Mithilesh Kumar Pandey vs Union Of India & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 5506 Del

          *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                   Date of decision: 5th November, 2014

+                              W.P.(C) No.6487/2014

       MITHILESH KUMAR PANDEY                 ..... Petitioner
                   Through: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Adv. with Petitioner
                            in person.

                                  Versus

       UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                         ..... Respondents

                    Through:         Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr. Ripu
                                     Daman Bhardwaj & Ms. Rajul Jain,
                                     Advs. for UOI.
                                     Mr. Angha Desai with Mr. Mithilesh
                                     Kumar, Advs. for R-4.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

1. This petition, by an advocate, filed as a Public Interest Litigation

(PIL), seeks a direction to the Union of India (UOI) through the Secretary,

Ministry of Culture and to the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to

provide financial, technical and other assistance necessary to preserve,

protect and maintain the articles belonging to Dr. Baba Saheb Bhim Rao

Ambedkar kept at Shantivan, Nagpur, a private museum.

2. It is the case of the petitioner, i) that the said private museum has been

set up by the respondent no.5 Indian Buddhist Council on land ad-measuring

11.36 acres, in Chicholi, Nagpur, Maharashtra; ii) that the said respondent

no.5 sought assistance from the Central Government for preservation and

maintenance of articles belonging to Dr. Ambedkar exhibited in the said

museum; iii) that the Minister of Culture and Tourism in the year 2008

requested ASI to take appropriate steps; ASI informed the respondent no.5

that it was unable to provide any funds for maintenance of the articles in a

private museum; and iv) that the respondent no.5 also approached the

respondent no.4 Nagpur Improvement Trust and the respondent no.3 Dr.

Ambedkar Foundation in this regard but to no avail.

3. Though the petition is filed in public interest but the petitioner, in the

list of dates accompanying the writ petition, has mentioned that this petition

has been filed pursuant to a letter dated 23rd August, 2014 of the Treasurer of

the respondent no.5 to him, seeking assistance in the matter.

4. The learned ASG appearing on advance notice stated that as far as the

provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and

Remains Act, 1958 are concerned, the same are applicable to sites,

monuments, artifacts more than 100 years old and the subject artifacts do not

qualify to be considered under the said Act. It is further stated that the

petitioner ought to approach the State Government for the relief required, as

the State Government alone would have jurisdiction over the matter. It is

further stated that considering the reverential position of Dr. Ambedkar, the

ASI had vide its letter dated 2nd January, 2014 to the respondent no.5

Museum offered technical assistance for preservation but no response was

received thereto.

5. The petitioner is unable to show us any provision of law or any policy

or Scheme under which the petitioner /respondent no. 5 is entitled to

financial assistance as is sought. We even otherwise find it strange that such

financial assistance be given to a private museum for preservation of

artifacts / articles. We have thus enquired from the petitioner as to why the

said articles / artifacts are not offered to the National Museum and which, if

decides to take over the same, would axiomatically also take steps for

preservation thereof. The petitioner stated that the respondent no.5 Museum

had in fact offered the said articles to the National Museum but the same

were not taken over. However none of the letters / representations filed by

the petitioner before us contain any such offer. The petitioner, having no

authority from the private museum to which the said artifacts / articles are

stated to belong, also is not in a position to make such offer today. We have

also wondered as to why the said private museum, if desirous of any such

relief, has not approached the Courts directly. The petitioner, to this states,

that the three Trustees of the said museum are very old and illiterate.

However the fact remains that they did approach the petitioner, an advocate.

The petitioner, instead of filing proceedings on behalf of the said private

museum, has chosen to file this as a PIL and which is unexplainable. We are

also of the view that the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur would be a forum

conveniens for dealing with the matter and for granting the relief if any in

the subject matter.

6. We may however express our confidence that if the articles aforesaid

are offered to the National Museum, such offer shall be considered in

appropriate perspective and in right earnest.

7. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

CHIEF JUSTICE NOVEMBER 05, 2014/'gsr'