(R.K. Agrawal and Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.)
Sakkubai etc. etc. ________________________________ Petitioner(s);
v.
State of Karnataka and Others ____________________ Respondent(s).
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 13714-13727/2015, decided on February 6, 2018
(For on IA 15/2017 For Exemption From Filing O.T. on IA 29/2017 and IA No. 58525/2017-Amendment of the Petition [For Final Disposal] and IA No. 115244/2017-Permission to File Additional Documents and IA No. 120001/2017-Permission to File Additional Documents Respondents seeks time to file reply affidavit vide Order dated 17.11.2017 and IA No. 130448/2017-impleading party) With SLP(C) No. 15203/2015 and Diary No(s). 1942/2018
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
I.A. No. 58525 of 2017
1. By means of the present application seeking amendment of SLP, the petitioners seek to amend the special leave petition by seeking a declaration that the Notification dated 22nd October, 1988 is ultra vires of the provisions of the Central Act i.e. Ancient Monuments and Historical Sites and Remains Act, 1958, Karnataka Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1961 and the Hampi World Heritage Area Management Authority Act, 2002.
2. It may be pertinent to mention here that the petitioners have already filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court being Writ Petition Nos. 65940-65949 of 2011 in which the petitioners submit that the Hampi World Heritage Management Authority Act 2002 is arbitrary, illegal, ultra vires and unconstitutional as stated supra. There is conflict of provisions of different Acts viz., Karnataka Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Act, 1961, the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 and Hampi World Heritage Authority Management Act 2002 and also Master plan 2012. Thus, it is necessary to stay the operation of the Hampi World Heritage Authority Management Act, 2002 and Master Plan 2021 pending disposal of the writ petition. If the Act is not stayed, there will be multiplicity of litigations.
3. As the matter is still pending before the Karnataka High Court, we, therefore, do not find it proper to allow the application for amendment of SLP. It is hereby rejected.
4. However, if the petitioners want to challenge the said Notification, they may do it either by amending the petition pending before the Karnataka High Court or by filing a fresh petition before the High Court as per law.
5. List these matters after two weeks.
———
