Safiya Malik

The Meghalaya High Court has sought an explanation from the management of St. Anthony’s Lower Primary School regarding the urgency behind demolishing its school building despite a prior court order. The court has directed the alleged contemnors to file an affidavit justifying their actions by March 17, 2025.

St. Anthony’s Lower Primary School, a premier educational institution in Shillong with a student strength of 650, had been functioning since January 13, 1922, under the administration of the Salesians of Don Bosco. The school building, constructed between 1949 and 1952, was found to be structurally weak, leading to a recommendation for large-scale restructuring and renovation. Reliant Foundations Private Limited of Guwahati conducted structural assessments and recommended immediate action to prevent any potential hazards.

According to the management, an urgent need arose towards the end of 2024 when the building was observed tilting, necessitating immediate demolition. However, the court took note that despite a prior order dated December 9, 2024, the demolition proceeded during the court’s Christmas vacation period without seeking the leave of the vacation bench. The court questioned why the school authorities did not approach the vacation bench for permission, considering that the matter was scheduled for hearing on January 28, 2025. The court stated: “Why this allegedly imminent danger to the building and the need to demolish it was not brought to the notice of the vacation bench and appropriate leave obtained to demolish the building?”

The petitioners argued that the school management, despite being aware of the court’s prior order, proceeded with the demolition without necessary judicial authorization. The respondents, represented by legal counsel, contended that the Meghalaya Urban Development Authority had approved the restructuring and rebuilding plan, and no issues regarding the heritage status of the building were raised at that stage. The authorities stated that the combined view of the square, the statue of Don Bosco, and the façade of the school warranted heritage protection.

The High Court took cognizance of the fact that the building had already been demolished and that the students had been relocated to another facility. Given the circumstances, the court permitted the reconstruction of the school but imposed strict conditions on its design and use. The court stated: “The plan and architecture of the building should be more or similar to the demolished one. If the approved plan has to be revised, it may be so done and duly approved by the Meghalaya Urban Development Authority.” The school management has also been directed not to create third-party rights by way of transfer, encumbrance, or parting with possession without the court’s prior approval.

The High Court further expressed concern over whether the demolition was conducted in compliance with all necessary procedural requirements. The court questioned whether the management had conducted thorough assessments and sought proper permissions before taking such an irreversible step. It has directed the authorities to produce all relevant documentation, including approval letters, expert reports on the structural integrity of the building, and any communications with urban planning authorities.

Additionally, the High Court instructed that a detailed explanation be provided regarding the sequence of events leading to the demolition, including whether any alternative measures were considered before opting for demolition. The court noted that the timing of the demolition, occurring during the court’s vacation period, raised further concerns over procedural compliance and the urgency cited by the respondents.

The court also took note of the Meghalaya Urban Development Authority’s role in approving the reconstruction plan. It directed that any revisions to the plan must strictly conform to the original architectural style and must be submitted for judicial review if any substantial changes are proposed. The court stated that the school management must not create third-party rights, ensuring that the reconstructed building remains dedicated solely to educational purposes without any commercial exploitation.

The High Court has scheduled the matter for further hearing on March 19, 2025, and directed the alleged contemnors to submit their affidavits by March 17, 2025, providing a detailed justification for their actions. The court has further instructed the Meghalaya Urban Development Authority to submit a report detailing their role in the approval of the demolition and rebuilding plan.

Case Title: Raphael Warjri v. State of Meghalaya & Others
Case Number: PIL No. 11/2024 with MC (PIL) No. 5/2024
Bench: Justice I.P. Mukerji, Chief Justice; Justice W. Diengdoh

[Read/Download order]