f HIG COURT GE_QHHAT @GARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition {C} No. 4559 of 2008 ! ; § ‘ i l Shrl Rapev Lochan Memonai Trust a du!y registered pubhca trust bearin {eglsfratson No E13288 havm? reglsternd offlce at “Aryavarth” 1s fico Ramknshna Kunj Saaety Dr VS Road Ambawvadl hmedabad (Gujarat) through its Goswam‘ Shrl Nage h Kuwa J: scn ,of $hn Brukishore Kumar oswan'" arm" m t ha premi§es thrs- 'gh Dr Deewk aharma son of Shn RG Sharma restdent of Tlkrapara Ralpur Pétitienel ‘ I \LeJ§'_-i§ State of Chhattisgarh, through the ecletary‘ Ministry of Cuitum & Tourism, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipui'. The Directorate! Culture & Archeoiogy, Raipur. ‘ The Direc‘rorate Indian ArcheologicéIE Survey, Janpath, New Delhi, 1) (Writ Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of india) SBfHon’ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 5hr! BP qharma ronnseifor *he @‘iéééoii “ 3hn Aiok Bamm GoVL Advocate for the State GRAL 9RDER (Passed on this 29‘“ day of August, 2993 Berna aguneved by the communication dated 24-S—20G8 (Annexure Pl5‘r between Additional $ecretarv, Government of Chhattrsgarh and the Office of the Governor and ietter dated 18-7-2008 of the Director, Cuitureand rcheology, addressed to the petitionerlTrust, whereby the petitionerft'rust has been deciined the isputed lace i.e., Harmo, Kawardha which is seid to be ir ec f Mahaprabhu aiiab‘rya this p is file H g r r P S Resggndenis , \ A o p the bth pie o Bacha, etition d. \ 2)‘ Mr Sharma §earned counsei appearm for the petitionerXTrust submits thatibefore passmg the Impugned order date 18-7-2008 the petatroner/Trust i ought to have been given an opportunity of hearing as the followers of Mahlaprabhu Batlabacharva after research ound that the disputed place as the ‘blrth place of ‘Vtahaorabhu Ballabacharya Learned counset turther submits that the fotlowers who believe the fact that the dlsputed place as the l birth place of Mahaprabhu Ballabacharya may be given an opportumty of hearing before the rmpugned order rs passed. 3) V There ie no semblance of any statutory right! constitutional o'r otherwise, which have been infringed thereof, requiring notice to the pe‘titionerft’rust and affording anopportunity of hearing before passing the = im‘piugnedorder. - Articie 49 of the Constitution of india under Part IV of Direbtive Principies of State Policy provides for protection of monuments and places and objects of national importance. it is obligation of the State to protect every monument or place or object of artistic or historic interest to be of nationai rmoortance from sporlation disfigurement destruction removal r disposal or export as the case may be it is tnte iaw that no writ can be issued to the State to enforce Directive Princrples of State poiicy 4) Be that as it may, this is a question of facts which cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction and the petitionerfTrust has no right to be heard before la declaration is made to the above effect. _., ‘2'; ’3 5) ' The petition, being devoid of merit and frivoious, is accordingviy dismissed. Consequently, l.A‘.No.1 stands disposed of. i, Sd/- v attsh K Agmhm“ Judge Raju \ S