The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday made it clear that the proposed Tribune Chowk flyover on Dakshin Marg could not be permitted as it would violate the provisions of the Chandigarh Master Plan-2031. Pronouncing the orders in the open court, the Bench headed by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu further made it clear that the construction of the flyover was impermissible under the Master Plan, while an underpass was permissible and could be considered as an alternative traffic solution.The Bench also directed the authorities to preserve and maintain the original character and urban design of Chandigarh, particularly in Phase-I sectors, including the Dakshin Marg stretch. The Bench also laid stress on the need to strengthen and expand public transport infrastructure in the city as an efficient public transport system was essential to reduce dependence on personal vehicles and to address growing traffic congestion in Chandigarh.The Bench, on a previous date of haring, had stayed the felling of trees for the proposed project after taking note of the arguments that the trees – including mango – had been standing since last more than half a century. These were likely to be felled or lopped to give way for the flyover’s construction. As such, the court deemed it appropriate to interfere.“Since the matter has been heard and is to be finally decided at an early date, it would be appropriate to restrain the respondents from felling or lopping any mango tree or any other tree in the vicinity of the Tribune Chowk, the Bench had asserted.The order came on a petition challenging the proposed flyover at Tribune Chowk, amid objections that the project violated the city’s heritage character and planning framework. During the hearing, counsel for the petitioners, advocate Tanu Bedi, argued that the proposed flyover was contrary to Chandigarh’s Master Plan and would adversely affect the city’s urban design, green belts and pedestrian-friendly character.Referring to the Master Plan 2031, the petitioner’s counsel had contended that Chandigarh was planned as a pedestrian- and cycle-friendly city and that flyovers affected the visual cityscape and non-motorised transport.She had further argued that expanding infrastructure for private vehicles would only shift congestion from one point to another and described the proposed flyover as “a death knell to Chandigarh heritage”.UT senior standing counsel Amit Jhanji had, on the other hand, opposed the plea and argued that the Master Plan permitted construction of flyovers. He had also submitted that only Sectors 1 to 30 were recognised as heritage zones and not the entire city.Jhanji maintained that the project had already survived judicial scrutiny. He pointed out that the High Court had vacated the earlier stay on tree felling after a “comprehensive review of the merits,” and that the challenge to this order before the Supreme Court did not survive as the Special Leave Petition was withdrawn in September 2024.Defending the project on necessity, he submitted that Chandigarh’s population dynamics had drastically changed. “While the city was planned for five lakh people, the tri-city population now exceeds 15 lakh,” he argued, adding that infrastructure could not remain “frozen in 1950s concepts.”Describing the flyover as a “functional necessity”, Jhanji had pointed to traffic snarls lasting up to 1.5 hours for commuters entering from Zirakpur and Delhi. He further contended that the project fell within Phase II (Sector 31 onwards), which was designed for higher density and modern infrastructure, unlike the heritage-sensitive Phase I.On environmental concerns, he had submitted that mitigation measures were already underway, including plantation of 2,799 saplings at a 5:1 ratio. He added that prolonged litigation since 2019 had “stalled the city’s progress by a decade,” causing cost escalations and public inconvenience, while assuring that all environmental clearances would be obtained before execution.