REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2225 OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2708 of 2010)

The Secretary & Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall …Appellant

Versus

Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity And Ors. …Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the  

judgment  and  order  of  the  High  Court  of  Calcutta  dated  

21.8.2009 by which the application filed by the appellant  

for modification of order dated 28.9.2007 passed in Writ  

Petition No.7987(W) of 2002, stood rejected.

3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal  

are as under:  

A  foundation  stone  of  Victoria  Memorial  Hall  

(hereinafter called ‘VMH’) was laid by the king George the  

Vth  (the then Prince of Wales) on January 4, 1906. Between  

years 1908 and  1921 various objects of arts, manuscripts,

medals, arms and armours were collected and preserved for  

being transferred and displayed at VMH  upon construction  

and  on  December  28,  1921  its  construction  was  mostly  

completed.  It  was  inaugurated  by  the  Edward,  the  VIIIth  

(the  then  Prince  of  Wales)  and  was  opened  for  public  

viewing.  Afterwards,  the  Museum  attained  the  status  of  

National Museum of modern Indian history starting from 18th  

century.    In  the  year  1925,  illustrated  catalogue  of  

exhibits in VMH was published.  Between years 1934 and 1935  

cupolas were added to the main monument.  The memorial is  

the repository of a largest number of Daniells’ paintings  

in the world. It possesses the third largest painting in  

the world-Vassili Verestchagin’s “The State Procession of  

the Prince of Wales into Jaipur in 1876”. The memorial’s  

philatelic collection on Indian postal history is equally  

large. Among other important collections, one may refer to  

Mughal  emperor  Aurangzeb’s  hand-written  Quran  or  Dara  

Sikoh’s  translation  of  the  Upanishads.  Equally  important  

and  fascinating  are  the  works  of  Johann  Zoffany,  Tilly  

Kettle,  Hodges,  Samuel  Davis,  Robert  Home,  Reynolds,  

Charles  D’oyly,  Emily  Eden,  George  Stubbs’  painting  of  

Hastings,  and  Qazar,  painting  of  Fatah  Ali  Shah,  Tipu  

Sultan’s personal war-diary, and the Cannon-balls of the  

battle of Plassey.

2

Other  than  the  Curzonian  scheme  of  collection  and  

arrangement  of  the  exhibits,  the  post-independence  

collections include National Leaders’ Gallery as well as  

collections  of  other  artifacts-Bankim  Chandra’s  writing  

desk, Mahatma Gandhi’s ashes, paintings of Abanindranath,  

Atul  Bose  and  Jamini  Roy,  etc.  A  total  of  about  27,000  

artifacts (e.g. painting, watercolours, stamps, coins, arms  

and armour) exists in the VMH.  

VMH monument has a covered area of 1.7632 acres and is  

situated in a portion of a large campus having an area of  

about  57  acres.   There  have  all  along  been  within  the  

Campus annexe buildings having total covered area of around  

5000 Sq. meters.  These annexe buildings were built for  

being used as non family duty quarters, garage for tractors  

and  cars,  stores  of  garden  equipment,  dormitory,  staff  

canteen,  recreation  room,  union  room  and  a  block  of  

toilets.  The old annexe buildings have become dilapidated  

through passage of time.   

In December, 2000, the Government of India advised VMH  

to take steps for modernisation of VMH with the help of  

National Institute of Design.  

VMH is administered and managed by an autonomous Board  

of Trustees constituted under Victoria Memorial Act, 1903  

(hereinafter called ‘Act’). The Chairman of the Board of  

3

Trustees is the Governor of the State of West Bengal. Other  

members  include  the  Chief  Justice,  Kolkata  High  Court,  

Mayor, Kolkata Municipal Corporation, Principal Secretaries  

of  the  Departments  of  Culture,  Finance,  Tourism,  Higher  

Education, Accountant General of West Bengal and various  

other  prominent  citizens.  For  better  preservation  and  

maintenance  of  VMH,  National  Environmental  Engineering  

Research  Institute  (hereinafter  called  as  ‘NEERI’)  had  

given  various  suggestions  in  April  1992  but  the  same  

remained  unattended.   In  February,  2002  West  Bengal  

Pollution Control Board submitted a report on air quality  

around the VMH in which it was suggested to make a further  

study into the matter by Expert Organization like NEERI.   

4. Alleging  mismanagement,  misuse  and  various  types  of  

abuses of the historic museum and contending that the very  

existence of VMH was at stake, Writ Petition No.7987(W) of  

2002  was  filed  as  a  Public  Interest  Litigation  by  the  

Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity, Respondent No. 1, which  

sought large number of reliefs, particularly, directing the  

respondents therein to preserve, protect and maintain the  

historical  monument,  to  review  present  status  and  

applicability of recommendations made by NEERI in April,  

1992  for   protection  of  the  museum  and  to  start  action  

thereon forthwith, to stop leaking of rain water  through  

4

the  rooftop,  to  repair  the  structure  of  the  museum,  to  

prepare a complete inventory/catalogue of all the objects  

of  the  museum  based  on  record,  to  remove  all  sorts  of  

office accommodations and other occupancies not related to  

preservation and maintenance of the museum from inside the  

museum, to make arrangements for more and more display of  

all objects of the museum to  visitors through rotational  

process, to make complete census and numbering of trees and  

to prevent falling thereof, to arrange for the supply of  

potable water, to arrange the vehicular traffic in a manner  

not creating any kind of pollution and to take measures to  

prevent any kind of air pollution etc. etc.   The High  

Court  dealt  with  all  the  issues  one  by  one  and  passed  

interim orders from time to time.

5. At the time of initial hearing of the Writ Petition,  

the  High  Court,  vide  its  order  dated  27.11.2003,  

constituted  an  Expert  Committee  for  improving  the  

environment of VMH, the appellant herein.  It consisted of  

14 Members viz. Member of Heritage, Conservation Committee,  

Kolkata;  Managing  Director,  Ghosh  Bose  &  Associates  (P)  

Ltd.,  Kolkata;  Scientist  &  Head,  National  Environmental  

Engineering  Research  Institute,  Kolkata  Zonal  Laboratory;  

Suptd.Archeologist, Archeological Survey of India, Kolkata  

5

Zonal Office; Addl. Commissioner of Police, Kolkata;  Chief  

Environmental Officer, Department of Environment, Govt. of  

West  Bengal;   Secretary  and  Curator,  Victoria  Memorial  

Hall;  Exe. Engineer, Calcutta Central Division, Central  

Public Works Department (Civil Wing), Govt. of India; Chief  

Traffic and Transportation Engineer, Govt. of West Bengal;  

Senior  Environmental  Engineer  &  Incharge,  Eastern  Zonal  

Office,  Central  Pollution  Control  Board;  Exe.  Engineer,  

Presidency Circle 1, Public Works Department, Govt. of West  

Bengal; Deputy Chief Municipal Architect and Town Planner,  

Kolkata  Municipal  Corporation;  Senior  Environmental  

Engineer, West Bengal Pollution Control Board; and Member  

Secretary, West Bengal Pollution Control Board.

6. The  Expert  Committee  made  various  recommendations  

including that the appellant should enhance its existing  

facilities so as to make it an eminent centre for art and  

culture  of  international  standard  and  to  find  out  

possibility of erection of a new building within the same  

campus to provide facilities for that purpose.  

7. The  Board  of  Trustees  explored  the  means  for  

implementation of the suggestions of the Expert Committee  

and held various meetings.  After considering the views of  

6

the  Expert  Committee,  the  Board  of  Trustees  after  due  

deliberation accepted the proposal for construction of an  

annexe building replacing the existing cluster of annexe  

buildings which had become dilapidated. For this purpose, a  

Memorandum of Understanding with the approval of Government  

of India, Ministry of Culture in consultation with Ministry  

of  Law,  was  signed  with  the  Calcutta  Tercentenary  Trust  

(for short, “CTT’), a trust registered in London.  Under  

the  said  Memorandum  of  Understanding,  CTT  is  to  provide  

Rs.48 crores and only the cost of the area to be occupied  

by the administrative office of VMH is to be borne by the  

VMH.  

8. However, the matter was decided finally vide judgment  

and order dated 28th September, 2007, dealing mainly with  

the following issues:

A. Removal of the hawkers from the vicinity of the  

Hall.

B. Modernisation of the Gallery.

C. Environmental Management Plan.

D. Parking of vehicles, traffic signals and stopping  

goods vehicle.

E. Burning of dry leaves in the VMH  Area.

7

F. Shifting of Administrative Office.

G. Further construction within the VMH Area.

9. So far as issue at point (G) is concerned, the Court  

rejected the recommendations made by the Expert Committee,  

refusing the permission to raise the construction in the  

VMH Campus.

10. The appellant moved an application to modify the order  

dated  28.09.2007  only  to  the  extent  that  it  may  be  

permitted to raise the construction upto the height of 30  

ft.  in  an  area  where  it   already  had  cluster  of  

constructions,  which  is  being  used  as  a  non-residential  

staff  quarters  on  various  grounds,  inter-alia,  that  the  

appellant  made  a  serious  attempt  to  acquire  the  

land/building for having the museum and recreation centre  

in the close vicinity of the monument. The appellant also  

deposited  Rupees  one  crore  with  Kolkata  Municipal  

Corporation  (hereinafter  called  as  ‘Corporation’)  to  

acquire  the  constructed  area,  but  it  could  not  get  any  

space.  The amount was refunded by the Corporation for the  

reason that the construction raised by the Corporation was  

for residential purpose.  

8

11. The High Court considered the matter at length, took  

into  account  various  issues  relating  to  maintaining  

ecological  balance,  environment,  problems  relating  to  

vehicular  traffic  etc.,  but  ultimately  rejected  the  

application  for  modification,  so  far  as  permitting  the  

construction  of  building  after  demolition  of  non-

residential  staff  quarters  was  concerned.   Hence,  this  

appeal.  

12. Shri Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel appearing  

for  the  appellant,  submitted  that  in  all  big  museums  

throughout  the  world,  administrative  offices  including  

Curators’ and Director’s offices are situated in the same  

campus.  The appellant tried its best to get an alternative  

accommodation nearby but could not succeed in spite of its  

best efforts.  The Act does not restrain the appellant to  

use  the  campus  for  the  purpose  other  than  activities  

connected with the memories of Queen Victoria.  More so,  

the Expert Committee appointed by the High Court itself had  

made the recommendation for having such a building.  The  

High  Court  rejected  the  application  without  taking  into  

consideration the submissions raised by the appellant. The  

High Court did not record any reason for not granting the  

9

permission for construction.  Thus, the appeal deserves to  

be allowed.   

13. On the other hand, Shri Subhas Datta, Respondent No.2  

and  General  Secretary  of  Respondent  No.  1,  appearing  in  

person, has vehemently opposed the appeal contending that  

permitting any construction in the said campus would cause  

serious  prejudice  to  the  monument.  New  building,  if  

permitted  to  be  raised,  would  adversely  affect  the  

protection and preservation of the monument.  Hence, the  

appeal is liable to be dismissed.   

14. We have considered the rival submissions canvassed on  

behalf of the parties and perused the record.     

15. The  appellant  submitted  before  the  High  Court  that  

modification of the order was necessary and the appellant  

be permitted to raise the construction upto the height of  

30  ft.  at  the  same  place  where  it  has  cluster  of  

constructions  which  is  being  used  as  a  non-residential  

staff quarters.  The necessity had arisen for the reason  

that  VMH  is  basically  a  museum  and  the  process  of  

‘acquisition  of  various  costly’  objects  of  art  or  old  

documents, manuscript etc. had been initiated even prior to  

10

the  actual  construction  of  the   VMH.  Its  recognized  

activities conform to the definition of a museum as given  

in Section 1 of Article 3 of the Statute of International  

Council of Museum, according to which, a Museum is a non-

profit permanent institution in the service of society and  

its  development,  open  to  the  public  which  acquires,  

conserves,  researches,  communicates  and  exhibits  the  

tangible  and  intangible  heritage  of  humanity  and  its  

environment  for  the  purpose  of  education,  study  and  

enjoyment.  The appellant claimed that it is institutional  

member  of  International  Council  of  Museums  and  had  been  

paying subscription to the Indian branch of International  

Council of Museums; that approx. 29,000 items of objects of  

arts are stored within the VMH building and some of those  

were  lying  idle  and  not  displayed  to  the  public  due  to  

dearth of space.  It was contended that the height of the  

monument  is  56.0832  meters  and,  therefore,  the  

construction,  if  permitted,  to  be  raised  would,  by  no  

means, adversely affect the grand view of the monument and  

it would not hamper any activity of the monument.   

16. Thus, the High Court had to determine mainly that if  

such a construction is permitted, whether it would, by any  

11

means,  hamper  the  preservation  or  protection  of  the  

monument?   

17. The High Court dealt with all other issues regarding  

pollution hazards etc. and took note of the fact that large  

number of art crafts have been collected for a long-long  

time and it included art crafts not connected with Queen  

Victoria.  The Act governing the VMH did not contain any  

provision permitting or restraining the use of any part of  

VMH  compound  for  the  purpose,  other  than  connected  with  

Queen Victoria. The Act contained the provisions that the  

Trustees  may  with  previous  approval  of  the  Central  

Government, by Notification in the Official Gazette, make  

Regulations  not  inconsistent  with  the  Act  and  the  Rules  

made  thereon,  for  enabling  the  body  to  discharge  its  

functions  under  the  Act.  The  Rules  must  be  enacted  

substantially for erection, maintenance and management of  

memorial and care and custody of the objects. The trustees  

have a right to acquire a new property for the purpose of  

better management of the memorial. The High Court came to  

the  conclusion  that  the  Act  “permits  the  trustees  to  

acquire  new  property  movable  or  immovable  under  the  

control and supervision of the Central Government and thus  

there is no bar in running its activities from different  

12

premises”. Therefore, even for the purpose of carrying out  

the activities in relation to the monument, the trustees  

may  acquire  movable  or  immovable  property  outside  the  

premises of said monument.  The Court observed that the  

structure  was  unique  in  nature  and  it  is  one  of  the  

wonderful objects in the world and its beauty and value  

should  not  be  marred  in  any  way  for  the  purpose  of  

construction of auditorium, café, sitting area for guests,  

rest rooms etc. and any new construction within the campus  

would  be  detrimental  to  the  present  structure  situated  

thereon.  The Court emphasised that the appellant should  

acquire property, movable or immovable outside the monument  

as has been done in Salar-Jung-Museum, Hyderabad and other  

places.  

18. In  fact,  the  High  Court  arrived  at  the  conclusion,  

that  if  construction  is  permitted  it  would  not  only  

adversely affect the ambience of the monument but would be  

detrimental  to  the  present  structure.  However,  such  a  

conclusion has been reached without giving any plausible  

reason whatsoever.       

19. The Expert Committee was appointed by the High Court  

itself  vide  order  dated  27.11.2003.   It  consisted  of  

13

experts  of  various  subjects,  rendering  services  in  

different fields.   Therefore, it is unfortunate that the  

High Court not only brushed aside its report, so far as the  

instant issue is concerned, rather labelled it as a “so-

called  Expert  Committee”.  The  High  Court  failed  to  

appreciate that the application was filed by the appellant  

as it was not possible for VMH to get appropriate space  

nearby  the  monument  in  Kolkata.   More  so,  neither  the  

Pollution Control Board, nor Kolkata Municipal Corporation,  

nor  the  Suptd.  Archeologist  of  Archeological  Survey  of  

India of Kolkata Circle, raised any objection in respect of  

the  construction  of  a  new  building.   The  building  was  

proposed to be constructed by replacing the old existing  

constructions at a distance of at least 160 mtrs. from the  

monument.   The  Court  failed  to  consider  that  museum  

activities were to be expanded by the appellant therein,  

which  would  not  adversely  affect  the  monument  at  all,  

particularly when there is no prohibition under the Act to  

carry out such activities.   

20. The High Court failed to appreciate that the proposed  

building would be designed with great care, ensuring that  

the new construction would not, by any means, disturb the  

existing  landscape  and  would  be  in  consonance  with  the  

14

existing ambience and compatible with the architecture and  

façade  of  the  existing  monument.   The  height  of  the  

proposed building would not be more than 10 mtrs. while the  

height of the monument is more than 50 mtrs.  Thus, it  

would not prevent the view of the monument by any means.  

The  High  Court  was  not  justified  to  impose  a  total  

prohibition of construction of the Annexe in place of the  

existing cluster of buildings, which are in a dilapidated  

condition.  The High Court ought to have given reasons for  

not accepting the report of the Expert Committee.   

21. The High Court vide order dated 28.9.2007 directed to  

shift  the  administrative  office  outside  the  monument  on  

wrong premises. The material on record suggests that all  

museums have this kind of accommodation within its campus.  

The  entire  administrative  office  including  Curators’,  

Director’s office of Salarjung Museum are located within  

the Main Museum building.  Similar is the position with the  

Indian Museum at Kolkata, National Museum, National Gallery  

of  Modern  Art  at  New  Delhi,  Chhatrapati  Shivaji  Maharaj  

Vastu  Sangrahalaya  Museum  (formerly  the  Prince  of  Wales  

Museum)  at  Mumbai,  Nehru  Memorial  Museum  &  Library  and  

National Museum in New Delhi.  Same is the position within  

internationally  renowned  museums,  namely,  British  Museum,  

15

Victoria & Albert Museum, U.K., Louvre, Paris and Museums  

in Vienna.

22. The Expert Committee had examined the issues at length  

and  submitted  its  report  before  the  High  Court,  making  

various recommendations including :-

“That setting up structure and/or facility  within  the  VMH  compound  for  commercial  amusement  and  recreational  activities  will  adversely impact the environment, will not  be  in  consonance  with  the  existing  local  ambience, and increase the visual pollution.  The Committee recommends that no structure  and/or facility should be built within the  VMH  compound  for  the  purpose  of  amusement  and recreational activities.

However, the Committee found that the  VMH  being  an  eminent  centre  of  art  and  culture focusing on the heritage of 17th-2Oth  century  India  and  Bengal,  lacks  several  modern facilities like space/facility up to  international  standard  for  visiting  exhibitions,  space/facility  for  education,  research,  lecture,  library,  meeting/reception,  and  space/facility  to  serve the public visiting the VMH.

The  Committee  suggests  that  the  VMH  should enhance its existing facility to take  a  shape  of  an  eminent  centre  of  art  and  culture  of  international  standard.  The  feasibility of building visitors’ centre and  exhibition  area  in  a  separate  building  within the VMH compound to provide the above  mentioned facilities should be explored. In  any  case,  this  should  not  disturb  the  existing  landscape,  and  should  also  be  in  consonance  with  the  existing  ambience  and  compatible with the existing architecture of  the monument.” (emphasis added)

16

23. The Court dealt with the aforesaid recommendations on  

the issue observing:

“We, however, do not approve the suggestion  of the experts appointed by this Court to  find  out  the  feasibility  of  building  any  visitor’s  centre  and  exhibition  area  in  a  separate building to be constructed within  the VMH compound.  Such an idea is contrary  to the concept of protection of historical  monuments. For  better  utilisation  of  the  space  for  modernization  of  gallery,  the  existing  Administrative  Office  may  be  removed to some other place and that space  can  be  utilised  for  the  extension  of  the  Gallery  but  in  no  circumstances  can  we  approve  the  idea  of  making  any  new  construction within the VMH compound for the  above purpose.” (Emphasis added).

24. While deciding the application for modification, vide  

impugned judgment, the High Court held as under:-

“It appears that the prayer for review has  been filed without appreciating the import  of the said order regarding  preservation of  greenery.  We find from the affidavit that  the sole object of the VMH Authority is to  make  the  said  campus  a  place  of  brisk  activities and entertainment without caring  for  the  protection  of  the  monument  itself  which was constructed pursuant to the object  of the Act.  Moreover, for the purpose of  the  preservation  of  and  display  of  the  additional  articles  which  have  been  subsequently  acquired  and  which  have  no  connection  with  the  memory  of  Queen  Victoria, we are of the view that there is  no  just  reason  for  giving  permission  to  construct  a  new  building  within  the  VMH  campus. The VMH Authority is free to extend  its  activity  in  accordance  with  law  after  

17

acquiring new property which is consistent  with the object of the Act, Rules and the  Regulation,  but  there  is  no  ground  for  restricting its extended activity within the  original VMH complex itself which would be  perilous to the existing structure.

We  have  already  pointed  out  that  the  Act itself approves requisition of further  property, either moveable or immovable, and  thus the order passed by this Court in the  past has in no way created any impediment in  the activities of the VMH in accordance with  law;  on the  other hand,  if the  prayer of  further  construction  is  allowed  for  the  purpose  of  the  activities  mentioned  hereinabove,  the  constant  efforts  of  this  Court  in  preserving  the  existing  memorial  for the last seven years by passing various  prohibitive  orders  would  be  totally  frustrated.”  (Emphasis added).  

25. In fact, the Expert Committee recommended that no part  

of  VMH  compound  should  be  permitted  to  be  used  for  any  

commercial  amusement  and  recreational  activities  as  it  

would  increase  the  visual  pollution.  But  the  Committee  

recommended for having a centre and exhibition area in a  

separate building within the VMH compound.  The High Court  

while  disposing  of  the  Writ  Petition  dis-approved  the  

recommendation  for  having  a  centre  and  exhibition  area  

within the VMH compound merely observing that such an area  

would  be  contrary  to  the  concept  of  protection  of  

historical monument. The application for modification has  

18

been  rejected  by  the  High  Court  on  the  grounds  that  it  

would  be  contrary  to  preserving  greenery;  such  a  campus  

should  not  have  the  buildings  for  brisk  activities  and  

entertainment  and  if  permission  is  granted,  it  would  

frustrate  the  effort  of  the  High  Court  to  preserve  the  

existing  memorial  for  last  seven  years  by  passing  

prohibitory orders.  

The High Court failed to appreciate that in case a  

historical monument contains such a centre, it cannot be a  

danger  for  its  protection.  More  so,  as  explained  

hereinabove,  most  of  such  museums  have  such  activities  

throughout the world. The ground of preserving the greenery  

is totally misplaced and mis-conceived for the reason that  

building is to be constructed by demolishing the servant  

quarters etc. which are in a dilapidated condition.  As the  

greenery does not exist at this place the reason given by  

the High Court is untenable. The other ground that campus  

should not be used for brisk activities is unsustainable  

because having the activities in such centre and exhibition  

area cannot be termed as ‘brisk activities’. More so, the  

High Court had never passed any interim order during the  

pendency of the Writ Petition for removal of the cluster of  

buildings  which  in  fact  is  in  dilapidated  condition.  

19

Therefore, the question of frustrating the entire effort of  

the High Court to protect the monument could not arise.  

Indisputably,  the  writ  petitioners/respondents  have  not  

been able even to allege that factual averments made in the  

application for modification were not correct. The impugned  

order  rendered  the  Memorandum  of  Understanding  of  the  

appellant with CTT for providing a sum of Rs.48 crores,  

frustrated.   

26. Thus, it is evident that the High Court did not give  

any specific/good or relevant reason for not accepting the  

recommendation made by Expert Committee at initial stage or  

while  rejecting  the  application  for  modification  vide  

impugned order.

27. The Constitution Bench of this Court in The University  

of Mysore Vs. C.D. Govinda Rao and Anr.  AIR 1965 SC 491  

held that “normally the Court should be slow to interfere  

with  the  opinions  expressed  by  the  experts.”   It  would  

normally  be  wise  and  safe  for  the  Courts  to  leave  the  

decision to experts who are more familiar with the problems  

they face than the Courts generally can be.   

20

28. This  view  has  consistently  been  reiterated  by  this  

Court  as  is  evident  from  the  Judgments  in  The  State  of  

Bihar & Anr. Vs. A.K. Mukherjee & Ors.  AIR 1975 SC 192;  

Dalpat  Abasaheb  Solunke  etc.etc.  Vs.  Dr.  B.S.  Mahajan  

etc.etc.  AIR  1990  SC  434;  Central  Areca  Nut  &  Cocoa  

Marketing  &  Processing  Co-operative  Ltd.  Vs.  State  of  

Karnataka & Ors.  (1997) 8 SCC 31; and  Dental Council of  

India Vs. Subharti K.K.B. Charitable Trust & Anr. (2001) 5  

SCC 486.

29. However,  if  the  provision  of  law  is  to  be  read  or  

understood  or  interpreted,  the  Court  has  to  play  an  

important  role.   [Read  :  P.M.  Bhargava  &  Ors.  Vs.  

University Grants Commission & Anr.  AIR 2004 SC 3478 and  

Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.) Vs. Chaudhari Devi Lal University,  

Sirsa & Anr. (2008) 9 SCC 284.

30. In  the  instant  case,  the  Expert  Committee  was  

appointed  by  the  High  Court  itself.   No  allegation  of  

malafide  or  disqualification  against  any  Member  of  that  

Committee  had  ever  been  made/raised.   Thus,  we  fail  to  

understand  as  on  what  basis,  its  recommendation  on  the  

issue involved herein, has been brushed aside by the High  

Court without giving any reason whatsoever, particularly,  

21

when the Act governing VMH does not prohibit the use of the  

part of the compound for the purpose other than connected  

with Queen Victoria.       

31. It  is  a  settled  legal  proposition  that  not  only  

administrative but also judicial order must be supported by  

reasons, recorded in it.  Thus, while deciding an issue,  

the Court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion.  It  

is the duty and obligation on the part of the Court to  

record reasons while disposing of the case.  The hallmark  

of an order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial  

forum is to disclose its reasons by itself and giving of  

reasons  has  always  been  insisted  upon  as  one  of  the  

fundamentals  of  sound  administration  justice  –  delivery  

system, to make known that there had been proper and due  

application of mind to the issue before the Court and also  

as an essential requisite of principles of natural justice.  

“The  giving  of  reasons  for  a  decision  is  an  essential  

attribute of judicial and judicious disposal of a matter  

before Courts, and which is the only indication to know  

about  the manner  and quality  of exercise  undertaken, as  

also the fact that the Court concerned had really applied  

its mind.”  [Vide  State of Orissa Vs. Dhaniram Luhar AIR  

22

2004 SC 1794; and State of Rajasthan Vs. Sohan Lal & Ors.  

(2004) 5 SCC 573].   

32. Reason  is  the  heartbeat  of  every  conclusion.   It  

introduces clarity in an order and without the same, it  

becomes  lifeless.  Reasons  substitute  subjectivity  by  

objectivity.   Absence  of  reasons  renders  the  order  

indefensible/unsustainable  particularly  when  the  order  is  

subject to further challenge before a higher forum. [Vide  

Raj Kishore Jha Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. AIR 2003 SC 4664;  

Vishnu Dev Sharma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2008)  

3  SCC  172;  Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax  

Officer, Rourkela I Circle & Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 407;  State  

of Uttaranchal & Anr. Vs. Sunil Kumar Singh Negi AIR 2008  

SC 2026; U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Jagdish Prasad Gupta AIR 2009 SC  

2328;  Ram Phal Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.  (2009) 3 SCC  

258;  Mohammed Yusuf Vs. Faij Mohammad & Ors. (2009) 3 SCC  

513;  and  State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Sada Ram & Anr.  

(2009) 4 SCC 422].      

33. Thus, it is evident that the recording of reasons is  

principle of natural justice and every judicial order must  

be supported by reasons recorded in writing.  It ensures  

transparency and fairness in decision making.  The person  

23

who is adversely affected may know, as why his application  

has been rejected.

34. Indisputably, the High Court did not assign valid and  

good reasons for rejecting the recommendation made by the  

Expert Committee for allowing the construction in question  

in its judgment and order dated 28.09.2007 nor the reasons  

have  been  recorded  in  the  impugned  judgment  dated  

21.08.2009  rejecting  the  application  for  modification  of  

the earlier order.  Thus, in view of the above, the orders,  

so  far  as  this  particular  issue  is  concerned,  remain  

unsustainable.    

35. Thus,  in  view  of  the  above,  special  facts  and  

circumstances  of  the  case  warrant  review  of  the  

impugned  order.  The  appeal  stands  allowed.  The  

impugned  judgment  and  order  dated  21.8.2009  is  set  

aside.  Application  filed  by  the  appellant  for  

modification  of  the  order  dated  28.9.2007  stands  

allowed.   

However,  it  is  clarified  that  in  case  the  proposed  

construction is raised it would be in consonance with the  

existing ambience and compatible with the architecture of  

24

the monument. The appellant shall ensure that landscape of  

the monument would also not be disturbed by any means.  

The parties are left to bear their own costs.  

…………………………………CJI.

……………………………………J. (DEEPAK VERMA)

…………………………………..J. (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

New Delhi, March 9, 2010

25