In a huge setback to the Telangana government, a division bench of the High Court on Monday set aside the Cabinet decision dated June 18 this year to demolish the 150-year-old Errum Manzil building and construct a new state legislative Assembly and Council complex in its place.

Although the judicial review of the policy decision was a limited one, and the court cannot substitute its decision for the government’s, the court can interfere with the decision if provisions of the law and relevant factors have been ignored in the process of taking such a decision. If provisions of law have been ignored, the court would be justified in interfering with the Cabinet decision, the bench noted by citing the Supreme Court judgment in the Brij Mohan Lal vs Union of India case, wherein it opined that “the settled principle (that the courts ordinarily should not interfere with policy decision) is not free from exceptions.”

Further, the bench held that the government has no power to repeal Regulation 13 of the HUDA Zoning Regulations, 1981, vide GO 183 dated December 7, 2015, since its inception, and declared the decision to repeal it as patently illegal.

The government had earlier claimed the subject building was not a heritage structure as per the Telangana Heritage (protection, preservation, conservation and maintenance) Act, 2017, and that it has deleted Regulation 13 for the purpose.

The bench, comprising Chief Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan and Justice Shameem Akther, was passing these orders on a batch of PILs filed separately challenging the government’s decision to demolish the Errum Manzil building, a heritage structure in the city, 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. They sought a direction to the State government not to demolish the “heritage structure”. Another PIL, by Hyderabad Zindabad, an NGO represented by senior journalist Pasham Yadagiri, challenged the Telangana Heritage Act, 2017.

The bench heard all eight PILs in detail for over a month before reserving its judgment on the issue on August 7.The court said that both Regulation 13 and the 2017 Act would co-exist peacefully as there was no contradiction between the two. While Regulation 13 was a ‘local’ law applicable to the limits of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Area, the latter was a ‘special law’ applicable to the entire State. Therefore, even the protection of a “heritage building” under Regulation 13 can coexist peacefully with those “monuments” which were declared to be “protected heritage monuments” under 2017 Act.

As per the Act, it was for the committee concerned to recommend to the government whether the Errum Manzil and other heritage buildings in Hyderabad should be included in the Schedule attached to the 2017 Act. Hence, it would not be justified for the court to direct the government in this regard, the bench said while allowing the petitions.