: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2602 OF 2001 WRIT PETITION NO.2602 OF 2001 WRIT PETITION NO.2602 OF 2001 Shri Mohan Sadashiv Sonavane & Ors. .. Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sachin Dhakephalkar for the petitioners. Mr.Ravi Kadam, Advocate General with Mr.S.R.Nargolkar, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 5. WITH WITH WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4432 OF 2001 WRIT PETITION NO.4432 OF 2001 WRIT PETITION NO.4432 OF 2001 Rambhan Krishnaji Zagade & Anr. .. Petitioners. Versus Jejuri Municipal Council & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.B.D.Joshi for the petitioners. Mr.Ravi Kadam, Advocate General with Mr.S.R.Nargolkar, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 5. WITH WITH WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6127 OF 2003 WRIT PETITION NO.6127 OF 2003 WRIT PETITION NO.6127 OF 2003 Shri Martand Dev Sansthan .. Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents. Mr.P.B.Shah for the petitioners. Mr.Ravi Kadam, Advocate General with Mr.S.R.Nargolkar, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 5. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & R.Y. GANOO, JJ. R.Y. GANOO, JJ. R.Y. GANOO, JJ. DATE : 19th June, 2008. DATE : 19th June, 2008. DATE : 19th June, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The petitioners challenge notification dated : 2 : 24.10.2002 by which Khandoba Mandir in Taluka Purandar has been declared as an ancient historical protected monument under the provisions of Maharashtra Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1960. 2. It appears that before issuing the notification dated 24.10.2002, a draft notification was issued on 10.3.2002 inviting objections to the proposal of declaration of the above temple as a protected site. It appears that the petitioners have submitted their objections within the time stipulated by that notification. However, the final notification issued on 24.10.2002 states that no objections were received to the said proposal. 3. The challenge of the petitioners to the notification is that the notification suffers from non application of mind to the objections which were submitted and which the authority was under a duty to consider before issuing the final notification. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is admitted that the statement in the impugned notification that no objections were received to the proposal is a mistake and it is stated that the objections were duly considered. However, the respondents have not placed any material on : 3 : record to show that the objections raised by the petitioners and the other persons were duly considered. It also appears that there is a difference of opinion between the two departments of the Government whether the said site should be declared as a protected monument or not. Writ Petition No.2602 of 2001 and 4432 of 2001 have been filed challenging construction of road providing approach to the temple. According to the petitioner, in those petitions, construction of the road in view of the declaration of the site as a protected site is illegal. The objection to the construction of the road is based solely on the notification dated 24.10.2002 which declares the temple as a protected temple. 4. In our opinion, as objections were in fact and admittedly invited to the proposal and the objections were admittedly lodged by the petitioners but the final notification contains a wrong statement that objections were not received and there is also no material placed on record to show actual application of mind to the objections by the authorities concerned and also in view of the above referred dispute, the respondents should reconsider the entire issue afresh. The question of construction of the road obviously would depend on whether the respondents decide to issue a fresh declaration or : 4 : not. In our opinion, therefore, the following order would meet the ends of justice :- O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R a) The notification dated 24.10.2000 impugned in this Writ Petition No.6127 of 2003 is set aside. b) The Competent Authority under the Act shall within a period of 6 weeks from today consider all objections that have been received to the proposal pursuant to the notification dated 10.3.2002 and consider the question whether a notification is required to be issued or not. If, ultimately, the Competent Authority decides that the notification is required to be issued, it shall be done within the aforesaid period of 6 weeks. In case, the Competent Authority decides not to issue the notification, that decision shall also be communicated by the authority to the petitioners in all these three petitions. c) Remedies that may be available to the petitioners against the action of the Competent : 5 : Authority are kept open. d) Till the Competent Authority decides the question whether it is desirable to issue a fresh notification or not, the authority shall maintain status-quo in so far as construction of the road is concerned which is challenged in Writ Petition No.2602 of 2001 and 4432 of 2001. 5. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)