Kathmandu, July 16

Construction work of a complex in Hanumandhoka Durbar Square buffer zone has resumed defying the stay order of the Supreme Court.

A single bench of Justice Tanka Bahadur Moktan on April 25 had issued the stay order to halt the ongoing construction of a commercial building within the buffer area  of Hanumandhoka Durbar Square World Heritage Monument Zone and  inside the Protected Monument Zone.

Executive Director of Pro-public advocate Prakash Mani Sharma and 16 other people on April 23 in response to a public interest litigation had filed the case. The court has not given any decision in the case.

Maharjan Business Associates Pvt Ltd is building a commercial complex turning deaf ears to the protests of locals and Kathmandu Metropolitan City. The builder had halted work for nearly two months following the stay order from the SC. But  they started the work  some 15 days ago, according to locals.

A joint report prepared by KMC and Kathmandu Valley Development Authority has stated that the under construction building violated the blueprint approved by KMC. The report had also suggested that the builders should fill the illegally constructed underground basement of the building and respect the maximum height limits of  35 feet and avoid any adverse visual impact to the World Heritage  property.

The basement covers the entire land area of 627.98 square metres and each floor of the building is three feet taller than the approved height.

Earlier, construction of the complex had been halted following an order of KMC on 24 November 2017. However, Maharjan Business Associates Pvt Ltd resumed construction work just after a couple of weeks.

Since then, KMC has not taken a any step to take action against the builder although activists and locals vehemently opposed the decision to continue construction work.

“All law enforcing agencies like Nepal Police and City Police of KMC have also become  mere spectators,” said local activist Ganapati Lal Shrestha.

He has said that they would have to knock the door of the court since the builder’s action is clearly in contempt of court.