IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition P.I.L. No. 21 of 2011 Cemetery Committee / Saint John’s Church. ………. Petitioner Versus Union of India & others. ..………. Respondents Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.B.S. Negi, Assistant Solicitor General for the Union of India / respondent Nos. 1 to 3. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. BARIN GHOSH, C. J. (Oral) In an advertisement published, it was held out on behalf of the Archeological Department that the cemetery, being the subject matter of the present writ petition, is an archeological monument and, accordingly, the provisions of law, relating thereto, are applicable in respect thereof. This announcement in the advertisement, which appears from the advertisement, itself, had been issued for the purpose of making the people aware of the contents thereof, has led to filing of the present writ petition contending, principally, that the action to declare the cemetery as an ancient monument will prevent the work of the cemetery, for which the same was established. 2. We directed counter affidavit to be filed by the respondents and a most irresponsible counter affidavit has been filed. In paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the said cemetery was declared as a monument of the national importance, vide a notification dated 22nd December, 1920, under the provisions of the Ancient Monument Preservation Act. A copy of the said notification dated 22nd December, 1920 has been annexed to the counter affidavit. There from, it appears that the said notification was issued to notify the public that the monuments, mentioned in the said notification, are not confirmed as they are either already protected monuments or their protection is not considered necessary. The said cemetery is one of the monuments 2 mentioned in the said notification dated 22nd December, 1920. Therefore, the object of the said notification was inter alia to announce to the public that the cemetery in question is not necessary to be protected under the Act, unless the same has already been protected under the Act. In the circumstances, there was a requirement on the part of the respondents to bring on record an action, either prior to 22nd December, 1920 or subsequent thereto, to make the said cemetery an ancient monument under the applicable Acts. That has not been brought on record and, on the contrary, the deponent of the said counter affidavit has proceeded on the basis, as it appears to us, without reading the notification dated 22nd December, 1920, that by the said notification, the cemetery in question had been declared as an ancient monument. We deprecate the stand taken by the deponent of the said counter affidavit. 3. In the circumstances, the said cemetery, having not yet been declared a protected monument under any of the Acts, we declare that the said advertisement contained misinformation and, accordingly, it is obligatory on the part of the person, who issued the said advertisement, to publish a corrigendum in the newspaper, in which the same was published, indicating that, by mistake, in the said advertisement, the cemetery was mentioned. Let the corrigendum be issued as quickly as possible, but not later than two months from the date of service of a copy of the order upon him. 4. The writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C. J.) 29.06.2011 29.06.2011 G