Delhi Development Authority vs The Archaeological Survey Of ...
2002 Latest Caselaw 2084 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. Rule.

With the consent of the parties the matter is taken up for final hearing.

2. This writ petition challenges the Order dated 14th November, 2002, passed by the Office of the Director, Monuments, Archaeological Survey of India. The Order avers that an unauthorised structure has been constructed within the prohibited area of Siri Fort Wall, New Delhi which construction consequently vio-

lated Sections 19(1), 30(1)(iv) of Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Rules 10(1) & 33(1) of Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1959. The order further directs removal of the offending structure within 15 days.

3. It is submitted by the petitioner's counsel's Shri Rajiv Sharma and Shri Vinod Shukla that the order dated 14th November, 2002 impugned in the writ petition proceeds in violation of the mandate of the judgment of the Division Bench in CWP. 3319 of 2002 dated 25th September, 2002 which directed as follows:

"Thus if the said notification is applicable and the monument exists, construction of the club would clearly be in violation of the said notification. In this view of the matter the same directions which are given to ASI in respect of Asia Tower Restaurant shall apply in the case of Officers Club as well. It is, therefore, directed that ASi shall examine the matter relating to DDA Officers Club (We say so because in its affidavit ASI has not stated anything about the Officers Club and no action in respect of this DDA Officers Club is contemplated). After examining the matter if ASI is of the prima facie opinion that the construction was in violation of the law, it shall issue show cause notice to the DDA giving opportunity to DDA of being heard and proceed in the same manner as per the direction given in respect of Asiad Tower Restaurant."

4. It is submitted that the order dated 14th November, 2002 has been passed straight away without issuing show cause notice stipulated by the above judgment of the Division Bench and thus does not follow the mandate and the directions given by the Division Bench judgment. Without going into the merits of the writ petition, the learned counsel for the ASI, Shri Sanjay Jain states that letter dated 14th November, 2002 impugned in this writ petition may be treated as show cause notice in accordance with the Division Bench's order.

5. In view of the above statement of the counsel for ASI it is directed that the impugned order dated 14.11.2002 shall only be treated as a show cause notice. Reply to the said notice be filed within ten days from today. The respondent shall thereafter dispose of the matter by passing appropriate orders by following the procedure stipulated by the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench.

6. In view of the above, the order dated 14th November, 2002 shall not be enforced against the petitioner and it shall only be treated as the show cause notice.

7. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. dusty to the parties subject to the payment of usual charges.