ARDHENDU KUMAR DAS vs. THE STATE OF ODISHA

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  CIVIL APPEAL NO._4515 OF 2022 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.10427 of 2022] ARDHENDU KUMAR DAS     ...APPELLANT(S)   VERSUS THE STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS.  ...RESPONDENT(S) WITH  CIVIL APPEAL NO.4516 OF 2022 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.10428 of 2022] JUDGMENT B.R. GAVAI, J. 1. Both   these  petitions   challenge   the   interlocutory   order th dated 9  May, 2022, passed by the Division Bench of the High Signature Not Verified Court of Orissa at Cuttack, in Writ Petition (Civil) No.6257 of Digitally signed by Anita Malhotra Date: 2022.06.03 12:04:22 IST Reason: 2022,   wherein   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   has 1 recorded   certain   submissions   and   statements   made   by   the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of nd Odisha and directed the matter to be posted on 22  June, 2022 along with Writ Petition (Civil) No. 10153 of 2022.   From the tenor of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it appears that they are basically aggrieved since the High Court has not granted an interim order restraining the respondents from proceeding further with the construction.   2. The factual background leading to the filing of the present proceedings is thus: 3. A   Public   Interest   Litigation   being   Writ   Petition   (Civil) No.6257 of  2022 came to be filed before the  High Court of Orissa   by   one   Dillip   Kumar   Baral   challenging   the   alleged unsanctioned   and   unauthorised   construction   activities undertaken   by   the   respondent   Nos.   1   and   2   within   the prohibited   area   of   the  Shree   Jagannath   Temple  complex   in contravention of the provisions of The Ancient Monuments and 2 Archaeological   Sites   and   Remains   Act,   1958   (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”)  4. It appears that initially the said writ petition was listed th before the Division Bench of the High Court on 8  April, 2022, on   which   date,   certain   statements   made   by   the   learned Advocate General were taken on record.   Subsequently, when st the matter was listed on 21  April, 2022, certain further orders th came to be passed.   Subsequently, the order dated 9   May, 2022 has been passed by the High Court, which is impugned in the present Special Leave Petitions.   5. The   petitioner­Ardhendu   Kumar   Das   in   Special   Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.16718 of  2022 is  not the  petitioner before the High Court.   However, he claims to be an ardent devotee   of  Lord   Jagannath   and   therefore,   had   filed   an Intervention   Application   before   the   High   Court,   which   is pending consideration.   The petitioner has therefore filed an Interlocutory Application seeking permission to file the present 3 th Special Leave Petition challenging the order dated 9  May, 2022 of the Division Bench of the High Court. 6. The petitioner­Sumanta Kumar Ghadei in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.17078 of 2022 is also not the petitioner before the High Court.   The said petitioner had also filed an Intervention  Application in  the   writ  petition before  the   High Court,   which   is   pending   adjudication.     The   said   petitioner claims to be a social activist and businessman, who is a devotee of Lord Jagannath and also claims to have done research and has keen interest in ancient monuments and sculptures of the State. 7. Taking   into   consideration   the   fact   that   larger   issues involving   public   interest   are   involved,   we   allow   the   said applications for permission to file Special Leave Petitions.  We also grant leave in both these Special Leave Petitions.   8. An impleadment application has been filed by Raghunath Gochhikar   and   others,   who   claim   to   be   Sevayats.     The applicants support the stand of the State Government. We are 4 inclined to allow their application and permit them to intervene. It is ordered accordingly.  9. We have heard Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant­Ardhendu Kumar Das, Mr. Vinay Navare, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf   of   the   appellant­Sumanta   Kumar   Ghadei,   Mr.   Ashok Parija, learned Advocate General for State of Odisha, Mr. Kapil Sibal and Mr. Pinaki Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on   behalf   of   the   respondent­State,   Mr.   A.D.N.   Rao,   learned Senior   Counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   Archaeological Survey of India (“ASI” for short), Mr. Swetaretu Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 5 to 7­ Shree   Jagannath   Temple   Managing   Committee   and   Mr.   Pai Amit,   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the applicants/interveners/impleaders.    Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, learned Senior Counsel submits 10. that in view of sub­section (4) of Section 20A of the said Act, no permission can be granted for carrying out any public work or 5 project essential to the public or other constructions in any prohibited area on and after the date on which the Ancient Monuments   and   Archaeological   Sites   and   Remains (Amendment and Validation) Bill, 2010 receives the assent of the   President.   Ms.   Pavani   further   submitted   that   the th communication   dated   5   February,   2022,   addressed   by   the Conservation Assistant, ASI, to the Sr. Project Manager, OBCC, would show that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were carrying out unauthorised  construction  within  the   prohibited  area  of  the Centrally   Protected   Monument   of   Shree   Jagannath   Temple. She further submits that the inspection report would reveal that there are serious irregularities in the work carried out by the respondents­State.   She further submits that voluminous excavation   is   being   done   near   the   Temple,   which   would   be hazardous to the Temple, which is an old structure.    11. Shri Vinay Navare, learned Senior Counsel submits that insofar as the so­called “No Objection Certificate” (“NOC” for short) issued by the National Monuments Authority (“NMA” for 6 th short)   dated   4   September,   2021,   is   concerned,   the   said Authority   has   no   authority   in   law   to   permit   construction. Relying on the provisions of Section 20­I of the said Act, he submits that NMA is only a recommendatory authority and has no authority in law to permit any construction either in the prohibited area or in the regulated area.   He further submits that   if   any   construction   activity   is   to   be   undertaken   in   a prohibited area, the same has to be undertaken only by the ASI and by no other authority.   12. Both   the   learned   counsel   therefore   submit   that   it   is necessary to injunct the respondents­State from carrying out any further construction activity during the pendency of the present appeals. 13. Shri Ashok Parija, learned Advocate General, submits that under   clause   (da)   of   Section   2   of   the   said   Act,   the   word “Authority”   has   been   defined   to   mean   the   NMA   constituted under Section 20F.  He submits that clause (db) of Section 2 of the said Act defines “competent authority” to mean an officer 7 not below the rank of Director of archaeology or Commissioner of archaeology of the Central or State Government or equivalent rank, specified, by notification in the Official Gazette, as the competent authority by the Central Government.   He submits th that   the   Government   of   India   vide   Notification   dated   13 February,   2012,   in   exercise   of   the   powers   conferred   by   the proviso to clause (db) of Section 2 of the said Act has notified Director,   Culture,   Department   of   Tourism   and   Culture (Culture),   Government   of   Odisha,   Bhubaneshwar   as   the “competent authority” for the State of Odisha for the purpose of Sections 20C and 20D of the said Act.  The learned Advocate General further submits that “grant of permission by competent authority” is regulated by Section 20D of the said Act.   He further submits that in view of the provisions of Section 20D of the said Act, the competent authority for the State of Odisha had made an application for grant of NOC to NMA.  NMA vide th order dated 4   September, 2021 granted its NOC for carrying 8 out various works within the prohibited area and the regulated area.   14. The   learned   Advocate   General   further   submitted   that clause (dc) of Section 2 of the said Act defines “construction”. He   submits   that   the   definition   specifically   excludes   any   re­ construction, repair and renovation of an existing structure or building, or, construction, maintenance and cleansing of drains and drainage works and of public latrines, urinals and similar conveniences, or, the construction and maintenance of works meant   for   providing   supply   of   water   for   public,   or,   the construction   or   maintenance,   extension,   management   for supply and distribution of electricity to the public or provision for similar facilities for public.  15. The learned Advocate General further submitted that the three­Judge   Bench   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Mrinalini 1 Padhi vs. Union of India and others   has itself found that it was necessary to construct separate toilets for male and female. 1 (2019) 18 SCC 1 9 He further submitted that this Court in the said case itself has directed   ASI   to   cooperate   and   to   permit   the   activities   of improvement which are necessary for providing facilities to the public at large. Mr. Pinaki Mishra, learned Senior Counsel, submits that 16. taking   into   consideration   the   fact   that   there   was   serious inconvenience to the devotees who throng in lakhs during the Rath Yatra period, it was found necessary that the area within the radius of 75 meters surrounding the Temple be cleared for passage to the devotees.   He submitted that on an average, about 60,000 devotees visit the Temple every day. There are no proper queues   for the devotees to maintain discipline and enter the Temple.   He submits that the basic facilities like toilets for women   and   men   were   lacking.   As   such,   taking   into consideration the larger public interest, the Government had acquired the buildings in the vicinity which were constructed as   lodges   decades   ago,   by   spending   an   amount   of   Rs.700 crores.   He   submitted  that  the  entire  area  surrounding  the 10 Temple was acquired through negotiations without resorting to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.   He submits that these   buildings   were   owned   by   Sevayats,   who   are   also   not opposing the developmental work surrounding the Temple and, on the contrary, support the same.   17. Mr. Pai Amit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants/interveners/impleaders and Mr. Swetaretu Mishra, learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   Shree   Jagannath Temple   Managing   Committee   also   support   the   submissions made by the learned Advocate General.  18. Mr. A.D.N. Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for ASI submits that the stand of the ASI is reflected in the affidavit filed before the High Court of Orissa and states that the ASI has no objection to the construction being carried out strictly in conformity with the provisions of law.   19. Though the  present  appeals  challenge  the  interlocutory order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, since lengthy arguments have been advanced on behalf of both the 11 parties, we find it appropriate to consider the submissions on merits, as advanced.  20. Before we consider the challenge with regard to violation of the statutory provisions, it will be apposite to refer to an earlier decision of this Court, which will have a bearing on the decision in the present matter.  21. A   three­Judge   Bench   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of (supra),   had   an   occasion   to   consider   the Mrinalini   Padhi   situation prevailing in the vicinity of Shree Jagannath Temple. th This Court in the said case had initially passed an order on 8 June,   2018,   directing   the   District   Judge,   Puri   to   submit   a th report.    This Court thereafter vide order  dated  9   January, 2019, appointed Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Counsel as Amicus   Curiae   and   Ms.   Priya   Hingorani,   learned   Senior Counsel was requested to assist him in the matter.  Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae has submitted interim reports from time to time on the basis of which certain orders came to th be passed.   Finally, vide the order dated 4  November, 2019, 12 this   Court   issued   various   directions.     While   issuing   the directions, this court had also taken on record the views of various stakeholders.   22. This Court in paragraph 17 of the judgment in the case of Mrinalini Padhi   (supra) had found that redevelopment plan around   the  Temple   is   mainly  to  decongest  the   area  for  the benefit of pilgrims and to make the city of Puri a world heritage city.   This Court also recorded that nobody was opposing the reforms for the betterment of the place.  This Court also noticed in paragraph 18 that during the annual Rath Yatra, lakhs of people   visit   the   Temple   town   and   the   congregation   is unmanageable.   23. This Court took on record the observations of Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae as well as Ms. Priya Hingorani, learned Senior Counsel, who had personally visited the Temple premises.  A perusal of the order would reveal that this Court had   also   requested   Shri   Tushar   Mehta,   learned   Solicitor General of India to personally visit the Temple premises.  From 13 their observations, it was found that the Temples inside the Mathas, their Gaadis, Samadhis and other artefacts have been preserved.   24. In paragraph 40, this Court issued various directions. In paragraph 40.15, this Court directed that there was necessity to   have   a   proper   darshan   by   people   at   large.     It   was   also directed that it was necessary to avoid commotion and chaos as large number of pilgrims visit the Temple every day.  This Court therefore   directed   the   Temple   Administration   and   the   Chief Administrator   including   the   State   Government   to   prepare   a roadmap with the help of experts for having proper darshan by the devotees/pilgrims.  In paragraph 40.16, this Court further directed the Temple administration and also the Temple police to ensure that there would be a dedicated section of personnel to tighten security inside the Temple and ensure that no such incident takes place in the Temples and no misbehaviour is meted out to women.   14 25. It   will   also   be   relevant   to   reproduce   the   directions   in paragraph 40.19 and 40.20, which read thus: “  The   learned   Amicus   Curiae   has   also 40.19. pointed   out   that   there   is   a   necessity   for separate toilets for male and female. We direct that   let   the   toilets   be   provided   with   modern amenities and should be kept absolutely clean. The number of toilets shall be adequate having regard   to   the   average   footfall   in   the   temple, which is large in number. 40.20.  There is a necessity pointed out about the   cloak   rooms.   Let   steps   be   taken   by   the Temple administration in this regard.” 26. It could thus be seen that the three­Judge Bench of this Court has emphasized on the necessity to have separate toilets for male and female. This Court further directed that the toilets be   provided   with   modern   amenities   and   should   be   kept absolutely clean.   This Court also directed that the number of toilets shall be adequate having regard to the average footfall in the Temple.   This Court further emphasized the necessity to 15 have cloak rooms and directed the Temple administration to take steps in that regard.   27. This Court further directed the ASI to cooperate and to permit the activities of improvement which are not prima facie objectionable and are necessary for public hygiene, sanitation and public health.  This Court only put a rider that the form of the new structure is maintained in the same manner as the ancient one.  It would thus clearly reveal that the nature of construction 28. which is undertaken by the respondents­State and the Temple administration is in tune with the directions issued by this Court.  29. In   this   background,   we   will   proceed   to   consider   the submissions with regard to the violation of the provisions of the said Act.   30. Clauses (da), (db) and (dc) of Section 2 of the said Act define   “Authority”,   “competent   authority”   and   “construction” respectively, which are as under:   16

17 distribution of electricity to the public or provision for similar facilities for public;” Section 20A of the said Act reads thus: 31.

18

19 prohibited   area   on   the   basis   of   the recommendation of the Expert Advisory Committee,   shall   be   deemed   to   have been validly granted in accordance with the   provisions   of   this   Act,   as   if   this section had been in force at all material times: Provided   further   that   nothing contained in the first proviso shall apply to any permission granted, subsequent to the completion of construction or re­ construction of any building or structure in any prohibited area in pursuance of the   notification   of   the   Government   of India   in   the   Department   of   Culture (Archaeological Survey of India) Number S.O. 1764, dated the 16th June, 1992 issued   under   Rule   34   of   the   Ancient Monuments   and   Archaeological   Sites and   Remains   Rules,   1959,   or,   without having obtained the recommendations of the Committee constituted in pursuance of the order of the Government of India Number 24/22/2006­M, dated the 20th July, 2006 (subsequently referred to as the Expert Advisory Committee in orders dated the 27th August, 2008 and the 5th May, 2009).] (4) No permission, referred to in sub­ section   (3),   including   carrying   out   any public  work or project essential to  the public   or   other   constructions,   shall   be granted in any prohibited area on and after   the   date   on   which   the   Ancient Monuments   and   Archaeological   Sites and   Remains   (Amendment   and 20 Validation) Bill, 2010 receives the assent of the President.” 32. Sections 20C and 20D of the said Act read thus: 20C.   Application   for   repair   or renovation   in   prohibited   area,   or construction   or   re­construction   or .— repair or renovation in regulated area ( 1) Any person, who owns any building or structure,   which   existed   in   a   prohibited area before the 16th day of June, 1992, or, which had been subsequently constructed with the approval of the Director­General and   desires   to   carry   out   any   repair   or renovation of such building or structure, may make an application to the competent authority for carrying out such repair or renovation, as the case may be. (2) Any person, who owns or possesses any building or structure or land in any regulated   area,   and   desires   to   carry   out any   construction   or   re­construction   or repair   or   renovation   of   such   building   or structure on such land, as the case may be,   may   make   an   application   to   the competent   authority   for   carrying   out construction or re­construction or repair or renovation, as the case may be. GRANT OF PERMISSION BY COMPETENT AUTHORITY 21 20D. Grant of permission by competent authority   within   regulated   area . —(1) Every application for grant of permission under   Section   20­C   of   this   Act   shall   be made to the competent authority in such manner as may be prescribed. (2)   The   competent   authority   shall, within   fifteen   days   of   the   receipt   of   the application,   forward   the   same   to   the Authority to consider and intimate impact of such construction (including the impact of large­scale development project, public project and project essential to the public) having   regard   to   the   heritage   bye­laws relating   to   the   concerned   protected monument or protected area, as the case may be: Provided   that   the   Central   Government may prescribe the category of applications in respect of which the permission may be granted   under   this   sub­section   and   the application which shall be referred to the Authority for its recommendations. (3)   The   Authority   shall,   within   two months   from   the   date   of   receipt   of application under sub­section (2), intimate to the competent authority impact of such construction (including the impact of large­ scale   development   project,   public   project and project essential to the public). (4)   The   competent   authority   shall, within   one   month   of   the   receipt   of intimation from the Authority under sub­ section   (3),   either   grant   permission   or 22 refuse the same as so recommended by the Authority. (5)   The   recommendations   of   the Authority shall be final. (6)   In   case   the   competent   authority refuses   to   grant   permission   under   this section, it shall, by order in writing, after giving   an   opportunity   to   the   concerned person, intimate such refusal within three months   from   the   date   of   receipt   of   the application   to   the   applicant,   the   Central Government and the Authority. (7)   If   the   competent   authority,   after grant of the permission under sub­section (4)   and   during   the   carrying   out   of   the repair   or   renovation   work   or   re­ construction   of   building   or   construction referred to in  that sub­section, is  of the opinion   (on   the   basis   of   material   in   his possession or otherwise) that such repair or   renovation   work   or   re­construction   of building or construction is likely to have an   adverse   impact   on   the   preservation, safety, security or access to the monument considerably, it may refer the same to the Authority for its recommendations and if so recommended, withdraw the permission granted   under   sub­section   (4)   if   so required: Provided   that   the   competent   authority may,   in   exceptional   cases,   with   the approval of the Authority grant permission to the applicant referred to in sub­section (2) of Section 20­C until the heritage by­ laws   have   been   prepared   under   sub­ 23 section (1) of Section 20­E and published under sub­section (7) of that section. (8)   The   Central   Government,   or   the Director­General, as the case may be, shall exhibit,   on   their   website,   all   the permissions granted or refused under this Act.” 33. It could thus be seen that the “authority” has been defined under   Section   2(da)   of   the   said   Act   to   be   a   “National Monuments Authority” constituted under Section 20F of the said Act.   34. As   per   Section   2(db)   of   the   said   Act,   the   “competent authority” means an officer not below the rank of Director of archaeology or Commissioner of archaeology of the Central or State Government or equivalent rank, specified, by notification in   the   Official   Gazette,   as   the   competent   authority   by   the Central Government to perform functions under the said Act.   35. Undisputedly,   the   Director,   Culture,   Department   of Tourism   and   Culture   (Culture),   Government   of   Orissa,   vide th notification   issued   by   the   Government   of   India   dated   13 24 February 2012, has been notified to be “competent authority” for the State of Orissa for the purposes of Sections 20C and 20D of the said Act. 36. Clause (dc) of Section 2 of the said Act would be the most important   one.     The   definition   of   “construction”   specifically excludes the following: (i) Re­construction, repair and renovation of an existing structure or building; (ii) Construction, maintenance and cleansing of drains and drainage   works   and   of   public   latrines,   urinals   and similar conveniences; (iii) Construction   and   maintenance   of   works   meant   for providing supply of water for public; and  (iv) Construction or maintenance, extension, management for supply and distribution of electricity to the public or provision for similar facilities for public. No doubt that the learned counsel for the appellant is 37. right in relying on sub­section (4) of Section 20A of the said Act 25 which prohibits any permission including the one for carrying out any public work or project essential to the public or other constructions in any prohibited area referred to in sub­section (3)   thereof   on   and   after   the   date   on   which   the   Ancient Monuments   and   Archaeological   Sites   and   Remains (Amendment and Validation) Bill, 2010 receives the assent of the President.  The same was brought into the statute book by Act No. 10 of 2010.   38. It is further to be noted that by the very same amendment, Section 20C of the said Act has also been brought into the statute book.   Sub­section (1) of Section 20C of the said Act provides that any person, who owns any building or structure, th which existed in a prohibited area before 16  June, 1992, or, which had been subsequently constructed with the approval of the Director­General and  desires  to carry  out  any  repair or renovation   of   such   building   or   structure,   may   make   an application to the competent authority for carrying out such repair or renovation, as the case may be.  Likewise, sub­section 26 (2) of Section 20C of the said Act enables a person, who owns or possesses any building or structure or land in any regulated area,   and   desires   to   carry   out   any   construction   or   re­ construction   or   repair   or   renovation   of   such   building   or structure   on   such   land,   as   the   case   may   be,   to   make   an application   to   the   competent   authority   for   carrying   out construction or re­construction or repair or renovation, as the case may be. 39. Section 20D of the said Act deals with grant of permission by competent authority within regulated area.  Sub­section (1) of Section 20D of the said Act provides that an application for grant of permission under Section 20C of the said Act, shall be made   to   the   competent   authority.     Sub­section   (2)   thereof requires the competent authority to forward the same to the authority to consider and intimate impact of such construction having regard to the heritage bye­laws relating to the concerned protected monument or protected area.  Under proviso to sub­ section (2) thereof, the Central Government is empowered to 27 prescribe the category of applications in respect of which the permission   will   be   granted   under   this   sub­section   and   the applications   which   shall  be   referred   to   the   authority   for   its recommendations.  Under sub­section (3) thereof, the authority is required to intimate, within two months from the date of receipt   of   application   under   sub­section   (2)   thereof,   to   the competent   authority,   the   impact   of   such   construction   etc. Under   sub­section   (4)   thereof,   the   competent   authority   is required to either grant permission or refuse the same as so recommended by the authority within one month of the receipt of intimation from the authority under sub­section (3) thereof. Under   sub­section   (5)   thereof,   a   finality   is   given   to   the recommendations of the authority. 40. It is a settled principle of law that all the provisions in the statute have to be read harmoniously.  It is presumed that each and every provision has been brought by the legislature into the statute book with some purpose.  A particular provision cannot be read in isolation and has to be read in context to each other. 28 An attempt has to be made to reconcile all the provisions of the statute together, unless it is impossible. 41. At  first  blush,  the   arguments   of  the   appellants  on the basis of sub­section (4) of Section 20A of the said Act may appear to be attractive.   But when sub­section (4) of Section 20A of the said Act is read in harmony with clause (dc) of Section 2 and the provisions of Sections 20C and 20D of the said Act, we find that the submission that no construction at all can be made in the prohibited area or the regulated area, would be unsustainable.   42. Firstly, it is to be noted that clause (dc) of Section 2 of the said   Act   itself   excludes   four   categories   as   mentioned hereinabove   from   the   definition   of   “construction”.     The legislative intent is thus clear that the four categories which are excluded   from   the   definition   of   “construction”   as   defined  in clause (dc) of Section 2 of the said Act would not be treated as a “construction”,   wherever   the   said   term   is   referred   to   in   the statute.  The legislative intent is clear that the re­construction, 29 repair, renovation of the existing buildings has been excluded from the definition.   Similarly, the construction, maintenance etc. of drains, drainage works, public latrines and urinals; the construction and maintenance of works meant for providing supply of water to public; and construction etc. for distribution of electricity, which could be construed to be essential services for catering to the needs of the public at large, have consciously been kept out of the definition of “construction”.   It could be presumed   that   the   legislature   was   aware   that   repairs   and reconstruction   of   existing   structures   or   buildings   or construction of essential facilities like public latrines, urinals, water   supply   and   electricity   distribution   for   the pilgrims/residents are basic necessities and as such, should be permitted even in the prohibited area.  If it is not so interpreted, then Section 20C of the said Act would be rendered otiose and redundant.   It need not be emphasized that an interpretation which leads a particular provision to be otiose or redundant or meaningless, has to be avoided. 30 43. It   could   further   be   seen   that   the   said   position   is   also clarified   in   the   affidavit   filed   by   the   Superintending Archaeologist, ASI before the High Court, which reads thus: “E.   While   the   works,   such   as   toilets,   drains, electrical   works,   etc.,   do   not   fall   within   the definition of ''construction", and therefore can be carried   out   even   in   the   prohibited   area.   Some other   works,   such   as   the   reception   center,   fall squarely with the definition of "construction", and being in the prohibited area, is not permitted.” 44. Section   20D   of   the   said   Act   deals   with   the   entire procedure   regarding   grant   of   permission   by   the   competent authority within regulated area.  Undisputedly, in the present case, the competent authority has complied with the procedure as   required   under   Section   20D   of   the   said   Act   and   the authority,   i.e.,   the   NMA   has   granted   its   permission   for   the work, which is undertaken.  It will be appropriate to refer to the th relevant part of the order dated 4  September 2021, passed by the NMA, which reads thus: “2. After examination of the case, it is stated that the Authority has "No Objection' under assurance 31 of strict compliance of AMASR, Act, 1958. Section 2 (de), to the execution of the following works in the   prohibited   area   namely   Cloak   Room,   Mini Cloak Room, Shelter pavilion. Female Toilet, Male Toilet,   Sevayat   Toilet,   Electrical   Room,   and Pavement   area,   including   a   place   to   stand   in queue for toilets and reaching sanctum sanctorum that are permitted under the exception clause to the   definition   of   "Construction"   as   given   in   the above mentioned section. In respect of the other proposed   construction   works   in   the   prohibited­ area­namely   Reception   Centre,   Information   cum Donation Kiosk, First Aid Centre, Police Service Centre and ATM. Kiosk, it is requested that details with regard to the facilities for the public which are   sought   to   he   provided   through   these structures   to   justify   their   location   in   the prohibited   area   or   may   be   re­located   in   the   _ Regulated   area.   Further,   it   may   clearly   be established with relevant details that the scale of repair/renovation proposed to be carried out in Bada Chhata Matha and Chhauni Matha does not tantamount   to   addition/alteration   or reconstruction.” 45. Insofar   as   the   objections   in   the   report   of   the   ASI   is concerned, it will be relevant to refer to the note signed by the st Director General of ASI dated 21  February 2022, which reads thus: “1. Shree Jagannath Temple, Puri  32 I   visited   the   Shree   Kshetra   Shree Jagannath   Temple,   a   centrally   protected monument and the proposed area of work. The concept plan of the State Government aims to provide amenities and beautify the entire environs of the temple. The proposed amenities fall within the prohibited area of the   temple.   Since   these   amenities   are required   for   the   devotees,   it   was   agreed that this may be allowed. ASI would work in coordination with the State Government on the design so that there is no visual impact   on   the   main   temple.   State Government was also requested to keep the entire   design   simple   in   tandem   with   the spiritual   nature   of   the   entire   temple complex.  One   point   of   discussion   was   the proposed  Reception   centre   which   is   at   a distance of 75 metres from the temple (part falls   under   the   prohibited   area).   This bui1ding is proposed to be used to hold devotees before they proceed to the main complex.   Given   that   this   would   be   very essential,   it   was   decided   that   the   State Government   would   consider   options   to slightly   move   the   building   beyond   100 metres;   this   would   also   be   good   in   the interest of security of the temple.” 46. It could thus clearly be seen that the Director­General has observed that the amenities which fall within the prohibited area of the temple are required for the devotees, and therefore, 33 it was agreed that this may be allowed.  It was further observed that   the   ASI   would   work   in   coordination   with   the   State Government on the design so that there is no visual impact on the main temple.  The State Government was also requested to keep   the   entire   design   simple   in   tandem   with   the   spiritual nature of the entire temple complex. 47. In the impugned order, even the Division Bench of the High Court has recorded the statement of the learned Advocate General to the effect that both ASI and the State Government would work together.  Insofar the reception area is concerned, the impugned order would also reveal that the learned Advocate General   has   clarified   that   it   will   now   be   moved   out   of   the prohibited area and it will be constructed in the regulated area. 48. It will further be relevant to refer to the following extract of the note of the Director­General of ASI, which reads thus: “The   potential   of   both   Puri   and Ekamrakshetra to be taken up for World/ Heritage   was   also   discussed.   A   brief overview of the World Heritage guidelines especially relating to management of buffer 34 zone and the Outstanding Universal value of both temples was shared with them. It was   agreed   that   all  work   in  both   places would be designed and executed, keeping in mind the possibility of becoming World Heritage   Sites,   going   forward.   The   State Government was also requested to remove all   encroachments   from   VaitalDeul   and Paramaguru   temple   which   is   one   of   the oldest temple of Kalingan Architecture. The issue   of   shifting   of   the   kitchen   of Anantabasudev temple to another. suitable location was also discussed.” It   could   thus   clearly   be   seen   that   even   the   Director­ 49. General   of   ASI   has   recognized   the   potential   of   Puri   and Ekamrakshetra for being taken up as World Heritage sites.  It was   agreed   that   all   the   work   in   both   the   places   would   be designed   and   executed   keeping   in   mind   the   possibility   of developing   them   for   being   acknowledged   as   World   Heritage Sites. 50. The affidavit of the Superintending Archaeologist, ASI to which   we   have   already   referred   to   hereinabove,   would   also reveal that there does not appear to be any serious objection with regard to construction of works such as toilets, drains and 35 electrical works  in the  prohibited area. There also  does not appear to be any serious objection with regard to undertaking construction in the regulated area.  The insistence is that the construction has to be carried out after necessary permissions are obtained from the NMA under the provisions of the said Act. Another concern appears to be that the entire design or the facilities should be simple, in tandem with the spiritual nature, design and aesthetic of the entire temple complex. 51. Taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter, it is amply clear that the construction activities which are being undertaken,   are   being   undertaken   in   pursuance   of   the directions issued by a three­Judge Bench of this Court in the case of   Mrinalini Padhi   (supra).   The construction is being carried out for the purpose of providing basic and essential amenities   like   toilets   for   men   and   women,   cloak   rooms, electricity rooms etc.   These are the basic facilities which are necessary   for   the  convenience   of   the   devotees   at  large.    As already discussed hereinabove, the legislative intent appears to 36 be   clear.     The   legislature   has   deliberately   excluded   four categories from the definition of “construction”.   The purpose behind it appears to be that the repairs and renovation of the buildings, which are existing and the constructions which are necessary   for   providing   basic   facilities   like   drainage,   toilets, water supply and distribution of electricity should be kept out of the rigour of requirement of statutory permissions. 52. An argument was sought to be advanced by Shri Navare that the said provision is only to enable a person who resides in the prohibited area to get his existing structure re­constructed, repaired and renovated and the said provision cannot come to the aid of the State to create facilities for the public.  Such an argument is taken note of only to be rejected.  If an individual person can construct a toilet in a prohibited area; can the State be denied to do so, when the State finds it necessary to do it in the larger public interest for providing basic facilities to the lakhs   of   devotees   visiting   the   shrine?     The   answer   is   an emphatic ‘no’. 37 53. A hue and cry was made that the construction carried out is contrary to the Inspection Report carried out by the ASI. st However, the note of the Director General of ASI dated 21 February, 2022 as well as the affidavit filed by the ASI before the High Court would falsify this position.    54. It would further be relevant to note that the High Court itself   has   recorded   the   statement   of   the   learned   Advocate General for State of Odisha that both the ASI and the State Government   would   work   together   to   ensure   that   no archaeological remains are missed out or damaged.   55. It could thus be seen that even if the appellants had any genuine   concern,   the   same   is   already   taken   care   of   in   the impugned order.   56. In spite of that, the matter was mentioned for obtaining th urgent orders before the Vacation Bench on Monday, i.e., 30 May, 2022.   Since the matter was not listed on Tuesday, i.e., st 31   May,   2022,   it   was   again   mentioned   on   the   said   date. Again, a hue and cry was made as if heavens are going to fall if 38 the petitions were not listed.  As such, the petitions were listed nd on Thursday, i.e., 2  June, 2022. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.  57. We   have   no   hesitation   in   holding   that   the   activities undertaken   by   the   State   are   completely   in   tune   with   the directions issued by the three­Judge Bench of this Court in the case of   Mrinalini Padhi   (supra).   They are necessary in the larger public interest and there is no prohibition in the statute for doing so, as sought to be argued by the appellants. 58. We, therefore, find no merit in the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants.  We are of the considered view that the public interest litigation filed before the High Court rather than being in public interest, is detrimental to the public interest at large. 59. In the recent past, it is noticed that there is mushroom growth of public interest litigations.  However, in many of such petitions,   there   is   no   public   interest   involved   at   all.     The petitions   are   either   publicity   interest   litigations   or   personal 39 interest litigation.   We highly deprecate practice of filing such frivolous petitions.   They are nothing but abuse of process of law.  They encroach upon a valuable judicial time which could be otherwise utilized for considering genuine issues.  It is high time that such so­called public interest litigations are nipped in the bud so that the developmental activities in the larger public interest are not stalled.   60. In the result, the appeals, having been found to be without any   substance,   are   dismissed   with   costs,   quantified   at Rs.1,00,000/­   (Rupees   one   lakh)   each,   payable   by   the appellants to the respondent No.1 within four weeks from the date of this judgment. 61. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of in the above terms.    …….........................J.            [B.R. GAVAI]   …….........................J.           [HIMA KOHLI]         NEW DELHI; JUNE 03, 2022. 40