SUO MOTO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter pertains to famous Amer Fort and palace which was declared as a protected monument by the notification dated 16.9.1968 under the provisions of the Rajasthan Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Entiquities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is an important tourist place where tourists come from all over world apart from the various parts of the country thus its conservation, restoration and protection is important. A mishap of falling of wall causing injuries to the people took place while film shooting was going on. This Court took cognizance of the matter on 13.2.2009 to know as whether under the lust and greed of money, the people involved therein must not have became insane or insensitive. Film shooting was instantly stayed. For the purpose of knowing about the work performed in the protected monument and other aspects a detailed report was called through a Committee constituted by this Court. The Committee visited the palace and gave its report showing deficiencies in the work and at the same time appreciating it to some extent. On submission of the report, response has been given by the Government contending that they are calling corrective measures as per the observations made in the report so that conservation, restoration and protection work of Amer Fort and the Palace is undertaken within the framework of law. On 17.8.2009 this court issued restrain order on commercial activities in the Amer Fort and Palace thereunder. After passing the order dated 17.8.2009, the matter has come up for consideration on the application seeking vacation of the order dated 17.8.2009 and even for recalling of the order where few applicants were not impleaded as party but were allowed only to intervene. With the consent of the parties, matter was heard finally.

(2.) Amicus Curiae appointed in this matter has raised certain issues in reference to the matter. The first issue raised is regarding the constitution of Amer Development and Management Authority Society (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society'). It is stated that under the Act and the Rules made thereunder there exists no provision to constitute a society by the State Government. This is more so, when the Society has been entrusted i with the work of conservation, restoration and protection of the protected monuments apart from the authority to enter into Memorandum of Understanding to allow commercial activities. The Society has no authority under the Law to allow commercial activities in the protected monuments. The act of the Society is thus contrary to the provisions of the Act and Rules. In view of the aforesaid argument, it is submitted by learned Amicus Curiae that all the Memorandum of Understanding permitting commercial activities be declared illegal being contrary to the law and it may further be held that the Society has no power to grant permission for commercial activities in the u protected monuments. The further prayer is that even the conservation, restoration and protection work of the monuments cannot be entrusted to the Society and, thereby, the Society be restrained from undertaking such work and if at ail they are so permitted as per the provisions of the law, conservation, restoration and protection work of the monuments should be undertaken strictly as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Our attention was drawn towards the report submitted by the Committee showing certain deficiencies in the work and at the same time illegalities committed therein.

(3.) Learned Advocate General appearing for the State Government submitted that sofar as conservation, restoration and protection work of the monuments is concerned, the same would be undertaken as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder and for that purpose case would be taken to remove deficiencies as pointed out by the Committee so that if any work has been undertaken contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, that will be rectified. So far as constitution of the Society and its authority to undertake conservation, restoration and protection work of the protected monuments and even to grant permission for commercial activities, it is stated that the officers like Chief Secretary of the State and Director of Archaeological Department of State of Rajasthan are the President and member of the Society. As per Section 13A of the Act conversation, protection and restoration of the monument can be undertaken through the Society. So far as signing of Memorandum of Understanding by the Society for grant of permission of commercial activities, it is to be presumed to be on behalf of the competent authorities as per Rule 8(d) of 3 the Rajasthan Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Entiquities Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') because Director of the Department in one of the members of the Society. In the alternative, it was urged that if at all this Court comes to the conclusion that the Society is having no authority under law to enter into the Memorandum of Understanding to allow commercial activities then liberty may be given to the competent authority to act as per the previsions of the Rules. So that it competent authority takes a decision to permit commercial activities of the nature permissible under the Rules then necessary action can be taken.