BASED ON THE NEWS DATED 18.08.2018 IN THE ENGLISH DAILY THE TIMES OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the dispute in the C.W.J.C. and M.J.C. is with respect to the same pond, both are heard, decided and disposed of together by this common order.

(2.) Shri A.K. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has vehemently submitted that the Archaeological Survey of India has got restoration plan prepared, for restoration of the subject monument and to ensure that the monument is restored as per the said plan. It is further submitted that even the direction contained in Paragraph (i) has been complied with and it is known which area is declared as 'prohibited area' and a 'regulated area' and, therefore, no further steps are taken to remove the encroachment from the surrounding area which may be either 'prohibited area' or 'regulated area'. It is further submitted by Shri A.K. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original writ-petitioner that even other directions with respect to cleaning of the pond/tank have been complied with.

(3.) A show-cause is filed in the M.J.C. on behalf of the respondents affirmed by the Additional Collector, Rohtas pointing out the steps taken to comply with the directions issued by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 11271 of 2006. A show-cause is also filed on behalf of the Archaeological Survey of India in which it is stated that the directions issued by this Court has been complied with, more particularly with respect to the 'prohibited area' and 'regulated area'. It has also been stated that the conservation plan is also prepared by the Archaeological Survey of India.