With the Union Territory administration indicating that work on the proposed Tribune Chowk flyover may begin in early May, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday took up detailed arguments in the case, with Chief Justice Sheel Nagu observing that although the earlier stay had been vacated, the administration must comply with all environmental impact assessments and necessary permissions before proceeding.The bench, also comprising Justice Sanjiv Berry, posted the matter for further hearing a day after, even as amicus curiae Tanu Bedi pressed for an expedited final decision.Appearing before the division bench, Bedi said that while no interim relief was being pressed, the matter needed to be decided expeditiously before any third-party rights were created. She also sought a ban on tree felling in Chandigarh on the lines of Punjab.Violation of Chandigarh master planBedi argued that the Chandigarh Master Plan (CMP) 2031, notified under the Capital of Punjab Act, 1952 and the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952, was a statutory document and could not be bypassed. She submitted that the plan does not recommend the construction of flyovers within the city and mandates that alternative traffic management measures be exhausted first.She pointed to proposals such as a ring road, smart mobility planning and mass transit systems, including a metro, which, she said, had not been adequately explored before the flyover was proposed.Questioning the decision-making process, Bedi said the project had been cleared by a subcommittee of the Chandigarh Heritage Conservation Committee that lacked the authority to approve a “major intervention” like a flyover, as its mandate was limited to the Capital Complex and routine heritage matters.She further submitted that the engineering department had proceeded with a “preset mind”, citing the floating of tenders in 2017, before flyover construction experience, even before feasibility studies or traffic assessments were carried out.Story continues below this adBedi also relied on a series of communications between 2018 and 2020 from the Chief Architect and the Department of Urban Planning, opposing the project, stating that it violated the Master Plan and that no formal concurrence had been granted.Heritage and environmental concernsThe amicus curiae contended that the project would impact a Grade 1 heritage site, the mango orchards, and involve the felling of mature trees, leading to irreversible ecological damage.She also raised concerns that the flyover would terminate in front of the Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, a designated silence zone, potentially affecting hospital functioning.Referring to a public hearing conducted in December 2019, Bedi told the court that 46 participants had opposed the project while only 21 supported it.Story continues below this adShe further argued that the Indian Road Congress guidelines, which require authorities to exhaust all other traffic management options before proposing a flyover, had not been followed.UT cites prior orders, infrastructure needsOpposing the plea, UT senior standing counsel Amit Jhanji submitted that a division bench of the High Court had already vacated the stay on the project on April 30, 2024, after considering all aspects, including environmental concerns.He said the order had attained finality after a Special Leave Petition challenging it was withdrawn before the Supreme Court on September 17, 2024.Jhanji also relied on Section 41HA of the Specific Relief Act to argue that courts are barred from granting injunctions that delay infrastructure projects.Urban growth and traffic pressuresStory continues below this adHighlighting the need for the project, Jhanji submitted that Chandigarh, originally planned for a population of about 5 lakh, now caters to a tri-city population exceeding 15 lakh.He said commuters entering from Zirakpur and Delhi face traffic congestion lasting up to 1.5 hours, making the flyover a necessary intervention.The project site, he added, lies at the junction of Sectors 29 and 31, marking the beginning of Phase 2 of the city, which was envisaged for higher-density development.Environmental safeguards, delaysJhanji told the court that 2,799 saplings had already been planted as compensatory afforestation at a 5:1 ratio for trees proposed to be felled.Story continues below this adHe added that the administration would obtain all required environmental clearances and conduct impact assessments before commencing construction.He further argued that litigation since 2019 had stalled the project, leading to cost overruns and delaying the city’s development.During the hearing, Bedi had also suggested that the case could be taken up even on a non-working Saturday or Sunday to ensure expeditious disposal.