(Madan B. Lokur, S. Abdul Nazeer and Deepak Gupta, JJ.)
M.C. Mehta _____________________________________ Petitioner
v.
Union of India & Ors. ____________________________ Respondent(s)
Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No(s). 13381/1984, decided on August 28, 2018
In Re: Taj Trapezium Zone
(1) IA No. 67652/2018 (Appln. For Appropriate Orders and Directions on B/o National Chamber of Industries and Commerce)
(2) I.A. Nos. 57183/2017 (Applns. For Directions/Permission on Behalf of State of U.P., Deptt. of Tourism)
(3) IA No. 69657/2018 (Appln. Arising out of Note Submitted in Court by Petitioner-in-Person)
(4) IA No. 470/2008 and 486/2009 (Applns. For Directions Filed by Petitioner-in-Person and Permission to File Rejoinder Affidavit)
(5) IA No. 478/2008 (Appln. For Directions Filed by Petitioner-in-Person)
(6) IA No. 479/2008 (Appln. For Directions Filed by Petitioner-in-Person)
(7) IA No. 480/2008 (Appln. For Directions Filed by Petitioner-in-Person)
(8) IA No. 481/2008 and 483/2008 (Applns. For Directions Filed by Petitioner-in-Person and Appln. For Permission to File Counter Affidavit)
(9) IA No. 426/2004 and 539//2015 (Appln. For Directions on Behalf of State of U.P. and For Modification of Court’s Order Dt. 25.11.2004 on Behalf of Archaelogical Survey of India)
(10) IA No. 427/2004 (Appln. For Directions)
(11) IA No. 428/2004 (Appln. For Directions
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Ms. Meenakshi Dhote, who is the Professor of Environmental Planning, DSPA and Project Coordinator of Vision Document is present in the Court today. We have had a brief discussion with her. We have advised her that she should prepare a document along with other experts keeping the larger picture in mind and the interest of the Taj Trapezium Zone and the Taj Mahal in mind. If she needs any other expert assistance, she can freely ask for it. If she comes across any hurdles or obstacles in the preparation of the Vision Document, she can always approach this Court for assistance.
2. Mr. M.C. Mehta (the petitioner) says that he had about two meetings with Ms. Dhote. He says that he will give his suggestions and also meet her, whenever necessary. The suggestions will be given within a week or so.
3. Ms. Dhote says that she has received valuable suggestions from ICOMOS, Aga Khan Foundation and INTACH and they are being considered.
4. List the matter on 25th September, 2018.
5. In so far as declaration of Agra as a heritage city is concerned, it is pointed out by Mr. M.C. Mehta that this is one of the directions given by this Court in the case of M.C. Mehta v. UOI [(1997) 2 SCC 353].
6. It is stated by Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, the learned ASG that a communication in this regard has been sent to the Government of U.P. to send a proposal for declaring Agra as a heritage city.
7. It is stated by Mr. Tushar Mehta, the learned ASG appearing for the State of U.P. that he will respond to the Government of India within a month from today.
8. We expect the State of U.P. to give its response before the next date of hearing i.e. 25.09.2018.
9. It is stated by Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, the learned ASG that the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) will file the Management Plan with the World Heritage Centre of UNESCO within a period of three months from today.
———
