Court can’t intervene in government decisions: Telangana Additional advocate general on Errum Manzil

HYDERABAD: Contending that the State cabinet has decided to demolish the Errum Manzil building to construct a new legislative Assembly and council complex in its place, additional advocate general (AAG) J Ramachandra Rao on Thursday told the Telangana High Court that it was the government’s wisdom to take such a decision and the courts cannot have a judicial review of the government’s policy decisions.

The courts cannot intervene in policy matters, he said, citing various Supreme Court and high court judgments.

The AAG was making this submission before a division bench - comprising Chief Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan and Justice Shameem Akther - dealing with a batch of PILs challenging the government’s decision to demolish the Errum Manzil building, a heritage structure in Hyderabad, and to construct a new State legislative Assembly and council complex in its place.

One of the PILs was filed by Noori Muzaffar Hussain and seven others — who claimed to be legal heirs of Nawab Safdar Jung Musheer-ud-daula Fakrul Mulk, who built the Errum Manzil — seeking a direction to the State government not to demolish the “heritage structure”, and another PIL by Hyderabad Zindabad, an NGO represented by senior journalist Pasham Yadagiri, challenged the Telangana Heritage Act, 2017.

The AAG further submitted that the said decision was taken based on a report by the roads and buildings department, which said some blocks in the existing Assembly and council buildings, which is 130 years old and located on a nine-acre piece of land, and the council, located on a two-acre piece of land, were not fit for use and a lot of money had already been spent for its repair and renovation. Instead of spending more on repairs, the government opted for a new building, he said.

Not satisfied with the AAG’s submissions, the bench pointed out that the government took its decision without there being a concrete plan, facts and figures, and so on, on the issue. “How can the government take such a major decision without putting all relevant facts on the table? The government ought not to have taken such a decision without proper planning”, the bench observed.

After perusing the contents of the R&B report dated Sept 4, 2017, the bench said the existing Assembly might have gained more strength after having undergone several repairs. Even the report did not state that the building was unfit and unsafe, and there was no suggestion to the government to vacate it. In such circumstances, what was the need for a new building, the bench asked the AAG and also questioned him on how much land was required for a new Assembly building, and whether the said report was placed before the Cabinet prior to its decision to demolish the Errum Manzil building.

When there was no proper response from the AAG, the bench directed the R&B engineer-in-chief (buildings) Ganapathi Reddy to appear before it on Friday to explain the proposed building plan and the area required at Errum Manzil. The bench posted the matter to Friday for further hearing.

‘New building will reduce expenditure on repairs’

The govt opted for a new building instead of spending more money on repairs, the AAG said, adding that talks were held with three architecture firms from Mumbai, Bengaluru and Hyderabad to work out plans for the proposed new legislative complex at Errum Manzil