DR. VILAS TUKARAM KHARAT vs THE UNION OF INDIA
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/WPPIL/25/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/WRIT PETITION (PIL) (WRIT PETITION (PIL)) NO. 25 of 2026
==========================================================
DR. VILAS TUKARAM KHARAT
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MIREN PRIYADARSHI(11023) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS RATNA VORA(2251) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. GURSHARAN H.VIRK, LD.GP WITH MS. DEVANSHEE N. KARIEL,
ADVOCATE WITH MS. DHARITRI PANCHOLI, AGP for the Opponent(s) No.
4,5,6,7
MS. PRUTHA BHAVSAR, ADVOCATE FOR MR ANKIT SHAH(6371) for the
Opponent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 25/06/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
AGARWAL)
1. This is a wholly misconceived Public Interest Litigation
filed by a person who is resident of State of Maharashtra. The
assertion made in the Public Interest Litigation about
credentials of the petitioner are that the petitioner is a scholar
who has done Ph.D. in Marathi Language from Dr.Baba Saheb
Maharashtra University and is founder member of (…...blank)
and, at present, he is associated with a N.G.O. called
Sanatan Dhamm. There is, thus, no disclosure in this Public
Interest Litigation about the actual occupation/profession of
the petitioner to earn his livelihood. The name of N.G.O. with
Page 1 of 6
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Sun Jun 28 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 28 16:03:17 IST 2026
C/WPPIL/25/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
which the petitioner claim to be associated is not supported
by any material on record nor the petitioner has filed the
present petition as a representative authorized by the said
N.G.O., as is evident from the array of the parties itself.
2. The assertions in the writ petition are that the Union of
India controls Archaeological Survey of India namely the
respondent No. 2 and the respondent No. 2 is a Government
of India organization under the Ministry of Culture and
perform public function and excavation, monuments. etc.
The further contention that the respondent No. 7 is a
statutory Trust declared by law known as Shree Somnath
Trust Act, 1955 is absolutely false.
3. Mr.G. H. Virk, learned Government Pleader appearing
for the State – respondent would vehemently submit that
there is no such enactment on any statute book.
4. The further statement in the petition that the Trust
includes Hon’ble Prime Minister of India and higher
Government officials as trustees and it performs public ritual
Page 2 of 6
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Sun Jun 28 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 28 16:03:17 IST 2026
C/WPPIL/25/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
and administrative functions though it does not fall under
Article 12 of the Constitution of India is without any basis.
The contention in the writ petition that the litigation cost
including the advocates fee and traveling expenses are borne
by the petitioner himself cannot be ascertained in absence of
the disclosure of petitioner’s occupation/work/profession.
5. The further contentions made in the writ petition are
about the activities of the Trust and the historical value of the
temple. The assertions in the writ petition are that in the
interest of history, archaeological and national heritage the
scientific survey done by IIT, Gandhinagar and reported on
26.06.2017, is required to be placed in public domain.
6. As stated in the writ petition, the source of the
information of the facts pleaded therein, is the news clips i.e
print media as well as social media. The petitioner further
states that he has made representation on 30.03.2026 before
the Secretary, Ministry of Culture, Government of India, New
Delhi and pray in the writ petition as under:-
Page 3 of 6
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Sun Jun 28 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 28 16:03:17 IST 2026
C/WPPIL/25/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
“(a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing
the respondent to place in public domain the scientific
archaeological survey report (32 pages), ground penetrating
radar (GPR) survey, records, findings, maps, structural
analysis, photographs, videography and all the related
documents prepared by I.I.T Gandhinagar and Archaeological
Department of India concerning the Somnath Temple Site.
(b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the
respondents to preserve and protect all archaeological
records, scientific materials, structural findings and historical
data relating to the Somnath Temple site and adjoining area.
(c) Direct the respondents to ensure that archaeological and
scientific material concerning monuments of national
importance is preserved in accordance with law and made
accessible for academic and historical research to lawful
restrictions .”
7. The contentions made in the writ petition that all
information disclosed therein are based on some news items,
published in the print media as well as information on social
media, are sufficient to dismiss the writ petition outrighlty,
inasmuch as, none of the statements made in the writ petition
can be verified by the petitioner being true to his personal
knowledge or based on any authentic record or material read
over or researched by him.
8. Further, the factual statement made in the paragraph
Nos.1 to 6 of the writ petition are not even properly sworn
in the affidavit filed by the petitioner as to the source of the
information or knowledge of the petitioner.
Page 4 of 6
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Sun Jun 28 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 28 16:03:17 IST 2026
C/WPPIL/25/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
9. This petition thus, is found to have been filed with
incorrect, misleading and distorted facts and being in the
nature of Public Interest Litigation cannot be entertained as
it would cause damage to the sanctity of the benevolent
cause of law of Public Interest Litigation evolved by the Apex
Court.
10. It is more than evident that the petitioner herein is an
unscrupulous person who has filed the Public Interest
litigation with incorrect, incomplete, misleading and distorted
facts, evidently with ulterior motives, or to gain undue
publicity. For this act of the petitioner in misusing the
process of the Court, the present petition is liable to be
dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs. 2,00,000/- as per the
Rules of the High Court.
11. The cost imposed shall be deposited by the petitioner
within a period of three weeks from today with the Registrar
General of the High Court, which shall be transmitted to the
High Court Legal Services Committee. In case of failure of
the petitioner, to deposit the cost within the time given
Page 5 of 6
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Sun Jun 28 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 28 16:03:17 IST 2026
C/WPPIL/25/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2026
above, the same shall be liable to be recovered as arrears of
Land Revenue.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(D.N.RAY,J)
BINA SHAH
Page 6 of 6
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Sun Jun 28 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 28 16:03:17 IST 2026