ARDHENDU KUMAR DAS versus THE STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS. on 3 June 2022

358

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2022] 15 S.C.R.

A

ARDHENDU KUMAR DAS

v.

THE STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 4515 of 2022)

B

JUNE 03, 2022

[B. R. GAVAI AND HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]

Archaeological Sites: Ancient Monuments and ArchaeologicalSites and Remains Act, 1958 – ss.2, 20C, 20D – Public work orCproject essential to the public – PIL filed before High Courtchallenging construction undertaken by respondent Nos. 1 and 2within the prohibited area of the Shree Jagannath Temple complexon the ground that it contravened provisions of the 1958 Act – Theirgrievance in the instant appeal was that High Court did not grantan interim order restraining respondents from proceeding furtherDwith the construction – Held: All the provisions of the 1958 Acthave to be read harmoniously – When sub-section (4) of s.20A ofthe Act is read in harmony with clause (dc) of s.2 and the provisionsof s.20C and s.20D of the Act, the submission that no constructionat all can be made in the prohibited area or the regulated areaEwould be unsustainable – Competent authority has complied withthe procedure as required under s.20D of the Act and the NationalMonuments Authority has granted its permission for the work, whichis undertaken – The legislature has deliberately excluded fourcategories from the definition of “construction” – The purposebehind it appears to be that the repairs and renovation of theFbuildings, which are existing and the constructions which arenecessary for providing basic facilities like drainage, toilets, watersupply and distribution of electricity should be kept out of the rigourof requirement of statutory permissions – The argument that thesaid provision is only to enable a person who resides in theGprohibited area to get his existing structure re-constructed, repairedand renovated and the said provision cannot come to the aid of theState to create facilities for the public is rejected – If an individualperson 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 interestfor providing basic facilities to the lakhs of devotees visiting theH

shrine – The activities undertaken by State are completely in tunewith the directions issued by this Court in the case of Mrinalini Padhi–They are necessary in the larger public interest and there is noprohibition in the statute for doing so, as sought to be argued bythe appellants – High Court also recorded the statement of AdvocateGeneral thatboth the ASI and the State Government would worktogether to ensure that no archaeological remains are missed out ordamaged – PIL filed before the High Court rather than being inpublic interest, is detrimental to the public interest at large – Frivolouspetitions encroach upon a valuable judicial time which could beotherwise utilized for considering genuine issues – The appeals,having been found to be without any substance, are dismissed withcosts, quantified at Rs.1,00,000/- each, payable by the appellantsto 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 processof law – They encroach upon a valuable judicial time which couldbe otherwise utilized for considering genuine issues – It is hightime that such so-called public interest litigations are nipped in thebud so that the developmental activities in the larger public interestare not stalled.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

Conclusion

HELD: 1. The definition of “construction” in Clause (dc)of Section 2 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sitesand 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 drainageworks and of public latrines, urinals and similar conveniences;(iii) Construction and maintenance of works meant for providingsupply of water for public; and (iv)Construction or maintenance,extension, management for supply and distribution of electricityto the public or provision for similar facilities for public. [Para36][376-B-D]

2. Sub-section (4) of Section 20A of the Act prohibits anypermission including the one for carrying out any public work orproject essential to the public or other constructions in anyprohibited area referred to in sub-section (3) thereof on and after A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athe date on which the Ancient Monuments and ArchaeologicalSites and Remains (Amendment and Validation) Bill, 2010receives the assent of the President. The same was brought intothe statute book by Act No. 10 of 2010. It is further to be notedthat by the very same amendment, Section 20C of the said Acthas also been brought into the statute book. Sub-section (1) ofBSection 20C of the said Act provides that any person, who ownsany building or structure, which existed in a prohibited area before16th June, 1992, or, which had been subsequently constructedwith the approval of the Director-General and desires to carryout any repair or renovation of such building or structure, mayCmake an application to the competent authority for carrying outsuch repair or renovation, as the case may be. Likewise, sub-section (2) of Section 20C of the said Act enables a person, whoowns or possesses any building or structure or land in anyregulated area, and desires to carry out any construction or re-construction or repair or renovation of such building or structureDon such land, as the case may be, to make an application to thecompetent authority for carrying out construction or re-construction or repair or renovation, as the case may be. Section20D of the said Act deals with grant of permission by competentauthority within regulated area. Sub-section (1) of Section 20D ofEthe said Act provides that an application for grant of permissionunder Section 20C of the said Act, shall be made to the competentauthority. Sub-section (2) thereof requires the competentauthority to forward the same to the authority to consider andintimate impact of such construction having regard to the heritagebye-laws relating to the concerned protected monument orFprotected area. Under proviso to Sub-section (2) thereof, theCentral Government is empowered to prescribe the category ofapplications in respect of which the permission will be grantedunder this sub-section and the applications which shall be referredto the authority for its recommendations. Under sub-section (3)Gthereof, the authority is required to intimate, within two monthsfrom the date of receipt of application under sub-section (2)thereof, to the competent authority, the impact of suchconstruction etc. Under sub-section (4) thereof, the competentauthority is required to either grant permission or refuse thesame as so recommended by the authority within one month ofH

ARDHENDU KUMAR DAS v. THE STATE OF ODISHA ANDORS.

the receipt of intimation from the authority under sub-section (3)thereof. Under sub-section (5) thereof, a finality is given to therecommendations of the authority. [Para 37-39][376-D-H; 377-A-E]

3. It is a settled principle of law that all the provisions inthe statute have to be read harmoniously. It is presumed thateach and every provision has been brought by the legislatureinto the statute book with some purpose. A particular provisioncannot be read in isolation and has to be read in context to eachother. An attempt has to be made to reconcile all the provisionsof the statute together, unless it is impossible. At first blush, thearguments of the appellants on the basis of sub-section (4) ofSection 20A of the said Act may appear to be attractive. But whensub-section (4) of Section 20A of the said Act is read in harmonywith clause (dc) of Section 2 and the provisions of Sections 20Cand 20D of the said Act, this Court finds that the submission thatno construction at all can be made in the prohibited area or theregulated area, would be unsustainable. Firstly, clause (dc) ofSection 2 of the said Act itself excludes four categories from thedefinition of “construction”. The legislative intent is thus clearthat the four categories which are excluded from the definition of“construction” as defined in clause (dc) of Section 2 of the saidAct would not be treated as a “construction”, wherever the saidterm is referred to in the statute. The legislative intent is clearthat the re-construction, repair, renovation of the existingbuildings has been excluded from the definition. Similarly, theconstruction, maintenance etc. of drains, drainage works, publiclatrines and urinals; the construction and maintenance of worksmeant for providing supply of water to public; and constructionetc. for distribution of electricity, which could be construed to beessential services for catering to the needs of the public at large,have consciously been kept out of the definition of “construction”.It could be presumed that the legislature was aware that repairsand reconstruction of existing structures or buildings orconstruction of essential facilities like public latrines, urinals,water supply and electricity distribution for the pilgrims/residentsare basic necessities and as such, should be permitted even inthe prohibited area. If it is not so interpreted, then Section 20C

A

B

CDEF

G

H

Aof the said Act would be rendered otiose and redundant. Aninterpretation which leads a particular provision to be otiose orredundant or meaningless, has to be avoided. [Paras 40-42][377-F-H; 378-A-D]

4. Section 20D of the Act deals with the entire procedureBregarding grant of permission by the competent authority withinregulated area. Undisputedly, in the present case, the competentauthority has complied with the procedure as required underSection 20D of the said Act and the authority, i.e., the NMA hasgranted its permission for the work, which is undertaken. It couldthus clearly be seen that the Director-General has observed thatCthe amenities which fall within the prohibited area of the templeare required for the devotees, and therefore, it was agreed thatthis may be allowed. It was further observed that the ASI wouldwork in coordination with the State Government on the designso that there is no visual impact on the main temple. The StateDGovernment was also requested to keep the entire design simplein tandem with the spiritual nature of the entire temple complex.In the impugned order, even the Division Bench of the High Courthas recorded the statement of the Advocate General to the effectthat both ASI and the State Government would work together.

Insofar the reception area is concerned, the impugned orderEwould also reveal that the learned Advocate General has clarifiedthat it will now be moved out of the prohibited area and it will beconstructed in the regulated area. [Paras 44, 46 and 47][378-G-H; 380-B-D]

5. It could thus clearly be seen that even the Director-FGeneral of ASI has recognized the potential of Puri andEkamrakshetra for being taken up as World Heritage sites. Itwas agreed that all the work in both the places would be designedand executed keeping in mind the possibility of developing themfor being acknowledged as World Heritage Sites. The affidavit ofGthe Superintending Archaeologist, ASI would also reveal that theredoes not appear to be any serious objection with regard toconstruction of works such as toilets, drains and electrical worksin the prohibited area. There also does not appear to be anyserious objection with regard to undertaking construction in theregulated area. [Paras 49 and 50][380-H; 381-A-B]H

6. Taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter,it is amply clear that the construction activities which are beingundertaken, are being undertaken in pursuance of the directionsissued by a three Judge Bench of this Court in the case ofMrinalini Padhi. The construction is being carried out for thepurpose of providing basic and essential amenities like toiletsfor men and women, cloak rooms, electricity rooms etc. Theseare the basic facilities which are necessary for the convenienceof the devotees at large. As already discussed hereinabove, thelegislative intent appears to be clear. The legislature hasdeliberately excluded four categories from the definition of“construction”. The purpose behind it appears to be that therepairs and renovation of the buildings, which are existing andthe constructions which are necessary for providing basic facilitieslike drainage, toilets, water supply and distribution of electricityshould be kept out of the rigour of requirement of statutorypermissions. [Para 51][381-D-F]

7. If an individual person can construct a toilet in aprohibited area; can the State be denied to do so, when the Statefinds it necessary to do it in the larger public interest for providingbasic facilities to the lakhs of devotees visiting the shrine? Theanswer is an emphatic ‘no’. [Para 52][381-G-H]

8. In the recent past, there is mushroom growth of publicinterest litigations. However, in many of such petitions, there isno public interest involved at all. The petitions are either publicityinterest litigations or personal interest litigation. This Court highlydeprecates practice of filing such frivolous petitions. They arenothing but abuse of process of law. They encroach upon avaluable judicial time which could be otherwise utilized forconsidering genuine issues. It is high time that such so-calledpublic interest litigations are nipped in the bud so that thedevelopmental activities in the larger public interest are notstalled. In the result, the appeals, having been found to be withoutany substance, are dismissed with costs, quantified at Rs.1,00,000/- each, payable by the appellants to the respondent No.1. [Paras59 and 60][382-G-H; 383-A]

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

AMrinalini Padhi v.Union of India and others (2019) 18SCC 1 : [2019] 16 SCR 811 – referred to.

Case Law Reference

[2019] 16 SCR 811

referred toPara 15

BCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4515of 2022.

From the Judgment and Order dated 09.05.2022 of the High Courtof Orissa at Cuttack in Writ Petition (Civil) No.6257 of 2022.

WithC

Civil Appeal No. 4516 of 2022.

Ms. Priya Hingorani (AC) Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, VinayNavare, Kapil Sibal, Pinaki Mishra, A. D. N. Rao, Sr. Advs., AshokParija, Adv. General, Himanshu Yadav (AC), Anirudh Jamwal (AC),Tomy Chacko, Ankolekar Gurudatta, Gautam Das, Sangram Pattnaik,DDhirendra Kumar Jha, Merusagar Samantaray, Joydip Roy, Rahul G.Tanwani, Parvartak Pathak, Tapas Parida, C. M. Gopal, Ms. VandanaMiglani Bebarta, Ms. Smita Samantaray, Dr. Akash Kaushik, GauravKhanna, Arnav Behera, Avnish Kumar Sharma, Dhananjaya Mishra,Pai Amit, Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Swetaretu Mishra, Sanjay K. Das,EV. K. Monga, Annam Venkatesh, D. Shiva Shankar, Advs. for theappearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

B. R. GAVAI, J.

F1. Both these petitions challenge the interlocutory order dated 9[th]May, 2022, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa atCuttack, in Writ Petition (Civil) No.6257 of 2022, wherein the DivisionBench of the High Court has recorded certain submissions and statementsmade by the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the Stateof Odisha and directed the matter to be posted on 22[nd] June, 2022 alongGwith Writ Petition (Civil) No. 10153 of 2022. From the tenor of thearguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it appearsthat they are basically aggrieved since the High Court has not grantedan interim order restraining the respondents from proceeding furtherwith the construction.

H

2. The factual background leading to the filing of the presentproceedings is thus:

3. A Public Interest Litigation being Writ Petition (Civil) No.6257of 2022 came to be filed before the High Court of Orissa by one DillipKumar Baral challenging the alleged unsanctioned and unauthorisedconstruction activities undertaken by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 withinthe prohibited area of the Shree Jagannath Temple complex incontravention of the provisions of The Ancient Monuments andArchaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as“the said Act”)

4. It appears that initially the said writ petition was listed beforethe Division Bench of the High Court on 8[th] April, 2022, on which date,certain statements made by the learned Advocate General were takenon record. Subsequently, when the matter was listed on 21[st] April, 2022,certain further orders came to be passed. Subsequently, the order dated9[th] May, 2022 has been passed by the High Court, which is impugned inthe present Special Leave Petitions.

5. The petitioner-Ardhendu Kumar Das in Special Leave Petition(Civil) Diary No.16718 of 2022 is not the petitioner before the HighCourt. However, he claims to be an ardent devotee of Lord Jagannathand therefore, had filed an Intervention Application before the High Court,which is pending consideration. The petitioner has therefore filed anInterlocutory Application seeking permission to file the present SpecialLeave Petition challenging the order dated 9[th] May, 2022 of the DivisionBench of the High Court.

6. The petitioner-Sumanta Kumar Ghadei in Special Leave Petition(Civil) Diary No.17078 of 2022 is also not the petitioner before the HighCourt. The said petitioner had also filed an Intervention Application inthe writ petition before the High Court, which is pending adjudication.The said petitioner claims to be a social activist and businessman, who isa devotee of Lord Jagannath and also claims to have done research andhas keen interest in ancient monuments and sculptures of the State.

7. Taking into consideration the fact that larger issues involvingpublic interest are involved, we allow the said applications for permissionto file Special Leave Petitions. We also grant leave in both these SpecialLeave Petitions.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A8. An impleadment application has been filed by RaghunathGochhikar and others, who claim to be Sevayats. The applicants supportthe stand of the State Government. We are inclined to allow theirapplication and permit them to intervene. It is ordered accordingly.

9. We have heard Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, learned SeniorBCounsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Ardhendu Kumar Das,Mr. Vinay Navare, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of theappellant-Sumanta Kumar Ghadei, Mr. Ashok Parija, learned AdvocateGeneral for State of Odisha, Mr. Kapil Sibal and Mr. Pinaki Mishra,learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State,CMr. A.D.N. Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of theArchaeological Survey of India (“ASI” for short), Mr. Swetaretu Mishra,learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 5 to 7-ShreeJagannath Temple Managing Committee and Mr. Pai Amit, learnedcounsel appearing on behalf of the applicants/interveners/impleaders.

D10. Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, learned Senior Counsel submitsthat in view of sub-section (4) of Section 20A of the said Act, nopermission can be granted for carrying out any public work or projectessential to the public or other constructions in any prohibited area onand after the date on which the Ancient Monuments and ArchaeologicalSites and Remains (Amendment and Validation) Bill, 2010 receives theEassent of the President. Ms. Pavani further submitted that thecommunication dated 5[th] February, 2022, addressed by the ConservationAssistant, ASI, to the Sr. Project Manager, OBCC, would show that therespondent Nos. 1 and 2 were carrying out unauthorised constructionwithin the prohibited area of the Centrally Protected Monument of ShreeFJagannath Temple. She further submits that the inspection report wouldreveal that there are serious irregularities in the work carried out by therespondents-State. She further submits that voluminous excavation isbeing done near the Temple, which would be hazardous to the Temple,which is an old structure.

G11. Shri Vinay Navare, learned Senior Counsel submits that insofaras the so-called “No Objection Certificate” (“NOC” for short) issuedby the National Monuments Authority (“NMA” for short) dated 4[th]September, 2021, is concerned, the said Authority has no authority inlaw to permit construction. Relying on the provisions of Section 20-I ofthe said Act, he submits that NMA is only a recommendatory authorityH

and has no authority in law to permit any construction either in theprohibited area or in the regulated area. He further submits that if anyconstruction activity is to be undertaken in a prohibited area, the samehas to be undertaken only by the ASI and by no other authority.

12. Both the learned counsel therefore submit that it is necessaryto injunct the respondents-State from carrying out any furtherconstruction activity during the pendency of the present appeals.

13. Shri Ashok Parija, learned Advocate General, submits thatunder clause (da) of Section 2 of the said Act, the word “Authority” hasbeen defined to mean the NMA constituted under Section 20F. He submitsthat clause (db) of Section 2 of the said Act defines “competent authority”to mean an officer not below the rank of Director of archaeology orCommissioner of archaeology of the Central or State Government orequivalent rank, specified, by notification in the Official Gazette, as thecompetent authority by the Central Government. He submits that theGovernment of India vide Notification dated 13[th] February, 2012, inexercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to clause (db) of Section2 of the said Act has notified Director, Culture, Department of Tourismand Culture (Culture), Government of Odisha, Bhubaneshwar as the“competent authority” for the State of Odisha for the purpose of Sections20C and 20D of the said Act. The learned Advocate General furthersubmits that “grant of permission by competent authority” is regulatedby Section 20D of the said Act. He further submits that in view of theprovisions of Section 20D of the said Act, the competent authority forthe State of Odisha had made an application for grant of NOC to NMA.NMA vide order dated 4[th] September, 2021 granted its NOC for carryingout various works within the prohibited area and the regulated area.

14. The learned Advocate General further submitted that clause(dc) of Section 2 of the said Act defines “construction”. He submits thatthe definition specifically excludes any re-construction, repair andrenovation of an existing structure or building, or, construction,maintenance and cleansing of drains and drainage works and of publiclatrines, urinals and similar conveniences, or, the construction andmaintenance of works meant for providing supply of water for public, or,the construction or maintenance, extension, management for supply anddistribution of electricity to the public or provision for similar facilitiesfor public.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A15. The learned Advocate General further submitted that the three-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Mrinalini Padhi vs. Union ofIndia and others[1]has itself found that it was necessary to constructseparate toilets for male and female. He further submitted that this Courtin the said case itself has directed ASI to cooperate and to permit theactivities of improvement which are necessary for providing facilities toBthe public at large.

A

16. Mr. Pinaki Mishra, learned Senior Counsel, submits that takinginto consideration the fact that there was serious inconvenience to thedevotees who throng in lakhs during the Rath Yatra period, it was foundCnecessary that the area within the radius of 75 meters surrounding theTemple be cleared for passage to the devotees. He submitted that on anaverage, about 60,000 devotees visit the Temple every day. There areno proper queues for the devotees to maintain discipline and enter theTemple. He submits that the basic facilities like toilets for women andmen were lacking. As such, taking into consideration the larger publicDinterest, the Government had acquired the buildings in the vicinity whichwere constructed as lodges decades ago, by spending an amount ofRs.700 crores. He submitted that the entire area surrounding the Templewas acquired through negotiations without resorting to the provisions ofthe Land Acquisition Act. He submits that these buildings were ownedEby Sevayats, who are also not opposing the developmental worksurrounding the Temple and, on the contrary, support the same.

17. Mr. Pai Amit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of theapplicants/interveners/impleaders and Mr. Swetaretu Mishra, learnedcounsel appearing on behalf of Shree Jagannath Temple ManagingFCommittee also support the submissions made by the learned AdvocateGeneral.

18. Mr. A.D.N. Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for ASIsubmits that the stand of the ASI is reflected in the affidavit filed beforethe High Court of Orissa and states that the ASI has no objection to theGconstruction being carried out strictly in conformity with the provisionsof law.

19. Though the present appeals challenge the interlocutory orderpassed by the Division Bench of the High Court, since lengthy arguments H1 (2019) 18 SCC 1

have been advanced on behalf of both the parties, we find it appropriateto consider the submissions on merits, as advanced.

20. Before we consider the challenge with regard to violation ofthe statutory provisions, it will be apposite to refer to an earlier decisionof this Court, which will have a bearing on the decision in the presentmatter.

21. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of MrinaliniPadhi (supra), had an occasion to consider the situation prevailing in thevicinity of Shree Jagannath Temple. This Court in the said case hadinitially passed an order on 8[th] June, 2018, directing the District Judge,Puri to submit a report. This Court thereafter vide order dated 9[th] January,2019, appointed Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Counsel as AmicusCuriae and Ms. Priya Hingorani, learned Senior Counsel was requestedto assist him in the matter. Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Amicus Curiaehas submitted interim reports from time to time on the basis of whichcertain orders came to be passed. Finally, vide the order dated 4[th]November, 2019, this Court issued various directions. While issuing thedirections, this court had also taken on record the views of variousstakeholders.

22. This Court in paragraph 17 of the judgment in the case ofMrinalini Padhi (supra) had found that redevelopment plan around theTemple is mainly to decongest the area for the benefit of pilgrims and tomake the city of Puri a world heritage city. This Court also recorded thatnobody was opposing the reforms for the betterment of the place. ThisCourt also noticed in paragraph 18 that during the annual Rath Yatra,lakhs of people visit the Temple town and the congregation isunmanageable.

23. This Court took on record the observations of Shri Ranjit Kumar,learned Amicus Curiae as well as Ms. Priya Hingorani, learned SeniorCounsel, who had personally visited the Temple premises. A perusal ofthe order would reveal that this Court had also requested Shri TusharMehta, learned Solicitor General of India to personally visit the Templepremises. From their observations, it was found that the Temples insidethe Mathas, their Gaadis, Samadhis and other artefacts have beenpreserved.

24. In paragraph 40, this Court issued various directions. Inparagraph 40.15, this Court directed that there was necessity to have a A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aproper darshan by people at large. It was also directed that it wasnecessary to avoid commotion and chaos as large number of pilgrimsvisit the Temple every day. This Court therefore directed the TempleAdministration and the Chief Administrator including the StateGovernment to prepare a roadmap with the help of experts for havingproper darshan by the devotees/pilgrims. In paragraph 40.16, this CourtBfurther directed the Temple administration and also the Temple police toensure that there would be a dedicated section of personnel to tightensecurity inside the Temple and ensure that no such incident takes placein the Temples and no misbehaviour is meted out to women.

25. It will also be relevant to reproduce the directions in paragraphC40.19 and 40.20, which read thus:

“40.19. The learned Amicus Curiae has also pointed out that thereis a necessity for separate toilets for male and female. We directthat let the toilets be provided with modern amenities and shouldbe kept absolutely clean. The number of toilets shall be adequateDhaving regard to the average footfall in the temple, which is largein number.

40.20. There is a necessity pointed out about the cloak rooms.Let steps be taken by the Temple administration in this regard.”

E26. It could thus be seen that the three-Judge Bench of this Courthas emphasized on the necessity to have separate toilets for male andfemale. This Court further directed that the toilets be provided withmodern amenities and should be kept absolutely clean. This Court alsodirected that the number of toilets shall be adequate having regard to theaverage footfall in the Temple. This Court further emphasized theFnecessity to have cloak rooms and directed the Temple administration totake steps in that regard.

27. This Court further directed the ASI to cooperate and to permitthe activities of improvement which are not prima facie objectionableand are necessary for public hygiene, sanitation and public health. ThisGCourt only put a rider that the form of the new structure is maintained inthe same manner as the ancient one.

28. It would thus clearly reveal that the nature of constructionwhich is undertaken by the respondents-State and the Templeadministration is in tune with the directions issued by this Court.H

29. In this background, we will proceed to consider the submissionswith regard to the violation of the provisions of the said Act.

30. Clauses (da), (db) and (dc) of Section 2 of the said Act define“Authority”, “competent authority” and “construction” respectively, whichare as under:

“2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwiserequires,- (a)………………………………………………….

(da) “Authority” means the National Monuments Authorityconstituted under Section 20-F; (db) “competent authority” means an officer not below the rankof Director of Archaeology or Commissioner ofArchaeology of the Central or State Government orequivalent rank, specified, by notification in the OfficialGazette, as the competent authority by the CentralGovernment to perform functions under this Act:

Provided that the Central Government may, by notificationin the Official Gazette, specify different competentauthorities for the purpose of Sections 20-C, 20-D and 20-E; (dc)“construction” means any erection of a structure or a building,including any addition or extension thereto either verticallyor horizontally, but does not include any re-construction,repair and renovation of an existing structure or building,or, construction, maintenance and cleansing of drains anddrainage works and of public latrines, urinals and similarconveniences, or, the construction and maintenance of worksmeant for providing supply of water for public, or, theconstruction or maintenance, extension, management forsupply and distribution of electricity to the public or provisionfor similar facilities for public;”

31. Section 20A of the said Act reads thus:

“PROHIBITED AND REGULATED AREAS

20A. Declaration of prohibited area and carrying out publicwork or other works in prohibited area.—Every area, beginning A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

at the limit of the protected area or the protected monument,as the case may be, and extending to a distance of one hundredmetres in all directions shall be the prohibited area in respectof such protected area or protected monument:

Provided that the Central Government may, on therecommendation of the Authority, by notification in the OfficialGazette, specify an area more than one hundred metres to beprohibited area having regard to the classification of anyprotected monument or protected area, as the case may be,under Section 4-A.

(2) Save as otherwise provided in Section 20-C, no person,other than an archaeological officer, shall carry out anyconstruction in any prohibited area.

(3) In a case where the Central Government or the Director-General, as the case may be, is satisfied that—

(a) it is necessary or expedient for carrying out such publicwork or any project essential to the public; or (b) such other work or project, in its opinion, shall not haveany substantial adverse impact on the preservation,safety, security of, or, access to, the monument or itsimmediate surrounding.

It or he may, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), in exceptional cases and having regard to the publicinterest, by order and for reasons to be recorded in writing,permit, such public work or project essential to the public orother constructions, to be carried out in a prohibited area:

Provided that any area near any protected monument or itsadjoining area declared, during the period beginning on or afterthe 16th day of June, 1992 but ending before the date on whichthe Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains(Amendment and Validation) Bill, 2010, receives the assent ofthe President, as a prohibited area in respect of such protectedmonument, shall be deemed to be the prohibited area declaredin respect of that protected monument in accordance with theprovisions of this Act and any permission or licence granted by the Central Government or the Director-General, as the casemay be, for the construction within the prohibited area on thebasis of the recommendation of the Expert AdvisoryCommittee, shall be deemed to have been validly granted inaccordance with the provisions of this Act, as if this sectionhad been in force at all material times:

Provided further that nothing contained in the first provisoshall apply to any permission granted, subsequent to thecompletion of construction or re-construction of any buildingor structure in any prohibited area in pursuance of thenotification of the Government of India in the Department ofCulture (Archaeological Survey of India) Number S.O. 1764,dated the 16th June, 1992 issued under Rule 34 of the AncientMonuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1959,or, without having obtained the recommendations of theCommittee constituted in pursuance of the order of theGovernment of India Number 24/22/2006-M, dated the 20thJuly, 2006 (subsequently referred to as the Expert AdvisoryCommittee in orders dated the 27th August, 2008 and the 5thMay, 2009).]

(4) No permission, referred to in sub-section (3), includingcarrying out any public work or project essential to the publicor other constructions, shall be granted in any prohibited areaon and after the date on which the Ancient Monuments andArchaeological Sites and Remains (Amendment and Validation)Bill, 2010 receives the assent of the President.”

32. Sections 20C and 20D of the said Act read thus:

20C. Application for repair or renovation in prohibited-area, or construction or reconstruction or repair orrenovation in regulated area.—(1) Any person, who ownsany building or structure, which existed in a prohibited areabefore the 16th day of June, 1992, or, which had beensubsequently constructed with the approval of the Director-General and desires to carry out any repair or renovation ofsuch building or structure, may make an application to thecompetent authority for carrying out such repair or renovation,as the case may be.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

(2) Any person, who owns or possesses any building orstructure or land in any regulated area, and desires to carryout any construction or re-construction or repair or renovationof such building or structure on such land, as the case may be,may make an application to the competent authority for carryingout construction or re-construction or repair or renovation, asthe case may be.

GRANT OF PERMISSION BY COMPETENTAUTHORITY

20D. Grant of permission by competent authority withinregulated area.—(1) Every application for grant of permissionunder Section 20-C of this Act shall be made to the competentauthority in such manner as may be prescribed.

(2) The competent authority shall, within fifteen days ofthe receipt of the application, forward the same to the Authorityto consider and intimate impact of such construction (includingthe impact of large-scale development project, public projectand project essential to the public) having regard to the heritagebye-laws relating to the concerned protected monument orprotected area, as the case may be:

Provided that the Central Government may prescribe thecategory of applications in respect of which the permissionmay be granted under this sub-section and the application whichshall be referred to the Authority for its recommendations.

(3) The Authority shall, within two months from the date ofreceipt of application under sub-section (2), intimate to thecompetent authority impact of such construction (including theimpact of large-scale development project, public project andproject essential to the public).

(4) The competent authority shall, within one month of thereceipt of intimation from the Authority under sub-section (3),either grant permission or refuse the same as so recommendedby the Authority.

(5) The recommendations of the Authority shall be final.

(6) In case the competent authority refuses to grantpermission under this section, it shall, by order in writing, after giving an opportunity to the concerned person, intimate suchrefusal within three months from the date of receipt of theapplication to the applicant, the Central Government and theAuthority.

(7) If the competent authority, after grant of the permissionunder sub-section (4) and during the carrying out of the repairor renovation work or re-construction of building or constructionreferred to in that sub-section, is of the opinion (on the basis ofmaterial in his possession or otherwise) that such repair orrenovation work or re-construction of building or constructionis likely to have an adverse impact on the preservation, safety,security or access to the monument considerably, it may referthe same to the Authority for its recommendations and if sorecommended, withdraw the permission granted under sub-section (4) if so required:

Provided that the competent authority may, in exceptionalcases, with the approval of the Authority grant permission tothe applicant referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 20-Cuntil the heritage by-laws have been prepared under sub-section(1) of Section 20-E and published under sub-section (7) of thatsection.

(8) The Central Government, or the Director-General, asthe case may be, shall exhibit, on their website, all thepermissions granted or refused under this Act.”

33. It could thus be seen that the “authority” has been definedunder Section 2(da) of the said Act to be a “National MonumentsAuthority” constituted under Section 20F of the said Act.

34. As per Section 2(db) of the said Act, the “competent authority”means an officer not below the rank of Director of archaeology orCommissioner of archaeology of the Central or State Government orequivalent rank, specified, by notification in the Official Gazette, as thecompetent authority by the Central Government to perform functionsunder the said Act.

35. Undisputedly, the Director, Culture, Department of Tourismand Culture (Culture), Government of Orissa, vide notification issued bythe Government of India dated 13[th] February 2012, has been notified to A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Abe “competent authority” for the State of Orissa for the purposes ofSections 20C and 20D of the said Act.

36. Clause (dc) of Section 2 of the said Act would be the mostimportant one. The definition of “construction” specifically excludes thefollowing:

B

(i) Re-construction, repair and renovation of an existingstructure or building;

(ii) Construction, maintenance and cleansing of drains anddrainage works and of public latrines, urinals and similarconveniences; C

(iii) Construction and maintenance of works meant for providingsupply of water for public; and

(iv) Construction or maintenance, extension, management forsupply and distribution of electricity to the public or provisionDfor similar facilities for public.

37. No doubt that the learned counsel for the appellant is right inrelying on sub-section (4) of Section 20A of the said Act which prohibitsany permission including the one for carrying out any public work orproject essential to the public or other constructions in any prohibitedEarea referred to in sub-section (3) thereof on and after the date on whichthe Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains(Amendment and Validation) Bill, 2010 receives the assent of thePresident. The same was brought into the statute book by Act No. 10 of2010.

F

38. It is further to be noted that by the very same amendment,Section 20C of the said Act has also been brought into the statute book.Sub-section (1) of Section 20C of the said Act provides that any person,who owns any building or structure, which existed in a prohibited areabefore 16[th] June, 1992, or, which had been subsequently constructedGwith the approval of the Director-General and desires to carry out anyrepair or renovation of such building or structure, may make an applicationto the competent authority for carrying out such repair or renovation, asthe case may be. Likewise, sub-section (2) of Section 20C of the saidAct enables a person, who owns or possesses any building or structureor land in any regulated area, and desires to carry out any construction H

or re-construction or repair or renovation of such building or structureon such land, as the case may be, to make an application to the competentauthority for carrying out construction or re-construction or repair orrenovation, as the case may be.

39. Section 20D of the said Act deals with grant of permission bycompetent authority within regulated area. Sub-section (1) of Section20D of the said Act provides that an application for grant of permissionunder Section 20C of the said Act, shall be made to the competentauthority. Sub-section (2) thereof requires the competent authority toforward the same to the authority to consider and intimate impact ofsuch construction having regard to the heritage bye-laws relating to theconcerned protected monument or protected area. Under proviso to sub-section (2) thereof, the Central Government is empowered to prescribethe category of applications in respect of which the permission will begranted under this sub-section and the applications which shall be referredto the authority for its recommendations. Under sub-section (3) thereof,the authority is required to intimate, within two months from the date ofreceipt of application under sub-section (2) thereof, to the competentauthority, the impact of such construction etc. Under sub-section (4)thereof, the competent authority is required to either grant permission orrefuse the same as so recommended by the authority within one monthof the receipt of intimation from the authority under sub-section (3)thereof. Under sub-section (5) thereof, a finality is given to therecommendations of the authority.

40. It is a settled principle of law that all the provisions in thestatute have to be read harmoniously. It is presumed that each and everyprovision has been brought by the legislature into the statute book withsome purpose. A particular provision cannot be read in isolation and hasto be read in context to each other. An attempt has to be made to reconcileall the provisions of the statute together, unless it is impossible.

41. At first blush, the arguments of the appellants on the basis ofsub-section (4) of Section 20A of the said Act may appear to be attractive.But when sub-section (4) of Section 20A of the said Act is read in harmonywith clause (dc) of Section 2 and the provisions of Sections 20C and20D of the said Act, we find that the submission that no construction atall can be made in the prohibited area or the regulated area, would beunsustainable.

A

BCDE

F

G

H

A42. Firstly, it is to be noted that clause (dc) of Section 2 of the saidAct itself excludes four categories as mentioned hereinabove from thedefinition of “construction”. The legislative intent is thus clear that thefour categories which are excluded from the definition of “construction”as defined in clause (dc) of Section 2 of the said Act would not betreated as a “construction”, wherever the said term is referred to in theBstatute. The legislative intent is clear that the re-construction, repair,renovation of the existing buildings has been excluded from the definition.Similarly, the construction, maintenance etc. of drains, drainage works,public latrines and urinals; the construction and maintenance of worksmeant for providing supply of water to public; and construction etc. forCdistribution of electricity, which could be construed to be essential servicesfor catering to the needs of the public at large, have consciously beenkept out of the definition of “construction”. It could be presumed thatthe legislature was aware that repairs and reconstruction of existingstructures or buildings or construction of essential facilities like publiclatrines, urinals, water supply and electricity distribution for the pilgrims/Dresidents are basic necessities and as such, should be permitted even inthe prohibited area. If it is not so interpreted, then Section 20C of thesaid Act would be rendered otiose and redundant. It need not beemphasized that an interpretation which leads a particular provision tobe otiose or redundant or meaningless, has to be avoided.

E43. It could further be seen that the said position is also clarified inthe affidavit filed by the Superintending Archaeologist, ASI before theHigh Court, which reads thus:

“E. While the works, such as toilets, drains, electrical works, etc.,do not fall within the definition of ‘’construction”, and thereforeFcan be carried out even in the prohibited area. Some other works,such as the reception center, fall squarely with the definition of“construction”, and being in the prohibited area, is not permitted.”

44. Section 20D of the said Act deals with the entire procedureregarding grant of permission by the competent authority within regulatedGarea. Undisputedly, in the present case, the competent authority hascomplied with the procedure as required under Section 20D of the saidAct and the authority, i.e., the NMA has granted its permission for thework, which is undertaken. It will be appropriate to refer to the relevantpart of the order dated 4[th] September 2021, passed by the NMA, whichreads thus:H

“2. After examination of the case, it is stated that the Authorityhas “No Objection’ under assurance of strict compliance ofAMASR, Act, 1958. Section 2 (de), to the execution of thefollowing works in the prohibited area namely Cloak Room, MiniCloak Room, Shelter pavilion. Female Toilet, Male Toilet, SevayatToilet, Electrical Room, and Pavement area, including a place tostand in queue for toilets and reaching sanctum sanctorum thatare permitted under the exception clause to the definition of“Construction” as given in the above mentioned section. In respectof the other proposed construction works in the prohibited-area-namely Reception Centre, Information cum Donation Kiosk, FirstAid Centre, Police Service Centre and ATM. Kiosk, it is requestedthat details with regard to the facilities for the public which aresought to he provided through these structures to justify theirlocation in the prohibited area or may be re-located in the _Regulated area. Further, it may clearly be established with relevantdetails that the scale of repair/renovation proposed to be carriedout in Bada Chhata Matha and Chhauni Matha does not tantamountto addition/alteration or reconstruction.”

45. Insofar as the objections in the report of the ASI is concerned,it will be relevant to refer to the note signed by the Director General ofASI dated 21[st] February 2022, which reads thus:

“1. Shree Jagannath Temple, Puri

I visited the Shree Kshetra Shree Jagannath Temple, a centrallyprotected monument and the proposed area of work. The conceptplan of the State Government aims to provide amenities andbeautify the entire environs of the temple. The proposed amenitiesfall within the prohibited area of the temple. Since these amenitiesare required for the devotees, it was agreed that this may beallowed. ASI would work in coordination with the State Governmenton the design so that there is no visual impact on the main temple.State Government was also requested to keep the entire designsimple in tandem with the spiritual nature of the entire templecomplex.

One point of discussion was the proposed Reception centrewhich is at a distance of 75 metres from the temple (part fallsunder the prohibited area). This bui1ding is proposed to be used to ABC

D

E

F

G

H

Ahold devotees before they proceed to the main complex. Giventhat this would be very essential, it was decided that the StateGovernment would consider options to slightly move the buildingbeyond 100 metres; this would also be good in the interest ofsecurity of the temple.”

B46. It could thus clearly be seen that the Director-General hasobserved that the amenities which fall within the prohibited area of thetemple are required for the devotees, and therefore, it was agreed thatthis may be allowed. It was further observed that the ASI would work incoordination with the State Government on the design so that there is novisual impact on the main temple. The State Government was alsoCrequested to keep the entire design simple in tandem with the spiritualnature of the entire temple complex.

47. In the impugned order, even the Division Bench of the HighCourt has recorded the statement of the learned Advocate General tothe effect that both ASI and the State Government would work together.DInsofar the reception area is concerned, the impugned order would alsoreveal that the learned Advocate General has clarified that it will now bemoved out of the prohibited area and it will be constructed in the regulatedarea.

48. It will further be relevant to refer to the following extract ofEthe note of the Director-General of ASI, which reads thus:

“The potential of both Puri and Ekamrakshetra to be taken up forWorld/ Heritage was also discussed. A brief overview of the WorldHeritage guidelines especially relating to management of bufferzone and the Outstanding Universal value of both temples wasFshared with them. It was agreed that all work in both places wouldbe designed and executed, keeping in mind the possibility ofbecoming World Heritage Sites, going forward. The StateGovernment was also requested to remove all encroachmentsfrom VaitalDeul and Paramaguru temple which is one of the oldestGtemple of Kalingan Architecture. The issue of shifting of thekitchen of Anantabasudev temple to another. suitable location wasalso discussed.”

49. It could thus clearly be seen that even the Director-Generalof ASI has recognized the potential of Puri and Ekamrakshetra forbeing taken up as World Heritage sites. It was agreed that all the workH

in both the places would be designed and executed keeping in mind thepossibility of developing them for being acknowledged as WorldHeritage Sites.

50. The affidavit of the Superintending Archaeologist, ASI to whichwe have already referred to hereinabove, would also reveal that theredoes not appear to be any serious objection with regard to constructionof works such as toilets, drains and electrical works in the prohibitedarea. There also does not appear to be any serious objection with regardto undertaking construction in the regulated area. The insistence is thatthe construction has to be carried out after necessary permissions areobtained from the NMA under the provisions of the said Act. Anotherconcern appears to be that the entire design or the facilities should besimple, in tandem with the spiritual nature, design and aesthetic of theentire temple complex.

51. Taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter, it isamply clear that the construction activities which are being undertaken,are being undertaken in pursuance of the directions issued by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Mrinalini Padhi (supra). Theconstruction is being carried out for the purpose of providing basic andessential amenities like toilets for men and women, cloak rooms, electricityrooms etc. These are the basic facilities which are necessary for theconvenience of the devotees at large. As already discussed hereinabove,the legislative intent appears to be clear. The legislature has deliberatelyexcluded four categories from the definition of “construction”. Thepurpose behind it appears to be that the repairs and renovation of thebuildings, which are existing and the constructions which are necessaryfor providing basic facilities like drainage, toilets, water supply anddistribution of electricity should be kept out of the rigour of requirementof statutory permissions.

52. An argument was sought to be advanced by Shri Navare thatthe said provision is only to enable a person who resides in the prohibitedarea to get his existing structure re-constructed, repaired and renovatedand the said provision cannot come to the aid of the State to createfacilities for the public. Such an argument is taken note of only to berejected. If an individual person can construct a toilet in a prohibitedarea; can the State be denied to do so, when the State finds it necessaryto do it in the larger public interest for providing basic facilities to thelakhs of devotees visiting the shrine? The answer is an emphatic ‘no’.

A

B

C

DEF

G

H

A

B

C

DEF

G

H

A53. A hue and cry was made that the construction carried out iscontrary to the Inspection Report carried out by the ASI. However, thenote of the Director General of ASI dated 21[st] February, 2022 as well asthe affidavit filed by the ASI before the High Court would falsify thisposition.B54. It would further be relevant to note that the High Court itself A

54. It would further be relevant to note that the High Court itselfhas recorded the statement of the learned Advocate General for Stateof Odisha that both the ASI and the State Government would worktogether to ensure that no archaeological remains are missed out ordamaged.

C55. It could thus be seen that even if the appellants had any genuineconcern, the same is already taken care of in the impugned order.

56. In spite of that, the matter was mentioned for obtaining urgentorders before the Vacation Bench on Monday, i.e., 30[th] May, 2022. Sincethe matter was not listed on Tuesday, i.e., 31[st] May, 2022, it was againDmentioned on the said date. Again, a hue and cry was made as if heavensare going to fall if the petitions were not listed. As such, the petitionswere listed on Thursday, i.e., 2[nd] June, 2022. We have heard the learnedcounsel for the parties at length.

57. We have no hesitation in holding that the activities undertakenEby the State are completely in tune with the directions issued by thethree-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Mrinalini Padhi (supra).They are necessary in the larger public interest and there is no prohibitionin the statute for doing so, as sought to be argued by the appellants.

58. We, therefore, find no merit in the contentions raised on behalfFof the appellants. We are of the considered view that the public interestlitigation filed before the High Court rather than being in public interest,is detrimental to the public interest at large.

59. In the recent past, it is noticed that there is mushroom growthof public interest litigations. However, in many of such petitions, there isno public interest involved at all. The petitions are either publicity interestGlitigations or personal interest litigation. We highly deprecate practice offiling such frivolous petitions. They are nothing but abuse of process oflaw. They encroach upon a valuable judicial time which could be otherwiseutilized for considering genuine issues. It is high time that such so-calledpublic interest litigations are nipped in the bud so that the developmentalHactivities in the larger public interest are not stalled.

60. In the result, the appeals, having been found to be without anysubstance, are dismissed with costs, quantified at Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupeesone lakh) each, payable by the appellants to the respondent No.1 withinfour weeks from the date of this judgment.

61. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of in the above terms.

Devika Gujral(Assisted by : Deepak Panwar, LCRA)

Appeals dismissed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H