Construction activity to provide basic amenities at Puri's Jagannath temple

Construction activities carried out by the Odisha government at the famed Shree Jagannath temple in Puri to provide essential amenities like toilets and cloak rooms are necessary in larger public interest, the Supreme Court said on Friday while rejecting petitions challenging the work.

A vacation bench of Justices B R Gavai and Hima Kohli dismissed the PILs opposing the construction with costs, and said the state cannot be prevented from making necessary arrangements to provide basic facilities for lakhs of devotees visiting the temple.

The top court said the construction activities are being undertaken in pursuance of the directions issued by a three­-judge bench of this Court in the case of Mrinalini Padhi. ''The construction is being carried out for the purpose of providing basic and essential amenities like toilets for men and women, cloak rooms, electricity rooms etc. These are the basic facilities which are necessary for the convenience of the devotees at large,'' it said.

The bench also took exception to the filing of frivolous PILs, and said most of such petitions are either publicity interest litigation or personal interest litigation.

''In the recent past, it is noticed that there is mushroom growth of public interest litigations. However, in many of such petitions, there is no public interest involved at all. The petitions are either publicity interest litigations or personal interest litigation. We highly deprecate the practice of filing such frivolous petitions. They are nothing but abuse of the process of law. ''They encroach upon a valuable judicial time which could be otherwise utilised 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,'' the bench said.

The top court said that a hue and cry was made that construction carried out is contrary to the inspection report carried out by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). However, the note of the Director General of ASI clears the position. ''It can thus be seen that even if the appellant had genuine concern the same is already taken care by the high court in the impugned order. Inspite of that matter was mentioned for obtaining urgent orders before the vacation bench on Monday. Till the matter was not listed again a hue and cry was made as if heavens are going to fall if the matter is not heard. Activity undertaken is in sync with our earlier orders,'' the bench said.

''It would further be relevant to note that the high court itself has recorded the statement of the Advocate General for State of Odisha that both the ASI and the State Government would work together to ensure that no archaeological remains are missed out or damaged,'' the bench said.

''We are of the considered view that the public interest litigation filed before the High Court rather than being in public interest, is detrimental to the public interest at large.

''In the result, the appeals, having been found to be without any substance, are dismissed with costs, quantified at Rs 1 lakh each, payable by the appellants to the respondent No 1 within four weeks from the date of this judgment,'' the bench said.

The bench rejected the submission of the petitioners that no construction at all can be made in the prohibited area or the regulated area and re­construction, repair, renovation of the existing buildings has been excluded from the definition under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. The top court was hearing a plea filed by devotees of Lord Jagannath Ardhendu Kumar Das and Sumanta Kumar Ghadei alleging illegal excavation and construction work by the Odisha government at the temple.

According to the petition, state agencies have been working in gross violation of Section 20A of The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. The plea alleged that the Odisha government is carrying out unauthorised construction work. This poses a serious threat to the structure of the ancient temple, it said.

Earlier, senior advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani, appearing for the petitioner, had said there's a clear embargo and there can be no construction in the prohibited area.

''They (state government) did not even take permission to construct in the regulated area,'' she had submitted, adding that voluminous excavation is being done near the temple, which would be hazardous to the old structure.

The state, she had said, got a no objection certificate from the National Monuments Authority (NMA) and went ahead. She said the NMA could not have granted a valid certificate and this is something only the director of archaeology in the Central or the state government can do. Advocate General for Odisha Ashok Kumar Parija had submitted that under The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, the authority is the NMA, and the competent authority has been notified to be the Odisha government's director culture.

''Construction does not mean repair or remake existing structures or clean the sewage, drains etc. This is how it is understood and DG ASI also understands the same way. ''Grant of permission was by director culture... the director culture of the government of Odisha is the competent authority. What was prohibited within 100 metres was construction. The concept plan of the state aims to provide amenities and beautify the temple,'' he had said.

He added that 60,000 people visit the temple everyday and there is a need for more toilets.

''The amicus curiae in the case pointed out there was a necessity of more toilets and court had issued directions in that regard,'' he had added.