AMIT VISHNUPANT KHOT ADULT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT Petition Nos 2953 and 3230 both of 2003 were filed at the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court. The Division Bench of the Court vide its order dated 22nd September 2003 granted interim reliefs in terms of prayer clauses (d) and (e). This order of stay has continued for all these years. The Aurangabad District Bar Association filed an application for intervention being Civil Application No. 789 of 2007. This application was ordered to be heard along with the main petitions.

(2.) WHEN the matter came up before the Bench at Aurangabad on 16th June 2007, it was felt that as the matter related, and is likely to affect the entire over administration of justice in the State of Maharashtra, even in relation to other buildings, it was considered appropriate to transfer the cases to the principal Bench at Bombay. Accordingly both the above petitions were transferred to Bombay, renumbered as Writ Petition Nos. 4813 and 4816 of 2007 respectively and were heard together.

(3.) THE petitioner has annexed to the writ petition a list of historical monuments in Aurangabad city for protection under the Heritage Regulations. In this list nearly 155 buildings or places have been included. At Srl No.140 of the said list the Sessions Court, Adalat Road, Aurangabad is also named as a historical monument building, requiring protection as a heritage building or even otherwise. It is also the case of the petitioner before the court that the Revised Draft Development Plans for Aurangabad, including old municipal limits for the period 1995 to 2015 prepared under section 31 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 and submitted to the Government impose restrictions on the area declared as monument area so that there is proper protection, conservation and preservation of this area. THE authorities are vested with wide powers under various provisions of law to protect such monuments but the authorities have failed to take appropriate action. According to the petitioner, there is total apathy and negligence on the part of the Archealogical Surveyor of India and other authorities, including the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation, to protect historical places and, therefore, it was submitted in the petitions that the Court should appoint a committee comprising of various persons and Divisional Commissioner to implement the Heritage Regulations. On this premise, it was prayed as under: