Dismissed

Ashok Arjun Bhate v. Union of India and 8 Ors.

Bombay HC24 Feb 2010PIL/108/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL, the petitioner sought declaration of Magathane Caves as a protected national monument. The High Court noted affidavits from Government officials stating the caves were dilapidated, eroded, and encroached upon, losing original glory. Consequently, the Court held it could not direct notification as a protected monument and disposed of the petition without interference.

What did the court decide?

No order was made for notification of the caves as a protected monument; the petition was disposed of without interference.

Ashok Arjun Bhate Vs Union of India and 8 Ors. — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 108 OF 2009

¶4

Mr. Ashok Arjun Bhate .. Petitioner Vs. Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents

¶5

Mr. LeRoy Collaco, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. N.R.Prajapati, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

¶6

Mr. K.K.Singhvi, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Shobha Ranjit Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.1 BMC.

¶7

Mr. Bharat Mehta, AGP, for State.

¶8

Mr. D.D.Madon, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rajesh Shah i/b. Bankim Desai, Advocates, for respondent No.8.

¶9

CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND J.H.BHATIA, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 24^th February, 2010.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

1 The petitioner has approached this Court seeking protection of what

¶13

is described as the “Magathane Caves”. The petitioner has relied on material to show the historical importance of the Magathane Caves. The Caves are also known as “Vajrayana Caves” and date back to 6^th and 8^th centuries and are situated

¶14

near the Poiser River and find mention in the Gazette of Thane of the year 1882.

¶15

The petition was filed for the purpose of declaring this as a protected national

¶16

¶17

monument under the provisions of the ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act,1958.

¶18

After hearing the petitioner, by an order dated 14.1.2010, we had directed the officers of the Archaeological Survey of India as also officers of the

¶19

Archaeological Department of the State of Maharashtra to visit the site and submit their report.

¶20

Subsequent to the order, affidavits have been filed on behalf f the Department of Archaeology, Government of India, by Shri Zulfeqar Ali, Deputy Superintending Archaeologist. In his affidavit, it is admitted that the Megathane Caves would fall within the definition of “ancient monument” under the Act. It is however, pointed out that on carrying out inspection, they find that it is too late for Central protection as the site has been badly dilapidated, eroded and encroached upon and few evidences are available in the form of eroded sculptures and caves. Also the existing remains on the side are not worthy of National importance.

¶21

The affidavit of Shri V.N.Kamble, Administration Officer of the Directorate of Archeology and Museums of the State Government. In the said affidavit, it is pointed out that the Director of State Archaeological and Museum

¶22

¶23

Department had come to the conclusion that though these caves are historically and Archaeological importance, they had lost their original glory. This was also based on the opinion formed after the site inspection that the caves are not worthy of declaring to be a Protected Monument under the said Act. Material has also been placed of the massive encroachments inside the caves, outside the caves as also on top of the caves.

¶24

In our opinion, considering the material on record and the opinin formed by the respective Governments, it will not be possible for this Court to direct either the Archaeological Survey of India or the State Government to notify the said caves either under the Central Act or the State Act as Protected or National Monument.

¶25

We do appreciate the purpose behind the petitioner approaching this Court. However, this Court can exercise its jurisdiction if the caves could be rehabilitated and restored. In the instant case, considering the two affidavits, such an exercise would not be possible. In the light of that, no interference is called for.

¶26

The petition is disposed of.

¶27

(F.I.REBELLO,J.)

¶28

(J.H.BHATIA,J.)

Ashok Arjun Bhate v. Union of India and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Arjun Bhate v. Union of India and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabhakar Bhaskar Pradhan Vs the Board of Control for Cricket in India and 3 Ors.

Nagrik Chetna Manch and Anr. Vs Pune Municipal Corporation, Pune and Ors.

Murugendra Siddappa Khadabadi Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 6 Others

Mohd. Rafiq Allahbaksh Sayyad and 9 Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and 5 Others

Shrikant Akaram Lad and Ors. Vs Maharashtra State Co-Op. Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Shrikant Akaram Lad and Ors. Vs Maharashtra State Co-Op. Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Prabhakar Dattatraya Narkar and Ors. Vs Group Grampanchayat, Pale Khurd and Ors.

Janhit Manch and Ors. Vs the Union of India

Shishira Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. and 3 Ors. Vs Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Rajgir Builders Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 11 Ors.

Sandeep Shetty Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mangala Sunil Verma Vs Backbay Colaba Association and 4 Ors.

Digamber Manikrao Bhosale Vs R. Rangasayee, Director, Ali Yavar Jung National Institute for Hearing Handicapped and 3 Ors.

Association for Service and Healing of Animals (Asha) and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.