’ble Chief Justice of this Court, would approximately be Rs.156.33 lakh. 8. It is not in dispute that the total sanctioned strength of the Hon’ble Judges in the Court is 11 (Eleven) while the availability of the residences for the Judges, as of now, is far below than required. 8. It is not in dispute that the total sanctioned strength of the Hon’ble Judges in the Court is 11 (Eleven) while the availability of the residences for the Judges, as of now, is far below than required. An attempt was also made by the High Court by writing several letters to the State Government, asking it to make available the land whereon the residences for the Judges and the Staff of the Court may be got constructed, but due to the constraint of availability of space/land in this small compact hilly town Nainital, the Government expressed its inability for the same and approved for the task of demolition and, in turn, construction of residences for the Judges at the spot where the building ‘Pant Sadan’ is existing right now. 9. Pursuant to all this wide survey, due evaluation and appropriate contemplations besides deep deliberations as also considering all aspects, including the earthquake/seismic strengthening of the structure, the decision for reconstruction of a new residence, after dismantling the existing structure, has been taken by the Government on 14th May, 2015. An agreement has also been entered into with the National Building Construction Corporation (NBCC), which works under the supervision of the Central Government, which has started the demolition work since 21.8.2016, and as of now, a good part of the structure has been dismantled. 10. Thus, in view of what has been set forth above, I do not find any ground to interfere. The petition, being bereft of any merit, is dismissed at the threshold itself. 11. I concur with the conclusions drawn by my learned Brother, but I feel I will be failing in my duty if I don’t supplement the aforesaid judgment by adding a few more vital things. I may kindly be pardoned, if there is repetition of certain facts, but the very compulsion behind such repetition is to bring coherence in narration, and nothing else. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the building is more than 100 years old and it is an ancient monument. Although, there is no declaration to that effect, the petitioner would admit, but it is a historical building and its outside structure should not be changed. If required, only the interior may be changed, according to contemporary use. There should be, at least, a feeling that it is part of the old heritage building. Although, there is no declaration to that effect, the petitioner would admit, but it is a historical building and its outside structure should not be changed. If required, only the interior may be changed, according to contemporary use. There should be, at least, a feeling that it is part of the old heritage building. Learned counsel for the petitioner also added that if the building has not been declared as ‘heritage building’ that is, at the most, an inaction on the part of the State Government. On the question of financial viability, learned counsel for the petitioner remarked that the State Government is having a huge budget, can’t the same spare a small percentage of it for the maintenance of building in question? He also submitted that the Government, before taking such a decision, should have invited suggestions from the public, which has not been done in the instant case. 13. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent no. 1, on the other hand, would argue that the decision was taken by the State Government after considering all the aspects. It was not an overnight decision but it was taken on the reports of the expert bodies like CBRI, Roorkee giving the opinion that it will not be worthwhile to renovate the existing building. Its renovation cost will be hopping Rs.313.53 lacs, whereas the reconstruction after dismantling or demolishing the existing construction, would entail an expenditure of only Rs.156.33 lacs. The decision has been taken by the State Government after considering the report of the Regional Archaeological Survey of India, Almora as well. 14. Learned Senior Counsel has reiterated that the building has never been notified as a ‘heritage building.’ Any Government, be it Central Government or the State Government, has yet to declare it as an ‘ancient monument’. The CBRI, Roorkee, while giving its opinion on 1.12.2010, has considered the ‘Indian Code’ which is meant for the subject in hand. Even if the retrofitting is done, the building will not survive for more than ten years. Can the State bear such huge expenditure involved in retrofitting, which will not be able to survive beyond a decade? After all, the money will come only from the public exchequer, a taxpayer’s pocket. 15. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent no. Even if the retrofitting is done, the building will not survive for more than ten years. Can the State bear such huge expenditure involved in retrofitting, which will not be able to survive beyond a decade? After all, the money will come only from the public exchequer, a taxpayer’s pocket. 15. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent no. 1 would further argue that even if some eminent personalities lived in the said building, the same does not confer a character of heritage building on it. Under the Model Heritage Regulations, 2011, issued by the Town and Country Planning Organization, Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, a provision has been made as to ‘what is the heritage building’ and ‘who will declare it’, and further, a procedure has also been laid for declaring the same. In the instant case, no such declaration has been made, which is admitted to the petitioner as well. 16. Needless to say that the Court has to go by law and not by mere emotions. In a conflict between law and emotions, the latter takes a backseat. The petitioner has never thought it proper to approach any competent authority to declare the building in question as ‘heritage building’. Fifty percent of the building has been demolished and, therefore, remaining fifty percent cannot be retrieved. The operating agency (NBCC) has already been engaged which has been asked to construct the building in a phased manner. There is escalation in costs every day. No illegality has been committed by respondent no. 1 or, for that matter, the State Government (who has not been arrayed as party-respondent in the instant PIL). The decision has not been taken arbitrarily. The decision has been taken after taking into account all the shades of life. It is not an arbitrary action on the part of respondent no. 1, or, the State Government. Respondent No. 1 or the State Government has taken a decision according to law and they have not fancied their chances while taking such a decision. It was not based on surmises and conjectures. It was a well considered decision. No law enjoins upon the State Govt. to take a decision only after eliciting public opinion. Respondent No. 1 or the State Government has taken a decision according to law and they have not fancied their chances while taking such a decision. It was not based on surmises and conjectures. It was a well considered decision. No law enjoins upon the State Govt. to take a decision only after eliciting public opinion. As a public spirited person, the vigilant petitioner ought to have initiated efforts for declaring all the buildings of Nainital, including the present one, which are more than 100 years old, as heritage buildings, before the authority competent to do it. But, alas, present PIL has been filed only when its remains are visible on the site. 17. The Additional District Magistrate (for District Magistrate, Nainital) wrote a letter to the Estate Department of the Government, seeking a reply to the question - whether ‘Pant Sadan’ has been declared as heritage building? It has been replied by the Government in ‘negative.’ Whether it is a structure of national interest or monument of importance or heritage, has not been declared as such either by the Central Government or the State Government. No document has been offered to show the same. Rather, it is admitted that there is no such document. The financial condition or the economic viability of any project is also to be looked into while taking a decision, which aspect has been visualized by the State Government while taking such a decision. The decision was never taken by the High Court. The building belongs to the State Government, which, in turn, handed over the same to the High Court for the residence of its Chief Justice. The CBRI, Roorkee is an independent expert body, whose impartial report, based on Indian Code, cannot be doubted. The CBRI has taken a decision on the basis of yardsticks which are known to the experts in technical field. 18. It has been pointed out by learned Senior Counsel, on receiving instructions from respondent no. 1, that the interior of the building in question has been decayed. It is nothing, but debris. The CBRI, while giving its opinion, has also supplemented that there is no person available who can renovate or reconstruct the building in the same manner, as it was existing for the last more than 100 years. 1, that the interior of the building in question has been decayed. It is nothing, but debris. The CBRI, while giving its opinion, has also supplemented that there is no person available who can renovate or reconstruct the building in the same manner, as it was existing for the last more than 100 years. The seismic strengthening would also not be possible and, therefore, it is not a case in which the High Court, in its PIL jurisdiction, should interfere with the decision taken by the State Government, which is being implemented by respondent No. 1 through a working agency (NBCC). 19. It is a fact of common knowledge that there is space crunch for the High Court in a small town like Nainital where the residences for the High Court Judges are also to be constructed. There is shortage of land for housing its officers and employees. Records of Registry are also piling up. Bar Association also requires expansion in near future. Thus, the decision taken by the State Government is also justified on the basis of doctrine of necessity. 20. The decision of the Govt. is fortified by an illustration given by learned Senior Counsel. He would cite that the present office of Vice Chancellor of Delhi University was earlier the residence of the Governor General of India. ‘Environmental concerns’ have not been raised in this petition. We have, therefore, to adapt according to our changing needs, or else, we will be fossilised. Noted author Alvin Toffler, in his book ‘Future Shock’, has said, “Manage the change, or otherwise, the change will manage you.” 21. Retrofitting aspect, which was emphatically argued by learned counsel for the petitioner, was considered by the expert bodies and it was not found to be economically or financially viable. The State Government has not been made a party in the instant case. The NBCC too has not been impleaded as party respondent in the present PIL, but this Court has ignored these technical aspects and has made an endeavour to decide the WP (PIL) purely on the basis of merits, being fully conscious and aware that popular sentiments are doing rounds in the corridors of High Court. Fond memories of our beloved and respected leaders are troubling us. 22. Jurisprudence says that the Court has to strike a balance between societal interest and individual interest. Fond memories of our beloved and respected leaders are troubling us. 22. Jurisprudence says that the Court has to strike a balance between societal interest and individual interest. Whenever there is a conflict between the two and it is not possible to reconcile the two interests, the societal interest will prevail. 23. It is an emotive issue to take a decision in present PIL. This Court has great respect for the dignitaries, who either lived in the ‘Pant Sadan’ or were associated with such a magnificent building, since the days of Nawab Hamid Ali Khan. The decision was difficult, but, has to be taken anyway, in larger public interest. A Judge is duty bound to take a decision according to law. A Judge cannot take a decision that he will not take a decision. That is our predicament. 24. The matter was being discussed since 2011, but still, the Court is at a loss to find as to what prevented the petitioner to move before the appropriate authority for declaring such building as heritage building? What could be done directly, cannot be permitted to be done indirectly now, when 50% of the structure has been dismantled and cannot possibly be retrieved. 25. The building will still be christened or named as ‘Pant Sadan.’ It will continue to cherish the fond memories of Pt. Pant, as earlier. We will always remember him along with others, who were associated with such building, including its founder, with nostalgia. There is no dispute about it. It will still hold its legacy. The decision was taken by the authorities concerned to reconstruct the building only because the building did not remain habitable for the head of State Judiciary. 26. The people have right to know about the status of ‘Pant Sadan.’ We should not keep them in dark. An endeavour has, therefore, been made to give a verdict on PIL, as quickly as possible. We accordingly make it public that we have no intention to interfere with well informed decision taken by the State Govt., being implemented by respondent no. 1, and being physically carried out by NBCC in a phased manner. 27. The writ petition (PIL) thus stands disposed of.