THE SECRETARY & CURATOR, VICTORIA MEMORIAL HALLversusHOWRAH GANATANTRIK NAGRIK SAMITY AND ORS.

                        [2010] 3 S.C.R. 190


A    THE SECRETARY & CURATOR, VICTORIA MEMORIAL
                        HALL
                                  v.
      HOWRAH GANATANTRIK NAGRIK SAMITY AND ORS.
              (Civil appeal No. 2225 of 2010)
B
                          MARCH 09, 2010
    (K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJ., DEEPAK VERMA AND DR.
                   B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.]

C      Heritage - Monuments - Historic Museum - Writ petition
  filed alleging mismanagement, misuse and various types of
  abuses of the Victoria Memorial Hall (VMH) - High Court
  constituted Expert Committee for improving the environment
  of VMH - Recommendation made by Expert Committee
D regarding further construction within VMH area, rejected by
  High Court while disposing of the writ petition - Application
  for modification of the order, also rejected - On appeal, held:
  High Court did not give any specific/good or relevant reason
  for rejecting the recommendation made by the Expert
E Committee or while rejecting the application for modification
  - Special facts and circumstances of the case warrant review
  - Application for modification of the earlier order passed in
  the writ petition allowed, albeit with clarifications - Victoria
  Memorial Act, 1903 - Public Interest Litigation.
F       Administrative Law - Expert Body/Committee - Decision
    of- Scope for judicial review - Held: 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.
G
        Judgment/Order - Duty and obligation of the Court to
    record reasons while disposing of the case - To show proper
    and due application of mind to the issue before the Court -

H                                190
SECRETARY & CURATOR, VICTORIA MEMORIAL HALL v. HOWRAH 191
              GANATANTRIK NAGRIK SAMITY

Administration of Justice - Justice Delivery system -          A
Principles of natural justice

    Victoria Memorial Hall (YMH) is a historic museum
situated in Kolkata, administered and managed by an
autonomous Board of Trustees constituted under the
                                                               8
Victoria Memorial Act, 1903.

     Respondent no.1 filed writ petition in the High Court
(as a Public Interest Litigation) alleging mismanagement,
misuse and various types of abuses of the VMH. The
High Court constituted an Expert Committee for                 C
improving the environment of VMH. The Expert
Committee recommended for having a centre and
exhibition area in a separate building within the VMH
compound. The High Court rejected the recommendation
made by the Expert Committee regarding further                 D
construction within the VMH area and disposed of the
writ petition.

    Appellant thereafter filed an application for
modification of the said order passed by the High Court        E
in the writ petition, seeking permission to raise
construction upto height of 30 ft after demolition of the
existent non-residential staff quarters. The application for
modification was rejected by the High Court. Hence the
present appeal.
                                                               F
    Allowing the appeal, the Court

     HELD: 1.1. The conclusion of the High Court, that if
construction is permitted, it would not only adversely
affect the ambience of the monument but would be G
detrimental to the present structure, has been reached
without giving any plausible reason whatsoever. [Para 18]
[205-B}

    1.2. The Expert Committee was appointed by the
High Court itself. It consisted of experts of various          H
    192    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A 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
B 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
c objection in respect of the construction ~fa 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 ~ctiyities were to be expanded
  by the appellant, which would not adversely affect the
0
  monument at all, particularly when there is no prohibition
  under the Victoria Memorial Act, 1903 to carry out such
  activities. [Para 19) [205-C-F]

       1.3. The High Court failed ·to appreciate that the
E 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 existing ambience and compatible
  with the architecture and facade of the existing
F 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
G 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. [Para 20)
  [205-G-H; 206-A-B]
H
SECRETARY & CURATOR, VICTORIA MEMORIAL HALL v. HOWRAH 193
              GANATANTRIK NAGRIK SAMITY

   1.4. The High Court had directed to shift the              A
administrative office outside the monument on wrong
premises. The material on record suggests that all
museums have this kind of accommodation within its
campus. [Para 21] [206-B-C]
                                                              B'
     1.5. 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, most of such
museums have such activities throughout the world. The
ground of preserving the greenery is totally misplaced        c
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     D
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.       E
Therefore, the ground taken that the entire effort of the
High Court to protect the monument would be frustrated
was not tenable. Indisputably, the respondents have not
been able even to allege that factual avermenlscmade in
the application for modification were notcorrect. [Para       F
25] (209-C-F]

    2.1.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            G
rejecting the application for modification vide the
impugned order. [Para 26] (209-G-H]

     2.2. It would normally be wise and safe for the Courts
to leave the decision to experts who are more familiar
                                                              H
    194    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A with the problems they face than the Courts generally
  can be. [Para 27] [210-A-B]

       2.3.ln the instant case, the Expert Committee was
   appointed by the High Court itself. No aHegation of
   malafide or disqualification against any Member of that
8
   Committee had ever been made/raised. Thus, one fails 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, when the Act governing VMH does not
C prohibit the use of the part of the compound for the
  'purpose other than connected with Queen Victoria. [Para
  30] [210-E-GJ

       The University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao and Anr.
D AIR 1965 SC 491; The State of Bihar & Anr. v. A.K. Mukherjee
  & Ors. AIR 1975 SC 192; Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke etc.etc.
  v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan etc.etc. AIR 1990 SC 434; Central Areca
  Nut & Cocoa Marketing & Processing Co-operative Ltd. v.
  State of Karnataka & Ors. (1997) 8 SCC 31 and Dental
E Council of India v. Subharti K.K.B. Charitable Trust & Anr.
  (2001) 5 sec 486, relied on.

      P.M. Bhargava & Ors. v. University Grants Commission
  & Anr. AIR 2004 SC 3478 and Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.) v.
F Chaudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa & Anr. (2008) 9 SCC
  284, referred to.

       3.1. 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,
G 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
H reasons has always been insisted upon as one of the
SECRETARY & CURATOR, VICTORIA MEMORIAL HALL v. HOWRAH 195
              GANATANTR.IK NAGRIK SAMITY

fundamentals of sound administration justice - delivery         A
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. [Para 31] [210-G-H; 211-A-B]
                                                                B
     3.2. 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 reas.ons renders the order
indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is       c
subject to further challenge before a higher forum. [Para
32] (211-D-E]

     3.3. 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        D
fairness in decision making. The person who is adversely
affected may know, as why his application has been
rejected. [Para 33] [211-G-H]
     3.4. In the instant case, the High Court did not assign
                                                                E
valid and good reasons for rejecting the recommendation
made by the Expert Committee for allowing the
construction in question in its earlier order passed in the
writ petition nor reasons were recorded in the impugned
judgment rejecting the application for modification of the
said earlier order. Thus, in view of the above, the orders,     F
so far as this particular issue is concerned, remain
unsustainable. [Para 34] (212-A-B]

     3.5. The special facts and circumstances of the case
warrant review of the impugned on.: :?r passed by the High      G
Court. Application filed by the appellant for modification
of the earlier order 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 the monument. The           H
•                 ..
    196      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2Q10] 3 S.C.R.


A   appellant shall ensure that landscape of the monument
    would also not be disturbed by any means. [Para 35]
    [212-C; 212-D-E]

       State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar AIR 2004 SC 1794;
  State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal & Ors. (2004) 5 SCC 573;
B
  Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar & Ors. AIR 2003 SC 4664;
  Vishnu Dev Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2008)
  3 SCC 172; Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer,
  Rourke/a I Circle & Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 407; State of
  Uttaranchal & Anr. v. Sunil Kumar Singh Negi AIR 2008 SC
c 2026; U.P.S.R. T.C. v. Jagdish Prasad Gupta AIR 2009 SC
  2328; Ram Pha/ v. State~of Haryana & Ors. (2009) 3 SCC
  258; Mohammed Yusuf v. Faij Mohammad & Ors. (2009) 3
  SCC 513 and State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sada Ram &
  Anr. (2009) 4 sec 422, relied on.
D
                       Case Law Reference:
          AIR 1965 SC 491       relied on            Para 27
          AIR 1975 SC 192       relied on            Para 28
E         AIR 1990 SC 434       relied on            Para 28
          (1997) 8 sec 31       relied on            Para 28
          (2001 > 5 sec 486     relied on            Para 28
F         AIR 2004 SC 3478      referred to          Para 29
          (2008) 9 sec 284      referred to          Para 29
          AIR 2Q04 SC 1794      relied on            Para 31
          (2004) 5 sec 573      relied on            Para 31
G
          AIR 2003 SC 4664      relied on            Para 32
          (2008) 3 sec 112      relied on            Para 32
          (200S) 9 sec 407      relied on            Para 32
H
 SECRETARY & CU,RATOR, VICTORIA MEMORIAL HALL v. HOWRAH 197
               GANATANTRIK NAGRIK SAMITY

     AIR 2008 SC 2026         relied on            Para 32       A

     AIR 2009 SC 2328         relied on             Para 32
     (2009) 3 sec 258         relied on            Para 32
     (2009) 3 sec 513         relied on            Para 32       B
     (2009) 4 sec 422         relied on            Para 32
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
2225 of 2010.

      From the Judgment & Order dated 21.8.2009 of the High      C
..Court at Calcutta in W.P. No. 79870/1/) of 2002.

     Harish N~ Salve, Ahin Chawdhary, Sangeeta Manda!,
Jayasree Singh, Swati Sinha, Utam Manda! (for Fox Mandal &
Co,) for the Appellant.                                          D

    Subhas Datta (Respondent No. 2-in-person), Soumya
Chakraborty and Rajendra Banerjee (for D.B. Vohra) for the
Respondent.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                   E

     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
                                                                 F
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(\1\f). of 2002, stood rejected.

     3. Th~ facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal
are as under:                                                    G

     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      H
    198      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A 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 VII Ith (the then Prince of Wales) and was
  opened for public viewing. Afterwards, the Museum attained the
B status of National Museum of modem 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.
c 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 tb Mughal emperor Aurangzeb's
D 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,
E Tipu Sultan's personal war-diary, and the Cannon-balls of the
  battle of Plassey.

        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
F 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.

G         VMH monument has a covered area of 1. 7632 acres and
    is situated in a p9rtion 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 a~
    non family duty quarters, garage for tractors and cars, stores
H
SECRETARY & CURATOR, VICTORIA MEMORIAL HALL v. HOWRAH 199
    GANATANTRIK NAGRIK SAMITY [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

of garden equipment, dormitory, staff canteen, recreation room,      A
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     B
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
Trustees is the Governor of the State of West Bei;igal. Other        C
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       D
VMH, National ~nvironmental 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 whjch it was suggested to           E
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          F
existence of VMH was at stake, Writ Petition No. 7987(W) of
 2002 was filed as a Public Interest Litigation by the Howrah
 Ganafantrik 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              G
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 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         H
    200      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A 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
B 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.
c      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
D Bose & Associates (P) Ltd., Kolkata; Scientist & Head,
  National Environmental Engineering Research Institute, Kolkata
  Zonal Laboratory; Suptd. Archeologist, Archeological Survey of
  India, Kolkata Zonal Office; Addi. Commissioner of Police,
  Kolkata; Chief Environmental Officer, Department of
E 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 & lncharge,
F Eastern Zon~I Office, Central Pollution Control Board; Exe.
  Engineer, Presidency Circle 1, Public Works Department, Govt.
  of West Bengal; Deputy Chief Municipal Architect and Town
  Pfanner, Kolkata Municipal Corporation; Senior Environmental
  Engineer, West Bengal Pollution Control Board; and Member
d 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
H
SECRETARY & CURATOR, VICTORIA MEMORIAL HALL v. HOWRAH 201
    GANATANTRIK NAGRIK SAMITY [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

a new building within the same campus to provide facilities for     A
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 the       B
Expert Committee, the Board of Trustees after due deiiberation
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    C
the Calcutta Tercentenary Trust (for short, "CTT'), a trust
registered in London. Under the said Memorandum of
Understanding, CTI 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.                                          D
     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.   E
      B.    Modernisation of the Gallery.
     C.    Environmental Management Plan.
      D.   Parking of vehicles, traffic signals and stopping        F
           goods vehicle.
     E.    Burning of dry leaves in the VMH Area.
      F.   Shifting of Administrative Office.
     G.    Further construction within the VMH Area.                G

     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.                                                             H
    202     SUP~EME COURT REPORTS                 (2010) 3 S.C.R.


A       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,
B 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
c 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.

        11. The High Court considered the matter at length, took
  into account various issues relating to maintaining ecological ·
D 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.
E
        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
F 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
G 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 permission for construction. Thus, the appeal
  deserves to be allowed.
H
SECRETARY & CURATOR, VICTORIA MEMORIAL HALL v. HOWRAH 203
    GANATANTRIK NAGRIK SAMITY [DR B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

     13. On the other hand, Shri Subhas Datta, Respondent A
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 .B
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.
                                                                      c
      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        D
 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 the actual construction of the VMH. Its recognized activities
conform to the definition of a museum as given in Section 1 of        E•
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        F
 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           G,
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 0f         H
•

        204      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [201 OJ 3 S.C.R.


    A 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
        means, hamper the preservation or protection of the
    8
        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
    C   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
    D   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
    E   memorial and care and custody of the objects. The trustees
        have a right to acquire a new property for the purpose of better
        management bf 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
    F   supervision of the Central Govern.ment and thus there is no bar
        in running .its activities from different 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
    G   observed that the structure wa!) unique in nature and it is one
        oJ the wonderful objects in the world and its t:?eauty and value
        should not be marred ip any way for the purpose of cons~ruction
        of auditorium, cafe, sitting area for guests, rest rooms etc. and
        anynew construction within the campus wquld be detrimental

    H
SECRETARY &CURATOR, VICTORIA MEMORIAL HALL v. HOWRAH 205
    GANATANTRIK NAGRIK SAMITY [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

to the present structure situated thereon. The Court                  A
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    8
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              C
 Court itself vide order dated 27.11.2003. It consisted of 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        D
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           E
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         F
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         G
new construction would not, by any means, disturb the existing
landscape and would be in consonance with the existing
ambience and compatible with the architecture and fa9ade of
the existing monument. The height of the proposed building
would not be more than 10 mtrs. while the height of the               H
-
        206       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 3 S.C.R.


    A 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
    B 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
    C 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
    D 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, Victoria & Albert Museum,
      U.K., Louvre, Paris and Museums in Vienna.
    E
             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
    F         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
    G         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
    H         heritage of 17th-20th century ·tndia and Bengal, lacks
SECRETARY & CURATOR, VICTORIA MEMORIAL HALL v. HOWRAH 207
    GANATANTRIK NAGRIK SAMITY [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

    several modern facilities like space/facility up to               A
    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
                                                                      8
    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       C
    landscape, and should also be in consonance with the
    existing ambience and compatible with the existing
    architecture of the monument." (emphasis added)

     23. The Court dealt with the aforesaid recommendations           D
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         E
    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           F
    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         G·
impugned judgment, the High Court held as under:-

    "lt 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
                                                                      H
    208      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A         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
B         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
c         to extend its activity in accorqance with law after acquiring
          new property which is consistEtOt ~ith 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.
D
                 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
E         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
F         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
G 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
H
SECRETARY & CURATOR, VICTORIA MEMORIAL HALL v. HOWRAH 209
    GANATANTRIK NAGRIK SAMITY [DR. S.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

observing that such an area would be contrary to the concept          A
of protection of historical monument. The application for
modification has 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    B :
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        C
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           D'
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          E
pendency of the Writ Petition for removal of the cluster of
buildings which in fact is in dilapidated condition. 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        Fi
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
                                                                      G
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.
      210       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A
            .
          27. The Constitution Bench of this Court in The University
      of Mysore vs. G.D. Govinda Rao and Anr. AIR 1965 SC 491
  held that "normally the Court should be slow to intetiere with the
  opinions expressed by the experts." It would normally be wise
  and safe for the Courts to leave the decision to experts who
B are more familiar with the problems they face than the Courts
  generally can be.

       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
C 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.
D                         /
           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 34 78 and Rajbir Singh
i;:   Dalal (Or.) vs. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa & Anr.
      (2008) g  sec   284.

       30. In the instant case, the Expert Committee was
  appointed by the High Court itself. No allegation of malafide
F 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, when the Act governing VMH does not
  prohibit the use of the part of the compound for the purpose
G 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
H is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. It is the duty and
SECRETARY & CURATOR, VICTORIA MEMORIAL HALL v. HOWRAH 211
    GANATANTRIK NAGRIK SAMITY [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

obligation on the part of the Court to record reasons while          A
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        8
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            C
quality of exercise undertaken, as a/so the fact that the Court
concerned had really applied its mind." [Vide State of Orissa
 vs. Dhaniram Luhar AIR 2004 SC 1794; and State of
Rajasthan vs. Sohan Lal & Ors. (2004) 5 SCC 573].

      32. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It            D
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.      E
AIR 2003 SC 4664; Vishnu Dev Sharma vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Ors. (2008) 3 SCC 172; Steel Authority of India
Ltd. vs. Sa/es Tax Officer, Rourke/a 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              F
Gupta AIR 2009 SC 2328; Ram Pha/ 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        G
principle of natural justice and every judicial order rnust be
supported by reasons recorded in writing. It en&ures
transparency ~nd fairness in decision making. The person who
is adversely affected may know, as why his application has
been rejected.                                                       H
    212      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A         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
8   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
C 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.

o        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 the
    monument. The appellant shall ensure that landscape of the
    monument would also not be disturbed by any means.

E         The parties are left to bear their own costs.

    8.8.8.                                         Appeal allowed.