ARDHENDU KUMAR DAS versus THE STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS.

Citation: [2022] 15 S.C.R. 358 · Decided: 03-06-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
358
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 15 S.C.R.
[2022] 15 S.C.R. 358
358
ARDHENDU KUMAR DAS
v.
THE STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4515 of 2022)
JUNE 03, 2022
[B. R. GAVAI AND HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
Archaeological Sites: Ancient Monuments and Archaeological
Sites and Remains Act, 1958 – ss.2, 20C, 20D – Public work or
project essential to the public – PIL filed before High Court
challenging construction undertaken by respondent Nos. 1 and 2
within the prohibited area of the Shree Jagannath Temple complex
on the ground that it contravened provisions of the 1958 Act – Their
grievance in the instant appeal was that High Court did not grant
an interim order restraining respondents from proceeding further
with the construction – Held: All the provisions of the 1958 Act
have to be read harmoniously – When sub-section (4) of s.20A of
the Act is read in harmony with clause (dc) of s.2 and the provisions
of s.20C and s.20D of the Act, the submission that no construction
at all can be made in the prohibited area or the regulated area
would be unsustainable – Competent authority has complied with
the procedure as required under s.20D of the Act and the National
Monuments Authority has granted its permission for the work, which
is undertaken – The legislature has deliberately excluded four
categories from the definition of “construction” – The purpose
behind it appears to be that the repairs and renovation of the
buildings, which are existing and the constructions which are
necessary for providing basic facilities like drainage, toilets, water
supply and distribution of electricity should be kept out of the rigour
of requirement of statutory permissions – The argument that the
said provision is only to enable a person who resides in the
prohibited area to get his existing structure re-constructed, repaired
and renovated and the said provision cannot come to the aid of the
State to create facilities for the public is rejected – If an individual
person can construct a toilet in a prohibited area, so can the State,
when the State finds it necessary to do it in the larger public interest
for providing basic facilities to the lakhs of devotees visiting the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
359
shrine – The activities undertaken by State are completely in tune
with the directions issued by this Court in the case of Mrinalini Padhi–
They are necessary in the larger public interest and there is no
prohibition in the statute for doing so, as sought to be argued by
the appellants – High Court also recorded the statement of Advocate
General thatboth the ASI and the State Government would work
together to ensure that no archaeological remains are missed out or
damaged – PIL filed before the High Court rather than being in
public interest, is detrimental to the public interest at large – Frivolous
petitions encroach upon a valuable judicial time which could be
otherwise utilized for considering genuine issues – The appeals,
having been found to be without any substance, are dismissed with
costs, quantified at Rs.1,00,000/- each, payable by the appellants
to respondent No.1 within four weeks – Public interest litigation.
Public interest litigation: Practice of filing frivolous petitions
– Deprecated – Frivolous petitions are nothing but abuse of process
of law – They encroach upon a valuable judicial time which could
be otherwise utilized for considering genuine issues – It is high
time that such so-called public interest litigations are nipped in the
bud so that the developmental activities in the larger public interest
are not stalled.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The definition of “construction” in Clause (dc)
of Section 2 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites
and Remains Act, 1958 specifically excludes: (i) Re-construction,
repair and renovation of an existing structure or building;
(ii)Construction, maintenance and cleansing of drains and drainage
works and of public latrines, urinals and similar conveniences;
(iii) Construction and maintenance of works meant for providing
supply of water for public; and (iv)Construction or maintenance,
extension, management for supply and distribution of electricity
to the public or provision for similar facilities for public. [Para
36][376-B-D]
2. Sub-section (4) of Section 20A of the Act prohibits any
permission including the one for carrying out any public work or
project essential to the public or other constructions in any
prohibited area referred to in sub-section (3) there

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.