New Delhi Jun 03 :- The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed petitions against excavations and constructions being carried out by the state government in and around the Lord Jagannath temple in Puri, which according to an official inspection report “has caused irreparable damage to the heritage site”, terming them frivolous and not in public interest.
A bench of Justices B R Gavai and Hima Kohli said a “hue and cry was made that the construction carried out is contrary to the inspection report by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI)”, and added that, “However, the note of the Director General of ASI…as well as the affidavit filed by ASI before the (Orissa) High Court would falsify the position”.
The order came on appeals against the Orissa High Court order of May 9, refusing to restrain the state from going ahead with the work.
The high court, said the Supreme Court, had recorded the statement of the state’s Advocate General regarding steps to ensure that no archaeological remains are missed out or damaged. The high court order already takes care of the concerns of the appellants, the Supreme Court said.
The bench held that the activities undertaken by the state are “completely in tune with” the directions issued by a three judge bench of the top court in an earlier case.
“They are necessary in larger public interest and there is no prohibition in the statute as sought to be argued by the appellants,” said the court.
The appellants had contended that the construction was happening in gross violation of Section 20A of The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act (AMASR), 1958, which says that the area up to 100 metres from a protected monument would be prohibited area and construction or excavation is “totally prohibited” there except in exceptional circumstances with the permission of the central government or the ASI director general.
The bench, which saw no merit in the prayers, also went on to deprecate what it termed was “mushroom growth of public interest litigation…in the recent past” and said they are either “publicity interest litigations or personal interest litigations”.
“We highly deprecate such practise of filing public interest litigations…they are nothing but an abuse or process of law,” the bench said.
The court said that it is high time such attempts “are nipped in the bud so that developmental activities in the larger public interest are not stalled” and went on to impose costs on the appellants.
