(Uday Umesh Lalit and Indira Banerjee, JJ.)
Shiv Darshan Singh _________________________________ Petitioner;
v.
Rakesh Tiwari, Director General Archeological Survey of India and Others _______________________________________ Respondent(s).
Contempt Petition (C) No. 697/2017 In C.A. No. 2431/2006, decided on January 23, 2019
(IA No. 168512/2018 – For permission to file additional documents/facts/annexures)
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. We have heard Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel for the contempt petitioner, Mr. A.D.N. Rao, learned counsel for the respondents – Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and National Monuments Authority (NMA), Mr. Yoginder Handoo, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and Mr. Guru Krishnan Kumar, learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 and 5.
2. After conclusion of hearing, the concerned files were placed before the Court by the learned counsel appearing for the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC).
3. From the files it is evident that the matter pertaining to the request for revalidation of plan in respect of Plot No. 14, Janpath Lane, New Delhi submitted on 13.02.2014 was referred to the Legal Advisor for his consideration. The Legal Advisor made certain comments and queries on 11.03.2014. The note which led to the matter getting referred to the Legal Advisor had mentioned the fact that the matter had earlier reached this Court and that a decision1 was rendered by this Court.
4. After the Legal Advisor had made certain queries and sought clarification, further notings in the file beginning from 13.03.2014 indicate that the facts that the matter had reached this Court and there was a decision1 rendered by this Court were conspicuously absent nor did the concerned officials await the final recommendations from the Legal Advisor.
5. Notings in the file disclose that starting from 13.03.2014 where note was generated by Mr. A.P. Tigga, AA (BP) N, right to the official authorization dated 31.03.2014, the matter was seen by as many as 7 officials of the department whose names have been disclosed as under:
1. Mr. A.P. Tigga, A.A. (BP) N
2. Mr. Sushil Dhingra, DA (BP) N
3. Mr. Gurcharan Singh, A (BP) N
4. Mr. Rajiv Sood, DCA
5. Mr. A.M. Athalae, C.P.
6. Mr. Jalaj Srivastava, Chairman
7. Mr. V.C. Chaturvedi, Advisor (R&L)
6. Before we take final decision in the matter, we deem it appropriate to issue notices to all these seven officials and seek explanation from them as to why did they consider the application for revalidation of plan without waiting for the recommendations by the Legal Advisor and without disclosing the fact that there was already a judgment1 by this Court and considering the effect of that judgment.
7. We also issue notices to Prof. Himanshu Prabha Ray, the then Chairperson NMA, Mr. Pravin Shrivastava, the then Member-Secretary NMA to explain as to the circumstances in which permission to go ahead with reconstruction/repairing was granted by them.
8. Similarly, Shri Vijay Singh, who was then holding the charge as Competent Authority of ASI must also tender explanation to this Court so far as his role in the entire matter is concerned.
9. All these persons shall be served additionally through their respective departments. Learned counsel appearing for the New Delhi Municipal Corporation, Archaeological Survey of India and National Monuments Authority have accepted that their clients take the responsibility of getting these persons served through their respective departments.
10. Let notices be made returnable in three weeks.
11. The aforementioned noticees, if they do not choose to file their response before three weeks, must remain personally present in the Court on the next date.
12. Learned counsel for New Delhi Municipal Corporation, Archaeological Survey of India and National Monuments Authority shall also place on record their stand as to what is the status of such structures which are in prohibited zone and what the authorities intend to do with such structures in prohibited zone.
13. List the matter on 07.03.2019 at 1400 Hours as Part-Heard.
———
1 Archaeological Survey of India v. Narender Anand, (2012) 2 SCC 562
