Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1322 (HP)

Court On Its Own Motion v. State Of H. P.

2019-09-06

ANOOP CHITKARA, V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : V. Ramasubramanian, J. Aggrieved by the haphazard parking of vehicles on both sides of the road on the motorable ambulance road from Sanjauli Bazar up to Tibetan Colony (Dhingu Dhar), a group of residents of Dhingu Dhar road, Sanjauli came up with a writ petition in CWP No. 1675 of 2016. The reliefs sought in the said writ petition, as it was originally filed, were as follows: "(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed by way of writ of mandamus to immediately take steps to prevent haphazard parking on the both sides of the road and remove and take action against the wrongdoers, who park their vehicles on both sides of the road thus causing obstruction and inconvenience in free flow of traffic on the Motorable ambulance road from Sanjauli Bazar till Tibetan Colony (Dhingu Dhar), Shimla. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to immediately clear and relaying the Motorable ambulance road from Sanjauli Bazar till Tibetan Colony (Dhingu Dhar), Shimla. (iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to adopt a proper procedure for laying down pipes, telecommunications wires, etc. so that no inconvenience is caused to the public at large. (iv) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly also be issued/passed, in the interest of justice and fair play." 2. Since the petitioners who came up with CWP No. 1675 of 2016 were residents of the said locality, the writ petition filed by them was for the redressal of the grievances of the said locality and was not in the nature of a public interest litigation. 3. On 29.06.2016, this Court ordered notice in the said writ petition and also passed an order directing the respondents not to allow illegal parking on the road which was the subject matter of the litigation. 4. But when the said writ petition came up for hearing on the next date, namely 24.08.2016, a sudden twist took place and this Court directed the writ petition to be treated as a Public Interest Litigation. The order passed on 24.08.2016 reads as follows: "Keeping in view the fact that the grievance projected through the instant petition involves larger public interest, we deem it proper to treat the instant petition as public interest litigation. Ordered accordingly. The order passed on 24.08.2016 reads as follows: "Keeping in view the fact that the grievance projected through the instant petition involves larger public interest, we deem it proper to treat the instant petition as public interest litigation. Ordered accordingly. The Registry is directed to diarize the writ petition as such. Ms. Seema K. Guleria, Advocate, is appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court. Respondents No. 1 to 4 have already filed the reply. They are also directed to file status report within two weeks about the steps having been taken for managing the movement/parking of vehicles in and around Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Shimla. Reply/status report by respondents No. 5 to 8 be filed within two weeks." 5. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the writ petition was re-numbered as the present CWPIL No. 19 of 2016. 6. Even after conversion of the ordinary writ petition into a public interest litigation, the issue sought to be addressed by the Court remained the same, as could be seen from the order passed on 15.09.2016. Primarily, the order passed on 15.09.2016 focused on the restriction of the entry of vehicles in two areas, namely Sanjauli and Kasumpati. But slowly over the next couple of hearings, the scope of the public interest litigation got enlarged to the larger question of pedestrian and vehicular traffic at different places in the city. As a consequence, more parties including the Himachal Road Transport Corporation came to be impleaded as respondents in the writ petition. 7. On 23.03.2017, when the public interest litigation came up for further orders, the Municipal Commissioner, Shimla, through a status report, placed on record, the details of road side car parking provided by the Municipal Corporation in and around Shimla. At that time, the learned counsel who was appointed by this Court as Amicus Curiae (incidentally, the counsel for the petitioner in CWP No. 1675 of 2016 was the one who was appointed as the Amicus Curiae after the personal interest litigation was converted into a public interest litigation) brought to the notice of the Court that the Municipal Corporation was spending huge amounts of money under ADB/World Bank Projects, for the upliftment and beautification of Shimla. Therefore, the attention of the Court got diverted to a Parking Complex under construction. Therefore, the attention of the Court got diverted to a Parking Complex under construction. Therefore, the Project Proponent of the Parking Complex got impleaded as one of the respondents to the public interest litigation. 8. Then the case took a turn on 13.12.2017, when the Court noticed certain communications exchanged between the Asian Development Bank and the Department of Tourism and Civil Aviation. In some of those communications, it was found that a building known as Town Hall, located on the Mall Road and belonging to the Municipal Corporation was proposed to be renovated and that plans for the same had been approved from the Municipal Corporation as well as the Heritage Committee. It is relevant to note that Town Hall used as the office of the Municipal Corporation, was originally designed as "New Library and Offices" by a Scottish Architect by name Mr. James Ransome. It appears that the original building, designed as a library was constructed in 1908, but after a few decades, the offices of the Municipal Corporation came to be located in the said building. Treating the said building as "priceless architectural marvel", the Asian Development Bank funded the restoration of the building. 9. Therefore, this Court passed an order on 13.12.2017 suggesting that a decision must be taken with regard to the proper use of the building after its restoration. The relevant portion of the order passed by this Court on 13.12.2017 may be usefully extracted as follows: "6. It is a matter of record that for the last two years, work of preservation and restoration of the building is in progress. More than Rs.8.00 crore stand invested by the ADB for such purpose. 7. Article 51-A (Part-IVA) of the Constitution of India mandates that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture. 8. In fact, with respect to another building in the town, i.e. Vice Regal Lodge, having great historical importance and significance, apart from being an architectural wonder, when an attempt was made to convert the same into a hotel, Hon'ble the Apex Court intervened and directed the said property to be protected and preserved, so that cultural and historical heritage of India and beauty and grandeur of the monuments is preserved. Further, in the very same report [Rajeev Mankotia v. Secretary to the President of India & others, (1997) 10 SCC 441 ], the Court observed that "Similar places of interest, though of recent origin, need to be preserved and maintained as manifestation of our cultural heritage or historical evidence. Similar efforts should also be made by the Government of India, in particular the Tourism Department, to attract foreign tourist and to give them good account of our past and glory of the people of India as message to other countries and territories". 9. The need to protect and preserve such buildings stands reiterated by the Apex Court also in K. Guruprasad Rao v. State of Karnataka & others, (2013) 8 SCC 418 . 10. Undoubtedly, the building, which is commonly known as the "Town Hall", undoubtedly, is an important and significant landmark of the town. Intrinsically, it is part of its heritage. 11. It is in this backdrop, we are of the considered view that a decision must be taken with regard to proper use of the building after its restoration. Perhaps it can be used for housing a Library and other public conveniences, rather than leaving it at the mercy of the "Babus", for nailing the restored wooden panels and work of art, only for the purposes of hanging the annual calendars or pasting the same all over the walls." 10. A direction was also issued by this Court on 13.12.2017 to the Chief Secretary to the Government to file his personal affidavit on the next date of hearing with regard to the proposed usage of the Town Hall building. 11. Thus, what started off as an ordinary litigation relating to haphazard parking, slowly got sidetracked into an issue relating to management of traffic in Shimla and later assumed the role of a public interest litigation with the proposed use of the Town Hall, becoming the focus of the litigation. 12. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on 13.12.2017, affidavits were filed on behalf of the respondents. Thereafter, the learned Advocate General appearing for the State, made a statement before this Court on the next date of hearing, namely 11.01.2018 that the possession of the Town Hall building will not be handed over to the Municipal Corporation without the leave of the Court. Thereafter, the learned Advocate General appearing for the State, made a statement before this Court on the next date of hearing, namely 11.01.2018 that the possession of the Town Hall building will not be handed over to the Municipal Corporation without the leave of the Court. The Court was also informed by the Director (Tourism) that for the improvement of the Shimla Town, more than Rs. 650 Crores stood sanctioned as Grant by the Asian Development Bank. 13. On 13.11.2018, this Court directed the learned Advocate General and the learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation to submit a conceptual plan of the Town Hall building alongwith details of the area of each room. The respondents were also directed to place on record the proposal as to how the State Government, in consultation with the Municipal Corporation intended to utilize the said premises. Pursuant to the said order, the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation filed an affidavit. 14. After perusing the same, this Court passed an order on 03.01.2019. This order reads as follows: "Though the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation has filed the compliance affidavit in terms of our previous order dated 13th December, 2018, but we are not convinced with the idea that some of the senior functionaries would sit in the Town Hall Building, whereas the other officials will be housed in other adjoining areas. This is totally an impractical approach to the efficient functioning of the Corporation. On the other hand, it is suggested that the State Museum, which is housed in a big building with lawn and parking place, can be shifted to the Town Hall building, with a Modern Visitors Gallery to showcase the State of Himachal Pradesh in its entirety with single entry and exit to the building. For such purpose, the final decision will have to be taken by the State Government, for which, learned Advocate General assures the Court to take up the matter at the highest level." 15. Eventually, a conceptual plan was filed by the Municipal Corporation. On the conceptual plan filed by the Municipal Corporation and on their proposals for the better utilization of the building known as "Town Hall", we heard the learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned Advocate General, and Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation. 16. Eventually, a conceptual plan was filed by the Municipal Corporation. On the conceptual plan filed by the Municipal Corporation and on their proposals for the better utilization of the building known as "Town Hall", we heard the learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned Advocate General, and Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation. 16. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation pleaded that though the building is owned by the Municipal Corporation, they are not able to take possession of the building and put it to appropriate use, on account of a previous order passed by this Court recording the undertaking on the part of the learned Advocate General not to hand over possession. It is argued by the learned Senior Counsel that after having spent a huge amount of money, if the Corporation is not allowed to put up the building to optimum use, the Municipal Corporation will suffer irreparable loss and hardship. 17. We have carefully considered the submissions as well as the conceptual plan and the affidavit. 18. In the conceptual plan filed by the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation alongwith his affidavit, it is stated (i) that pursuant to a decision taken in a meeting held between the Additional Chief Secretary (Tourism) and Principal Secretary (Urban Development), an Expert in the field of Urban Planning, by name Professor K.T. Ravindran, was consulted. (ii) that the said Professor K.T. Ravindran inspected the Town Hall on 27.12.2018 and made various suggestions; and (iii) that on an earlier occasion, this Court had directed the respondents to explore the possibility of shifting the State Museum from its existing location at Chaura Maidan to Town Hall, but the same was not found feasible, as the building in which State Museum is located at present is of an area of about 3304 sq. mtrs. with parking area to the extent of 575 sq. mtrs. and open area/lawn measuring 1320 sq. mtrs., while the area of the Town Hall building is only about 1338 sq. mtrs. 19. It is further stated in the conceptual plan that a meeting was convened under the chairmanship of the Chief Minister on 06.03.2019. It was decided in the said meeting that the attic floor and ground floor should be put to such use that they attract tourists and the public. mtrs. 19. It is further stated in the conceptual plan that a meeting was convened under the chairmanship of the Chief Minister on 06.03.2019. It was decided in the said meeting that the attic floor and ground floor should be put to such use that they attract tourists and the public. It was also decided therein that the Municipal Corporation should be able to use the middle floor. 20. After narrating the sequence of events, the conceptual plan contains a proposal, which reads as follows: "4. Proposal: In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is quite evident that the Town Halls across the globe are being predominantly used by the City Councils and moreover this will help in maintaining the Heritage legacy and its traditional use for over the period of more than hundred years. The Proposal of Municipal Corporation, Shimla regarding its usage of one of the floors housing the office of Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Commissioner and other allied offices have been also endorsed by renowned expert engaged in the field of Architecture and Urban Planning. Needless to mention that the Hon'ble Chief Minister has also endorsed the proposal of Municipal Corporation, Shimla in the meeting held on 6.3.2019. Further, it is submitted that the best concept of usage of this building will be around mixed use i.e. office floor and commercial use largely in terms of the public centric activities. The final decision to run the public oriented activities like High-End Caf with reading facilities, Information Centre, Children related facilities and Boutique of Traditional Crafts etc be taken forward by exploring the feasibility as also the commercial interest including viability of proposed ventures by the Municipal Corporation in consultation with the State Government. It is further emphasized that being the owner and possession holder of the property it is the exclusive right of Municipal Corporation to make the best use of it given the sanctity of the constitutional body and historical value attached to the Corporation. Therefore, it is concluded that the property in question shall be handed over to Municipal Corporation, Shimla for making its best use, in public interest." 21. While the proposal contained in the conceptual plan is broadly acceptable, there is only one aspect which may be a matter of concern. Therefore, it is concluded that the property in question shall be handed over to Municipal Corporation, Shimla for making its best use, in public interest." 21. While the proposal contained in the conceptual plan is broadly acceptable, there is only one aspect which may be a matter of concern. While there can be no objection to the location of the offices of the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor in the Town Hall, the location of the offices of the Commissioner and other allied officers will certainly convert the heritage building into a full-fledged Government office. While the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor may not be required to sit throughout the day in the office, the Commissioner and his Deputies may be required to sit in the office throughout the day for six days a week. They may also have to deal with the public, who may have to seek the services of or the statutory approvals/licenses of the Municipal Corporation for various activities. While tourists who visit a place of interest may stay at the most, in a building for not more than two to three hours, the employees of a Government office may be required to stay for about seven hours at the minimum,every day. The maintenance and the cleanliness of any Government building, especially in a country like ours, leaves much to be desired. Moreover, a huge amount of money has been invested in the renovation of the structure and hence, the Corporation should be able to get some income which will match at least the cost of maintenance and the cost of servicing the loan/investment cost. 22. Therefore, we are of the considered view that while permitting the Municipal Corporation to locate the offices of the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor in the Town Hall, the Municipal Corporation, in consultation with the Government, should come up with innovative ideas to put the Town Hall to best use (i) from the point of view of preserving the heritage, and (ii) so as to derive income from such activities which will showcase the beauty of the hill station and the culture and traditional arts of the people of the State. 23. 23. Therefore, this public interest writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The State Government may hand over the property in question to the Municipal Corporation; (ii) The Municipal Corporation may be permitted to have the offices of the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor in the Town Hall. The offices of the Commissioner or his Deputies need not be located in the Town Hall. (iii) The Municipal Corporation, in consultation with the State Government may put to use the rest of the area, for housing a high-end Caf with reading facilities, Information Centre and Boutique of traditional crafts and arts, attracting tourists, with an entry fee that will provide a handsome revenue to the Corporation to service the loan. 24. While passing the aforesaid order, we have kept in mind two more aspects, namely (a) that this public interest litigation has its genesis in a private litigation about haphazard parking of vehicles in a particular area in the Shimla Town, but in the course of hearing, this Court kept on enlarging its scope; and (b) that the building in question is owned by the Municipal Corporation of Shimla and hence, beyond issuing a direction to the Corporation to protect the heritage value of the structure, this Court cannot issue directions that will infringe upon the property rights of the statutory body. Insofar as the original writ petition relating to haphazard parking of vehicles is concerned, series of interim orders have taken care of the interest of the petitioners, they shall hold good. JUDGMENT : V. Ramasubramanian, J. Aggrieved by the haphazard parking of vehicles on both sides of the road on the motorable ambulance road from Sanjauli Bazar up to Tibetan Colony (Dhingu Dhar), a group of residents of Dhingu Dhar road, Sanjauli came up with a writ petition in CWP No. 1675 of 2016. The reliefs sought in the said writ petition, as it was originally filed, were as follows: "(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed by way of writ of mandamus to immediately take steps to prevent haphazard parking on the both sides of the road and remove and take action against the wrongdoers, who park their vehicles on both sides of the road thus causing obstruction and inconvenience in free flow of traffic on the Motorable ambulance road from Sanjauli Bazar till Tibetan Colony (Dhingu Dhar), Shimla. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to immediately clear and relaying the Motorable ambulance road from Sanjauli Bazar till Tibetan Colony (Dhingu Dhar), Shimla. (iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to adopt a proper procedure for laying down pipes, telecommunications wires, etc. so that no inconvenience is caused to the public at large. (iv) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly also be issued/passed, in the interest of justice and fair play." 2. Since the petitioners who came up with CWP No. 1675 of 2016 were residents of the said locality, the writ petition filed by them was for the redressal of the grievances of the said locality and was not in the nature of a public interest litigation. 3. On 29.06.2016, this Court ordered notice in the said writ petition and also passed an order directing the respondents not to allow illegal parking on the road which was the subject matter of the litigation. 4. But when the said writ petition came up for hearing on the next date, namely 24.08.2016, a sudden twist took place and this Court directed the writ petition to be treated as a Public Interest Litigation. The order passed on 24.08.2016 reads as follows: "Keeping in view the fact that the grievance projected through the instant petition involves larger public interest, we deem it proper to treat the instant petition as public interest litigation. Ordered accordingly. The Registry is directed to diarize the writ petition as such. Ms. Seema K. Guleria, Advocate, is appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court. Respondents No. 1 to 4 have already filed the reply. They are also directed to file status report within two weeks about the steps having been taken for managing the movement/parking of vehicles in and around Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Shimla. Reply/status report by respondents No. 5 to 8 be filed within two weeks." 5. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the writ petition was re-numbered as the present CWPIL No. 19 of 2016. 6. Even after conversion of the ordinary writ petition into a public interest litigation, the issue sought to be addressed by the Court remained the same, as could be seen from the order passed on 15.09.2016. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the writ petition was re-numbered as the present CWPIL No. 19 of 2016. 6. Even after conversion of the ordinary writ petition into a public interest litigation, the issue sought to be addressed by the Court remained the same, as could be seen from the order passed on 15.09.2016. Primarily, the order passed on 15.09.2016 focused on the restriction of the entry of vehicles in two areas, namely Sanjauli and Kasumpati. But slowly over the next couple of hearings, the scope of the public interest litigation got enlarged to the larger question of pedestrian and vehicular traffic at different places in the city. As a consequence, more parties including the Himachal Road Transport Corporation came to be impleaded as respondents in the writ petition. 7. On 23.03.2017, when the public interest litigation came up for further orders, the Municipal Commissioner, Shimla, through a status report, placed on record, the details of road side car parking provided by the Municipal Corporation in and around Shimla. At that time, the learned counsel who was appointed by this Court as Amicus Curiae (incidentally, the counsel for the petitioner in CWP No. 1675 of 2016 was the one who was appointed as the Amicus Curiae after the personal interest litigation was converted into a public interest litigation) brought to the notice of the Court that the Municipal Corporation was spending huge amounts of money under ADB/World Bank Projects, for the upliftment and beautification of Shimla. Therefore, the attention of the Court got diverted to a Parking Complex under construction. Therefore, the Project Proponent of the Parking Complex got impleaded as one of the respondents to the public interest litigation. 8. Then the case took a turn on 13.12.2017, when the Court noticed certain communications exchanged between the Asian Development Bank and the Department of Tourism and Civil Aviation. In some of those communications, it was found that a building known as Town Hall, located on the Mall Road and belonging to the Municipal Corporation was proposed to be renovated and that plans for the same had been approved from the Municipal Corporation as well as the Heritage Committee. It is relevant to note that Town Hall used as the office of the Municipal Corporation, was originally designed as "New Library and Offices" by a Scottish Architect by name Mr. James Ransome. It is relevant to note that Town Hall used as the office of the Municipal Corporation, was originally designed as "New Library and Offices" by a Scottish Architect by name Mr. James Ransome. It appears that the original building, designed as a library was constructed in 1908, but after a few decades, the offices of the Municipal Corporation came to be located in the said building. Treating the said building as "priceless architectural marvel", the Asian Development Bank funded the restoration of the building. 9. Therefore, this Court passed an order on 13.12.2017 suggesting that a decision must be taken with regard to the proper use of the building after its restoration. The relevant portion of the order passed by this Court on 13.12.2017 may be usefully extracted as follows: "6. It is a matter of record that for the last two years, work of preservation and restoration of the building is in progress. More than Rs.8.00 crore stand invested by the ADB for such purpose. 7. Article 51-A (Part-IVA) of the Constitution of India mandates that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture. 8. In fact, with respect to another building in the town, i.e. Vice Regal Lodge, having great historical importance and significance, apart from being an architectural wonder, when an attempt was made to convert the same into a hotel, Hon'ble the Apex Court intervened and directed the said property to be protected and preserved, so that cultural and historical heritage of India and beauty and grandeur of the monuments is preserved. Further, in the very same report [Rajeev Mankotia v. Secretary to the President of India & others, (1997) 10 SCC 441 ], the Court observed that "Similar places of interest, though of recent origin, need to be preserved and maintained as manifestation of our cultural heritage or historical evidence. Similar efforts should also be made by the Government of India, in particular the Tourism Department, to attract foreign tourist and to give them good account of our past and glory of the people of India as message to other countries and territories". 9. The need to protect and preserve such buildings stands reiterated by the Apex Court also in K. Guruprasad Rao v. State of Karnataka & others, (2013) 8 SCC 418 . 10. 9. The need to protect and preserve such buildings stands reiterated by the Apex Court also in K. Guruprasad Rao v. State of Karnataka & others, (2013) 8 SCC 418 . 10. Undoubtedly, the building, which is commonly known as the "Town Hall", undoubtedly, is an important and significant landmark of the town. Intrinsically, it is part of its heritage. 11. It is in this backdrop, we are of the considered view that a decision must be taken with regard to proper use of the building after its restoration. Perhaps it can be used for housing a Library and other public conveniences, rather than leaving it at the mercy of the "Babus", for nailing the restored wooden panels and work of art, only for the purposes of hanging the annual calendars or pasting the same all over the walls." 10. A direction was also issued by this Court on 13.12.2017 to the Chief Secretary to the Government to file his personal affidavit on the next date of hearing with regard to the proposed usage of the Town Hall building. 11. Thus, what started off as an ordinary litigation relating to haphazard parking, slowly got sidetracked into an issue relating to management of traffic in Shimla and later assumed the role of a public interest litigation with the proposed use of the Town Hall, becoming the focus of the litigation. 12. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on 13.12.2017, affidavits were filed on behalf of the respondents. Thereafter, the learned Advocate General appearing for the State, made a statement before this Court on the next date of hearing, namely 11.01.2018 that the possession of the Town Hall building will not be handed over to the Municipal Corporation without the leave of the Court. The Court was also informed by the Director (Tourism) that for the improvement of the Shimla Town, more than Rs. 650 Crores stood sanctioned as Grant by the Asian Development Bank. 13. On 13.11.2018, this Court directed the learned Advocate General and the learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation to submit a conceptual plan of the Town Hall building alongwith details of the area of each room. The respondents were also directed to place on record the proposal as to how the State Government, in consultation with the Municipal Corporation intended to utilize the said premises. The respondents were also directed to place on record the proposal as to how the State Government, in consultation with the Municipal Corporation intended to utilize the said premises. Pursuant to the said order, the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation filed an affidavit. 14. After perusing the same, this Court passed an order on 03.01.2019. This order reads as follows: "Though the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation has filed the compliance affidavit in terms of our previous order dated 13th December, 2018, but we are not convinced with the idea that some of the senior functionaries would sit in the Town Hall Building, whereas the other officials will be housed in other adjoining areas. This is totally an impractical approach to the efficient functioning of the Corporation. On the other hand, it is suggested that the State Museum, which is housed in a big building with lawn and parking place, can be shifted to the Town Hall building, with a Modern Visitors Gallery to showcase the State of Himachal Pradesh in its entirety with single entry and exit to the building. For such purpose, the final decision will have to be taken by the State Government, for which, learned Advocate General assures the Court to take up the matter at the highest level." 15. Eventually, a conceptual plan was filed by the Municipal Corporation. On the conceptual plan filed by the Municipal Corporation and on their proposals for the better utilization of the building known as "Town Hall", we heard the learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned Advocate General, and Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation. 16. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation pleaded that though the building is owned by the Municipal Corporation, they are not able to take possession of the building and put it to appropriate use, on account of a previous order passed by this Court recording the undertaking on the part of the learned Advocate General not to hand over possession. It is argued by the learned Senior Counsel that after having spent a huge amount of money, if the Corporation is not allowed to put up the building to optimum use, the Municipal Corporation will suffer irreparable loss and hardship. 17. We have carefully considered the submissions as well as the conceptual plan and the affidavit. 18. It is argued by the learned Senior Counsel that after having spent a huge amount of money, if the Corporation is not allowed to put up the building to optimum use, the Municipal Corporation will suffer irreparable loss and hardship. 17. We have carefully considered the submissions as well as the conceptual plan and the affidavit. 18. In the conceptual plan filed by the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation alongwith his affidavit, it is stated (i) that pursuant to a decision taken in a meeting held between the Additional Chief Secretary (Tourism) and Principal Secretary (Urban Development), an Expert in the field of Urban Planning, by name Professor K.T. Ravindran, was consulted. (ii) that the said Professor K.T. Ravindran inspected the Town Hall on 27.12.2018 and made various suggestions; and (iii) that on an earlier occasion, this Court had directed the respondents to explore the possibility of shifting the State Museum from its existing location at Chaura Maidan to Town Hall, but the same was not found feasible, as the building in which State Museum is located at present is of an area of about 3304 sq. mtrs. with parking area to the extent of 575 sq. mtrs. and open area/lawn measuring 1320 sq. mtrs., while the area of the Town Hall building is only about 1338 sq. mtrs. 19. It is further stated in the conceptual plan that a meeting was convened under the chairmanship of the Chief Minister on 06.03.2019. It was decided in the said meeting that the attic floor and ground floor should be put to such use that they attract tourists and the public. It was also decided therein that the Municipal Corporation should be able to use the middle floor. 20. After narrating the sequence of events, the conceptual plan contains a proposal, which reads as follows: "4. Proposal: In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is quite evident that the Town Halls across the globe are being predominantly used by the City Councils and moreover this will help in maintaining the Heritage legacy and its traditional use for over the period of more than hundred years. The Proposal of Municipal Corporation, Shimla regarding its usage of one of the floors housing the office of Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Commissioner and other allied offices have been also endorsed by renowned expert engaged in the field of Architecture and Urban Planning. The Proposal of Municipal Corporation, Shimla regarding its usage of one of the floors housing the office of Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Commissioner and other allied offices have been also endorsed by renowned expert engaged in the field of Architecture and Urban Planning. Needless to mention that the Hon'ble Chief Minister has also endorsed the proposal of Municipal Corporation, Shimla in the meeting held on 6.3.2019. Further, it is submitted that the best concept of usage of this building will be around mixed use i.e. office floor and commercial use largely in terms of the public centric activities. The final decision to run the public oriented activities like High-End Caf with reading facilities, Information Centre, Children related facilities and Boutique of Traditional Crafts etc be taken forward by exploring the feasibility as also the commercial interest including viability of proposed ventures by the Municipal Corporation in consultation with the State Government. It is further emphasized that being the owner and possession holder of the property it is the exclusive right of Municipal Corporation to make the best use of it given the sanctity of the constitutional body and historical value attached to the Corporation. Therefore, it is concluded that the property in question shall be handed over to Municipal Corporation, Shimla for making its best use, in public interest." 21. While the proposal contained in the conceptual plan is broadly acceptable, there is only one aspect which may be a matter of concern. While there can be no objection to the location of the offices of the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor in the Town Hall, the location of the offices of the Commissioner and other allied officers will certainly convert the heritage building into a full-fledged Government office. While the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor may not be required to sit throughout the day in the office, the Commissioner and his Deputies may be required to sit in the office throughout the day for six days a week. They may also have to deal with the public, who may have to seek the services of or the statutory approvals/licenses of the Municipal Corporation for various activities. While tourists who visit a place of interest may stay at the most, in a building for not more than two to three hours, the employees of a Government office may be required to stay for about seven hours at the minimum,every day. While tourists who visit a place of interest may stay at the most, in a building for not more than two to three hours, the employees of a Government office may be required to stay for about seven hours at the minimum,every day. The maintenance and the cleanliness of any Government building, especially in a country like ours, leaves much to be desired. Moreover, a huge amount of money has been invested in the renovation of the structure and hence, the Corporation should be able to get some income which will match at least the cost of maintenance and the cost of servicing the loan/investment cost. 22. Therefore, we are of the considered view that while permitting the Municipal Corporation to locate the offices of the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor in the Town Hall, the Municipal Corporation, in consultation with the Government, should come up with innovative ideas to put the Town Hall to best use (i) from the point of view of preserving the heritage, and (ii) so as to derive income from such activities which will showcase the beauty of the hill station and the culture and traditional arts of the people of the State. 23. Therefore, this public interest writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The State Government may hand over the property in question to the Municipal Corporation; (ii) The Municipal Corporation may be permitted to have the offices of the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor in the Town Hall. The offices of the Commissioner or his Deputies need not be located in the Town Hall. (iii) The Municipal Corporation, in consultation with the State Government may put to use the rest of the area, for housing a high-end Caf with reading facilities, Information Centre and Boutique of traditional crafts and arts, attracting tourists, with an entry fee that will provide a handsome revenue to the Corporation to service the loan. 24. (iii) The Municipal Corporation, in consultation with the State Government may put to use the rest of the area, for housing a high-end Caf with reading facilities, Information Centre and Boutique of traditional crafts and arts, attracting tourists, with an entry fee that will provide a handsome revenue to the Corporation to service the loan. 24. While passing the aforesaid order, we have kept in mind two more aspects, namely (a) that this public interest litigation has its genesis in a private litigation about haphazard parking of vehicles in a particular area in the Shimla Town, but in the course of hearing, this Court kept on enlarging its scope; and (b) that the building in question is owned by the Municipal Corporation of Shimla and hence, beyond issuing a direction to the Corporation to protect the heritage value of the structure, this Court cannot issue directions that will infringe upon the property rights of the statutory body. Insofar as the original writ petition relating to haphazard parking of vehicles is concerned, series of interim orders have taken care of the interest of the petitioners, they shall hold good.