<div dir="auto">The Supreme Court on Friday refused to stay the Rs 20,000 Crore Central Vista Project for setting up a new Parliament building, saying it can't restrain authorities from acting as per law.</div>.<div dir="auto">The court, however, also said if the government went ahead with the project, it would be at its own cost and risk.<br /><br />A bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjiv Khanna posted a batch of petitions filed by Rajeev Suri and others, questioning the project, for consideration on July 7. During the hearing, the petitioners questioned some orders passed by the environment clearance committee on Thursday. They wanted Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to give assurance that no ground work would be undertaken.</div>.<div dir="auto">On this, the bench asked if the court can restrain the authorities from acting as per law. Mehta, for his part, said that the government can't give any assurance of no work on the ground.</div>.<div dir="auto">However, the court can say whatever happened would be subject to the orders of the court, he said. The court, meanwhile, allowed Mehta to file a response to the amended plea by the petitioner.</div>.<div dir="auto">The ambitious project sought to build a new Parliament building and other government offices in Lutyens' Delhi.</div>
<div dir="auto">The Supreme Court on Friday refused to stay the Rs 20,000 Crore Central Vista Project for setting up a new Parliament building, saying it can't restrain authorities from acting as per law.</div>.<div dir="auto">The court, however, also said if the government went ahead with the project, it would be at its own cost and risk.<br /><br />A bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjiv Khanna posted a batch of petitions filed by Rajeev Suri and others, questioning the project, for consideration on July 7. During the hearing, the petitioners questioned some orders passed by the environment clearance committee on Thursday. They wanted Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to give assurance that no ground work would be undertaken.</div>.<div dir="auto">On this, the bench asked if the court can restrain the authorities from acting as per law. Mehta, for his part, said that the government can't give any assurance of no work on the ground.</div>.<div dir="auto">However, the court can say whatever happened would be subject to the orders of the court, he said. The court, meanwhile, allowed Mehta to file a response to the amended plea by the petitioner.</div>.<div dir="auto">The ambitious project sought to build a new Parliament building and other government offices in Lutyens' Delhi.</div>
