SC stops Tata housing project near Chandigarh

Written by Utkarsh Anand | New Delhi | Updated: Oct 8 2013, 14:04pm hrs
The Supreme Court Monday compelled the Tatas to stop work at the much-hyped Tata Camelot in Kansal near Chandigarh. The court described the housing project as an eyesore.

Well not let you lay even a brick. How and why was this eyesore allowed If the proposed constructions are found to be suffering from illegalities or other irregularities tomorrow, losses would become irreparable. We have to stop it now, a bench by Justice R M Lodha told the counsel for Tata Housing, Abhishek Manu Singhvi. And forced him to undertake to maintain status quo in all respect at the project site near the Sukhna Lake.

The bench rejected the counsels contentions that a restraining order was not needed as the project anyway would not get the wildlife clearance for at least another two months; and that it might impede the firms bid to obtain said clearance. The bench, however, told Singhvi it had to ensure the project is not hazardous to the environment. You will have to maintain status quo, it ordered. It is a very significant matter for a city. If the constructions are in the catchment area, the lake may dry up. We cannot allow this.

The bench also did not entertain Singhvis plea to send the 17 petitioners back to the Punjab and Haryana High Court or dismiss their petition on the ground of delay in moving the apex court. It is a very serious matter. Thirty six-storey buildings are coming up on 53-acres of land and it has been claimed that the land is in the catchment area of the lake. We will hear this matter. We will not dismiss it on technical grounds. Larger public interest demands that delay in filing the petition be condoned, the bench said, and sent notices to Tata Housing and state authorities, among others.

On shaky ground

TATA Camelot is a Rs 1,800-crore housing project proposed to be raised on 53.39 acres of land near the Chandigarh Capitol Complex.

The projects fate has been hanging in the balance since it was challenged in the high court in November 2010.