• “Having regard to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application and having regard to the importance of the questions that fall for consideration, we consider it appropriate to direct the respondents to take such steps as may be necessary in order to protect and prevent the further damage and encroachment of the heritage buildings, ancient monuments and ancient sites which are already identified as such by the authorities. The respondents are directed to file a detailed status report in this regard to the Court within four weeks from today”.

3. The Respondents submitted status reports and committed to restore the buildings/sites under heritage regulations within a given period.

4. The Court gave the final judgment in the W.P. no 7631 of 2002 , in which the following  substantive observations were made:

• The MCH, in its status report, inter alia said in regard to the Golconda Fort Wall that the Fort Wall which was in a dilapidated condition was cut open to provide Storm Water Drain in the interest and safety of the people living in and around the Fort. When the work was at the completion stage of the drain, the Archaeological Survey of India addressed a letter on 3.12.01 and requested not to take up any further work which may result in collapsing of  ancient Fort walls and structures. Thereafter, the work was taken up with the prior permission of the Archaeological Survey of India and under its supervision. The restoration of the wall, commenced on 6.12.01, was again stopped to take permission from HUDA, Heritage Conservation Committee as per the representation of ‘The Forum For A Better Hyderabad’ and thereafter, the work was recommenced in first week of April, 2002 under the supervision of ASI officials. The wall was finally restored as it was with the old glory on 10.5.02

• Regarding the Malwala Palace, the MCH stated in its status report that huge main wooden gate and the gate to the second courtyard were intact and existing. There were no walls and roof on the southern side court yard around the fountain and was open to sky as shown in an enclosed plan. The main structure was in a dilapidated condition.

There was no construction or demolition activity at the site.

•  It was  conceded that the  Chowmahalla Palace was a Heritage building.

• MCH represented that  the renovation of Heritage structures involved knowledge of  conservation, restoration, design and construction of materials and the Corporation was  in search of expertise consultancy and was determined to complete the work very shortly as soon as the consultant was appointed.

• In view of the matter, the Court felt that for the present no further directions as such were required to be given. The Court observed that, however, the MCH, as undertaken in its status report, shall expedite the work undertaken by them and appoint the consultant as stated in the status report itself. It was needless to observe that the renovation of Heritage structures must be undertaken by the MCH as stated in the status report itself.

• It would  be open to the petitioners herein to bring such further facts to the notice of the Court as and when such an occasion arose. It would  also be open to the petitioners to submit their viewpoint, if any, in the matter to the respondents and the same shall receive the due attention from the respondents. The petitioners were also entitled to make such suggestions, as they might consider necessary, in order to protect the Heritage structures. The respondents must  not refuse to receive such representations/suggestions, if any, from the petitioners.