Ardhendu Kumar Das vs. The State of Odisha
Background
A PIL was filed before the Orissa High Court alleging that the State of Odisha was carrying out unauthorised construction (toilets, drains, cloak rooms, and electrical facilities for devotees) within the protected/prohibited area around the Shree Jagannath Temple at Puri, in violation of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. Two intervenors (the appellants here), describing themselves as devotees of Lord Jagannath, sought and were granted permission to appeal against a Division Bench order that had declined to stop the construction and instead posted the matter for further hearing. They argued that the National Monuments Authority (NMA), which had granted a No-Objection Certificate for the work, had no legal power to permit construction in a protected area, and that only the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) could authorise it.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the construction was being carried out pursuant to directions of an earlier three-judge Bench (in Mrinalini Padhi) for providing basic amenities to devotees, that the statute itself excludes repairs, renovation and basic facilities like toilets, drainage, water supply and electricity from the definition of regulated "construction," and that the competent procedure (NOC from NMA via the state's competent authority) had in fact been followed. Finding the ASI's own reports did not support the alleged violations and that the State and ASI had agreed to jointly ensure no archaeological remains were harmed, the Court held the PIL lacked merit and was, in its view, actually detrimental to public interest by obstructing facilities needed by lakhs of devotees. The Court used the occasion to strongly criticize the growing trend of frivolous "publicity interest" or "personal interest" litigations misusing the PIL jurisdiction. The appeals were dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,00,000 each payable by the appellants.
Lesson Learnt
Not every construction near a protected monument is unlawful: statutes protecting monuments typically carve out basic public-amenity works (toilets, drainage, electricity) from strict permission requirements, and courts will penalize PILs that use environmental/heritage concerns as a pretext to obstruct genuinely public-interest infrastructure.