Case: ARDHENDU KUMAR DAS Vs. THE STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS

B.R. GAVAI, J. 1. Both these petitions challenge the interlocutory order dated 9th May, 2022, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, in Writ Petition (Civil) No.6257 of 2022, wherein the Division Bench of the High Court has recorded certain submissions and statements made by the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of Odisha and directed the matter to be posted on 22nd 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 Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) 4. It appears that initially the said writ petition was listed before the Division Bench of the High Court on 8th April, 2022, on which date, certain statements made by the learned Advocate General were taken on record. Subsequently, when the matter was listed on 21st April, 2022, certain further orders came to be passed. Subsequently, the order dated 9th May, 2022 has been passed by the High Court, which is impugned in the present Special Leave Petitions. 5. The petitioner-Ardhendu 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 Special Leave Petition challenging the order dated 9th May, 2022 of the Division Bench of the High Court. 6. The petitioner-Sumanta 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.

Decision:
1[ds]21. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Mrinalini Padhi (supra), had an occasion to consider the situation prevailing in the vicinity of Shree Jagannath Temple.This Court in the said case had initially passed an order on 8th June, 2018, directing the District Judge, Puri to submit a report. This Court thereafter vide order dated 9th 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 be passed. Finally, vide the order dated 4th November, 2019, 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 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.25. It will also be relevant to reproduce the directions in paragraph 40.19 and 40.20, which read thus:40.19. The learned Amicus Curiae has also 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 three-Judge 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 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.28. It would thus clearly reveal that the nature of construction which is undertaken by the respondents-State and the Temple administration is in tune with the directions issued by this Court.37. No doubt that the learned counsel for the appellant is right in relying on sub-section (4) of Section 20A of the said Act 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 sub-section (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. Sub-section (1) of Section 20C of the said Act provides that any person, who owns any building or structure, which existed in a prohibited area before 16th June, 1992, or, which had been subsequently constructed with the approval of the Director-General 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, sub-section (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 re-construction or repair or renovation, as the case may be.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.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 sub-section (4) of Section 20A of the said Act may appear to be attractive. But when sub-section (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 re-construction, 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.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.46. It could thus clearly be seen that the Director-General has observed that the amenities which fall within the prohibited area of the temple are required for the devotees, and therefore, 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.49. It could thus clearly be seen that even the Director- 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 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 three-Judge 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 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.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.53. A hue and cry was made that the construction carried out is contrary to the Inspection Report carried out by the ASI. However, the note of the Director General of ASI dated 21st 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 urgent orders before the Vacation Bench on Monday, i.e., 30th May, 2022. Since the matter was not listed on Tuesday, i.e., 31st 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 the petitions were not listed. As such, the petitions were listed on Thursday, i.e., 2nd 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 three-Judge 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 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 so-called public interest litigations are nipped in the bud so that the developmental activities in the larger public interest are not stalled.