E-Paper
HC stays food court operations at Shimla’s heritage Town Hall
“Irreparable loss and injury shall be caused to the heritage property and in turn to the public at large in case respondents are permitted to continue to run the food court there,” the bench said
The Himachal Pradesh high court has stayed running of a food court in the capital’s heritage Town Hall building, observing that such operations will cause “irreparable loss” to the 1860-built heritage building.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice M S Ramachandra Rao and Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua while disposing of a public interest litigation ordered the food court operator, Devyani International Company, to stop operations till the next hearing scheduled for March 14.
“Irreparable loss and injury shall be caused to the heritage property and in turn to the public at large in case respondents are permitted to continue to run the food court there,” the bench said.
The court ordered the municipal commissioner (MC) to ensure immediate compliance of the order, saying that after hearing the case continuously for two days, many important questions arose, but none of the official respondents, be it the state government, the MC or the HP Infrastructure Development Bank answered them.
The court also ordered the State Heritage Advisory Committee, through the advocate general’s office, to look into all aspects of the matter and submit a report by the next hearing.
The PIL had alleged that the food court is being run in the Town Hall building, a notified heritage structure with immense historic significance built in 1860 and renovated in 1910-11 and 2014-18, in violation of the high court’s earlier orders. The bench noted that the HC had in its judgement dated September 6, 2019, permitted only the offices of mayor and deputy mayor to function from the Town Hall. The remaining area was permitted to be used as a high-end cafe with an information centre and boutique showcasing traditional art and craft so that some revenue is generated for the corporation.
The bench said that the SMC complied with the directions, be it mandatory or non-obligatory in nature, and decided to set up a cafe in the ground floor of the Town Hall but the tender notice, the request for proposal (RFP) document and concession agreement make it loud and clear that none of these documents even remotely suggests about setting up a food court in the building.
The court pointed out that the mode and manner of setting up a high-end cafe was described in the RFP document as well as in the concession agreement and it was to be set up without making any structural changes in the heritage building and even the location of the kitchen was planned. But the food court consisting of multiple brands with their separate compartments and separate kitchenettes set up in the ground floor of the Town Hall nowhere fits in those plans, it said.
