Archaeological Dept Custodian Of Country's Archaeological Monuments, Has Incumbent Duty To Protect Them: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court had recently observed that the Archaeological Department had an incumbent duty to maintain the archaeological monuments in the State and should not do acts that would endanger the archaeological monuments. The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad was hearing a plea against the construction of a toilet and cafeteria near the Arulmigu Gangaikonda Cholisvarar Temple. “The respondents 1 and 2 are the custodians of the archaeological monuments in the country. It is the duty incumbent upon them to protect the archaeological and heritage monuments. They cannot do any act which would endanger the archaeological monument,” the court observed. The petitioner had challenged the construction on the ground that the temple was 1000 years old and was a protected area. The petitioner argued that the construction of the toilet and cafeteria would cause damage to the archaeological monument and suggested that the construction should have been made beside the compound wall or beside the protected area. The court noted that the construction was already completed. However, the court also noted that the temple was a protected monument under the Archaeological Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1958. The court thus directed the authorities to survey the toilet and cafeteria and confirm that the construction Is not dangerous to the protected monument and that the area within the vicinity of the cafeteria is kept safe from all debris. The court also directed the authorities to ensure proper waste management. The court further directed the authorities to consider the contention of the petitioner that the cafeteria and toilet could be more beneficial if it is beyond the protected area and take a decision on the same within a period of three months. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.V.Vijayakumar Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.R.Rajesh Vivekananthan Deputy Solicitor General, Mr.K.Karthik Jegannath Government Advocate, Mr.T.Chandrasekaran Special Government Pleader Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 196 Case Title: A Balaguru v The Director Superintending Archaeologist Case No: W.P.No.1680 of 2022Click here to read/download the judgment

Archaeological Dept Custodian Of Country's Archaeological Monuments, Has Incumbent Duty To Protect Them: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

Tags