CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL)NO. 697 OF 2017 IN CA NO.2431 OF 2006

SHIV DARSHAN SINGH VS. RAKESH TIWARI, DIRECTOR GENERAL,

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA (ASI) & ORS.

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

INHERENT JURISDICTION

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.697 OF 2017

IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.2431 OF 2006

SHIV DARSHAN SINGH …Petitioner

VERSUS

RAKESH TIWARI, DIRECTOR GENERAL, …Respondents/

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA (ASI) & ORS Contemnors

J U D G M E N T

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. This contempt petition, inter alia, seeks initiation of action against the

Respondents for alleged violation of the judgment and order dated 16.01.2012

passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No.2431 of 2006 (‘the Judgment’, for

short) and also seeks orders directing Respondent Nos.4 and 5 to demolish the

structure raised by them.

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL)NO. 697 OF 2017 IN CA NO.2431 OF 2006

SHIV DARSHAN SINGH VS. RAKESH TIWARI, DIRECTOR GENERAL,

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA (ASI) & ORS.

2

2. While dealing with an ancient monument popularly known as Jantar

Mantar in New Delhi, it was observed by this Court in the Judgment:-

“7. Jantar Mantar, New Delhi is one of the five unique

observatories built between 1699 and 1743 by Maharaja Jai

Singh (II) of Jaipur, who was a great Mathematician and

Astronomer. The other observatories are at Jaipur, Ujjain,

Varanasi and Mathura. Jantar Mantar, New Delhi, like other

observatories has several instruments that can graph the path

of the astronomical universe. There is a colossal Samrat

Yantra at the periphery of Jantar Mantar. To the South of

Samrat Yantra, there is an amazing instrument called Jai

Prakash, which has two concave hemispherical structures

used for determining the position of the Sun and celestial

bodies. The other important yantras are Misra Yantra,

Daksinovartti Bhitti Yantra, Karka Rasivalaya, Niyat Cakra,

Rama Yantra, Brhat Samrat and Sasthamsa Yantra.

Unfortunately, some of these yantras have been rendered

unworkable or have become non-functional. One of the main

reasons for this is the construction of multistoried structures

which have come up in the vicinity of Jantar Mantar in the

last 25 to 30 years.”

3. In exercise of power conferred by Section 3(1) of the Ancient

Monuments Preservation Act, 1904 (7 of 1904), the Central Government had

issued Notification dated 04.10.1956 which was published in the Gazette of

India dated 13.10.1956, declaring Jantar Mantar, New Delhi to be a “protected

monument.”

4. The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act,

1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was enacted to provide for the

preservation of ancient and historical monuments and archaeological sites and

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL)NO. 697 OF 2017 IN CA NO.2431 OF 2006

SHIV DARSHAN SINGH VS. RAKESH TIWARI, DIRECTOR GENERAL,

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA (ASI) & ORS.

3

remains of national importance, for the regulation of archaeological

excavations and for the protection of sculptures, carvings and other like

objects. The term ‘ancient monument’ is defined by Section 2(a) of the Act as

under:

“2(a) “ancient monument” means any structure, erection

or monument, or any tumulus or place of interment, or any

cave, rock, sculpture, inscription or monolith, which is of

historical, archaeological or artistic interest and which has

been in existence for not less than one hundred years, and

includes –

(i)the remains of an ancient monument,

(ii)the site of an ancient monument,

(iii)such portion of land adjoining the site of an ancient

monument as may be required for fencing or

covering in or otherwise preserving such monument,

and

(iv)the means of access to, and convenient inspection of

an ancient monument.”

5. By virtue of Section 3 of the Act, all protected monuments declared

under the erstwhile statutory regime, were deemed to be ancient monuments

under the Act. Sub-Sections (1) and (2) of Section 38 of the Act are as under:

“38. Power to make rules.―(1) The Central Government

may, by notification in the Official Gazette and subject to the

condition of previous publication, make rules for carrying out

the purposes of this Act.

(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the

foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the

following matters, namely:―

(a) the prohibition or regulation by licensing or

otherwise of mining, quarrying, excavating, blasting

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL)NO. 697 OF 2017 IN CA NO.2431 OF 2006

SHIV DARSHAN SINGH VS. RAKESH TIWARI, DIRECTOR GENERAL,

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA (ASI) & ORS.

4

or any operation of a like nature near a protected

monument or the construction of buildings on land

adjoining such monument and the removal of

unauthorised buildings;

(b) the grant of licences and permissions to make

excavations for archaeological purposes in protected

areas, the authorities by whom, and the restrictions

and conditions subject to which, such licences may be

granted, the taking of securities from licensees and

the fees that may be charged for such licences.

(c) the right of access of the public to a protected

monument and the fee, if any, to be charged therefor;

(ca) the categories of ancient monuments or

archaeological sites and remains, declared as of

national importance, under sub-section (1) of section

4A;

(cb) the manner of making application for grant of

permission under sub-section (1) of section 20D;

(cc) the category of applications in respect of which

the permission may be granted and applications

which shall be referred to the Authority for its

recommendation, under sub-section (2) of section

20D;

(cd) the other matters including heritage controls

such as elevations, facades, drainage systems, roads

and service infrastructure (including electric poles,

water and sewer pipelines) under sub-section (2) of

section 20E;

(ce)the manner of preparation of detailed site

plans in respect of each prohibited area and regulated

area and the time within which such heritage bye-

laws shall be prepared and particulars to be included

in each such heritage bye-laws under sub-section (3)

of section 20E;

(cf)salaries and allowances payable to, and the

other terms and conditions of service of, the whole-

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL)NO. 697 OF 2017 IN CA NO.2431 OF 2006

SHIV DARSHAN SINGH VS. RAKESH TIWARI, DIRECTOR GENERAL,

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA (ASI) & ORS.

5

time Chairperson and whole-time members, or fees or

allowances payable to the part-time members, of the

Authority under sub-section (1) of section 20H;

(cg)the form in which and time at which he

Authority shall prepare an annual report giving full

description of its activities for the previous year under

section 20P;

(ch)the form and manner in which the Authority

and competent authority shall furnish information to

the Central Government under Section 20Q;

(d)the form and contents of the report of an

archaeological officer or a licensee under clause (a) of

sub-section (1) of section 23;

(e)the form in which applications for permission

under section 19 or section 25 may be made and the

particulars which they should contain;

(f)the form and manner of preferring appeals

under this Act and the time within which they may be

preferred;

(g)the manner of service of any order or notice

under this Act;

(h)the manner in which excavations and other

like operations for archaeological purposes may be

carried on;

(i)any other matter which is to be or may be

prescribed.”

6.In exercise of power conferred by Section 38, the Central Government

enacted the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules,

1959 (‘the Rules’, for short). Rules 31, 32 and 33 of the Rules are to the

following effect:

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL)NO. 697 OF 2017 IN CA NO.2431 OF 2006

SHIV DARSHAN SINGH VS. RAKESH TIWARI, DIRECTOR GENERAL,

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA (ASI) & ORS.

6

“31.Notice or intention to declare a prohibited or

regulated area. – (1) Before declaring an area near or

adjoining a protected monument to be a prohibited area or a

regulated area for purposes of mining operation or

construction or both, the Central Government shall, by

notification in the Official Gazette, give one month’s notice of

its intention to do so, and a copy of such notification shall be

affixed in a conspicuous place near the area.

(2) Every such notification shall specify the limits of the area

which is to be so declared and shall also call for objection, if

any, from interested persons.

32.Declaration of prohibited or regulated area.- After the

expiry of one month from the date of the notification under

rule 31 and after considering the objections, if any, received

within the said period, the Central Government may declare,

by notification in the Official Gazette, the area specified in the

notification under rule 31, or any part of such area, to be a

prohibited area, or, as the case may be, a regulated area for

purposes of mining operation or construction or both.

33.Effect of declaration of prohibited or regulated area. –

No person other than an archaeological officer shall undertake

any mining operation or any construction, -

(a) in a prohibited, area, or

(b) in a regulated area except under and in accordance

with the terms and conditions of licence granted by the

Director-General.”

7.In terms of power conferred under Rule 31 of the Rules, the Central

Government issued a Notification dated 15.05.1991 which was published in

the Gazette of India dated 25.05.1991 and gave notice of intention to declare

an area of 100 meters from the protected limits and further beyond it upto

200 meters from the protected monument(s) as prohibited and regulated

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL)NO. 697 OF 2017 IN CA NO.2431 OF 2006

SHIV DARSHAN SINGH VS. RAKESH TIWARI, DIRECTOR GENERAL,

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA (ASI) & ORS.

7

areas respectively. After considering objections and suggestions received

from the general public, the Central Government issued Notification dated

16.06.1992 (“the Notification” for short) which reads as under:-

"DEPARTMENT OF CULTURE (Archaeological Survey of

India) New Delhi, the 16th June, 1992. (ARCHAEOLOGY)

S.O. 1764-Whereas by the notification of the Government of

India in the Department of Culture, Archaeological Survey of

India No. S.O. 1447 dated the 15th May, 1991 published in

Gazette of India, Part-II Section 3 sub-section (ii) dated 25th

May, 1991, the Central Government gave one month’s notice

of its intention to declare area upto 100 metres from the

protected limits, and further beyond it upto 200 meters near

or adjoining protected monuments to be prohibited and

regulated areas respectively for purposes of both mining

operation and construction.

And whereas the said Gazette was made available to the

public on the 5th June, 1991.

And whereas objections to the making of such declaration

received from the person interested in the said areas have

been considered by the Central Government.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule

32 of the Ancient Monument and Archaeological sites and

Remains Rules, 1959, the Central Government hereby

declares the said areas to be prohibited and regulated areas.

This shall be in addition to and not in any way prejudice the

similar declarations already made in respect of monuments at

Fatehpur Sikri; Mahabalipuram; Golconda Fort, Hyderabad

(Andhra Pradesh); Thousands Pillared Temple, Hanamkonda,

Distt. Warangal (Andhra Pradesh); Shershah’ Tomb, Sasaram

(Bihar); Rock Edict of Ashoka, Kopbal, Distt. Raichur

(Karnatka); Gomateshwara Statue at Sravanbelgola, District

Hassan (Karnataka); Elephanta Caves, Gharapur, District

Kolba (Maharashtra).”

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL)NO. 697 OF 2017 IN CA NO.2431 OF 2006

SHIV DARSHAN SINGH VS. RAKESH TIWARI, DIRECTOR GENERAL,

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA (ASI) & ORS.

8

8. By virtue of the Notification, areas of 100 and 200 metres from the

ancient monument Jantar Mantar, New Delhi stood declared to be prohibited

and regulated areas respectively for the purposes of mining and construction.

The concept of “prohibited area” and “regulated area” got further elaborated

by amendment to the Act effected in the year 2010 defining these two

expressions by Section 2(ha) and 2(l) respectively and by inserting Sections

20A to 20Q in the Act. Sections 2(ha), 2(l) and 2(m) as well as Sections 20A

and 20B were given retrospective effect from the date of the Notification i.e.

from 16.06.1992 while Sections 20C to 20Q were inserted with effect from

29.03.2010. Sections 2(ha), (l), (m), 20A and 20B are as under:-

“Section 2(ha) “prohibited area” means any area specified or

declared to be a prohibited area under Section 20A.

Section 2(l) “regulated area” means any area specified or

declared under section 20B;

Section 2(m) “repair and renovation” means alterations to a

pre-existing structure or building, but shall not include

construction or re-construction;

20A. Declaration of prohibited area and carrying out

public work or other works in prohibited area.―Every

area, beginning at the limit of the protected area or the

protected monument, as the case may be, and extending to a

distance of one hundred metres in all directions shall be the

prohibited area in respect of such protected area or protected

monument:

Provided that the Central Government may, on the

recommendation of the Authority, by notification in the

Official Gazette, specify an area more than one hundred

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL)NO. 697 OF 2017 IN CA NO.2431 OF 2006

SHIV DARSHAN SINGH VS. RAKESH TIWARI, DIRECTOR GENERAL,

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA (ASI) & ORS.

9

metres to be the prohibited area having regard to the

classification of any protected monument or protected area, as

the case may be, under section 4A.

(2) Save as otherwise provided in section 20C, no person,

other than an archaeological officer, shall carry out any

construction in any prohibited area.

(3) In a case where the Central Government or the

Director-General, as the case may be, is satisfied that―

(a) it is necessary or expedient for carrying out such

public work or any project essential to the public; or

(b) such other work or project, in its opinion; shall

not have any substantial adverse impact on the

preservation, safety, security of, or, access to, the

monument or its immediate surrounding,

it or he may, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-

section (2), in exceptional cases and having regard to the

public interest, by order and for reasons to be recorded in

writing, permit, such public work or project essential to the

public or other constructions, to be carried out in a prohibited

area:

Provided that any area near any protected monument or

its adjoining area declared, during the period beginning on or

after the 16th day of June, 1992 but ending before the date on

which the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and

Remains (Amendment and Validation) Bill, 2010, receives the

assent of the President, as a prohibited area in respect of such

protected monument, shall be deemed to be the prohibited

area declared in respect of that protected monument in

accordance with the provisions of this Act and any permission

or licence granted by the Central Government or the Director-

General, as the case may be, for the construction within the

prohibited area on the basis of the recommendation of the

Expert Advisory Committee, shall be deemed to have been

validly granted in accordance with the provisions of this Act,

as if this section had been in force at all material times:

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL)NO. 697 OF 2017 IN CA NO.2431 OF 2006

SHIV DARSHAN SINGH VS. RAKESH TIWARI, DIRECTOR GENERAL,

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA (ASI) & ORS.

10

Provided further that nothing contained in the first

proviso shall apply to any permission granted, subsequent to

the completion of construction or re-construction of any

building or structure in any prohibited area in pursuance of the

notification of the Government of India in the Department of

Culture (Archaeological Survey of India) number S.O. 1764,

dated the 16th June, 1992 issued under rule 34 of the Ancient

Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules,

1959, or, without having obtained the recommendations of the

Committee constituted in pursuance of the order of the

Government of India number 24/22/2006-M, dated the 20th

July, 2006 (subsequently referred to as the Expert Advisory

Committee in orders dated the 27th August, 2008 and the 5th

May, 2009).

(4) No permission, referred to in sub-section (3), including

carrying out any public work or project essential to the public

or other constructions, shall be granted in any prohibited area

on and after the date on which the Ancient Monuments and

Archaeological Sites and Remains (Amendment and

Validation) Bill, 2010 receives the assent of the President.

20B. Declaration of regulated area in respect of every

protected monument.―Every area, beginning at the limit of

prohibited area in respect of every ancient monument and

archaeological site and remains, declared as of national

importance under sections 3 and 4 and extending to a distance

of two hundred metres in all directions shall be the regulated

area in respect of every ancient monument and archaeological

site and remains:

Provided that the Central Government may, by

notification in the Official Gazette, specify an area more than

two hundred metres to be the regulated area having regard to

the classification of any protected monument or protected

area, as the case may be, under section 4A:

Provided further that any area near any protected

monument or its adjoining area declared, during the period

beginning on or after the 16th day of June, 1992 but ending

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL)NO. 697 OF 2017 IN CA NO.2431 OF 2006

SHIV DARSHAN SINGH VS. RAKESH TIWARI, DIRECTOR GENERAL,

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA (ASI) & ORS.

11

before the date on which the Ancient Monuments and

Archaeological Sites and Remains (Amendment and

Validation) Bill, 2010, receives the assent of the President, as

a regulated area in respect of such protected monument, shall

be deemed to be the regulated area declared in respect of that

protected monument in accordance with the provisions of this

Act and any permission or licence granted for construction in

such regulated area shall, be deemed to have been validly

granted in accordance with the provisions of this Act, as if this

section had been in force at all material times.”

9. The effect of this statutory regime was considered in the Judgment and

this Court had issued certain directions, which as per this Contempt Petition

have been violated by the Respondents.

10.However, before coming to the directions issued by the Judgment, the

facts leading to the filing of this contempt petition, in brief, may be set out as

under:-

(a) On 25.07.1985 a Collaboration Agreement was entered into between

the petitioner, owner of Plot No.14, Janpath Lane, New Delhi (hereinafter

referred to as “the subject plot”) and Respondent No.5 – M/s Rawal

Apartments Pvt. Ltd. for construction of a multi-storey building. A General

Power of Attorney was given to Respondent No.4 – Narender Anand, Director

of Respondent No.5.

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL)NO. 697 OF 2017 IN CA NO.2431 OF 2006

SHIV DARSHAN SINGH VS. RAKESH TIWARI, DIRECTOR GENERAL,

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA (ASI) & ORS.

12

(b)On 21.07.2000, NDMC

1

– Respondent No.2 sanctioned the plans

submitted by the Respondents 4 and 5 vide Scheme No.3351, whereafter the

old building standing on the subject plot was demolished and the work for

foundation for a new building to be erected on the subject plot was undertaken

by Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. While the construction work was in progress, a

letter was issued by NDMC on 23.05.2001 requiring that the on-going

construction work at the subject plot be immediately stopped and directing the

concerned persons to obtain requisite permission from ASI

2

– Respondent

No.1.

(c)This led to the filing of Civil Suit No.645 of 2002 by Respondent

Nos.4 and 5 seeking injunction against NDMC, Lt. Governor and ASI that

there be no interference with the on-going construction. An interim order was

passed by a Single Judge of the High Court on 22.03.2002 restraining NDMC

from giving effect to the letter dated 23.05.2001. That interim order was

modified by the Single Judge on 31.05.2002. However, by further order dated

30.10.2002, the earlier interim order dated 22.03.2002 was made absolute and

1

New Delhi Municipal Corporation

2

Archaeological Survey of India

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL)NO. 697 OF 2017 IN CA NO.2431 OF 2006

SHIV DARSHAN SINGH VS. RAKESH TIWARI, DIRECTOR GENERAL,

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA (ASI) & ORS.

13

the later order dated 31.05.2002 was recalled. An appeal was preferred

against the order dated 30.10.2002 being FAO (OS) No.414 of 2002.

(d) Around this time, Writ Petition (C) No.2635 of 2002 was filed by

Heritage and Culture Forum, in public interest seeking protection of the

ancient monument – Jantar Mantar. This writ petition was also taken up for

hearing along with FAO (OS) No.414 of 2002.

(e)The Division Bench of the High Court by its order dated 23.07.2004

set aside the order issued by the Single Judge on 30.10.2002. It was held that

the subject plot was within 100 meters of the ancient monument Jantar Mantar

and in view of the Notification there was absolute prohibition against carrying

on of any building activity in the subject plot and the order dated 30.10.2002

passed by the Single Judge could not be sustained. While dealing with the

writ petition and considering the submission whether the stipulation of 100

meters prescribed by the Notification had any scientific, pragmatic or logical

basis, the Division Bench of the High Court directed the Central Government

to review said Notification in the light of the discussion made in its judgment

dated 23.07.2004.

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL)NO. 697 OF 2017 IN CA NO.2431 OF 2006

SHIV DARSHAN SINGH VS. RAKESH TIWARI, DIRECTOR GENERAL,

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA (ASI) & ORS.

14

(f)The afore-mentioned judgment of the Division Bench was challenged

in this Court by ASI and by Respondent No.5 in Civil Appeal Nos.2430 and

2431 of 2006 respectively. While ASI had questioned the direction of the

Division Bench as regards the review of the Notification, Respondent No.5

had challenged that part of the judgment which had set aside the order passed

by the Single Judge. The Judgment dealt with both the appeals. The appeal of

ASI was allowed while the appeal preferred by Respondent No.5 was

dismissed by this Court.

(g) The basic facts leading to the filing of appeal before the Supreme

Court were dealt with in the Judgment as under:

“12. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who own plot No. 14, Janpath

Lane submitted an application to the New Delhi Municipal

Corporation (for short, ‘the Corporation’) sometime in August

1986 for sanction of the building plan for the construction of

multistoried commercial building. The same was rejected

vide letter dated 15.9.1986 on the ground that the area was

under comprehensive development and the details of

redevelopment controls/drawings, if any, finalised by the

Delhi Development Authority (for short, ‘the DDA’) were not

available with the Corporation. After about 7 years,

respondent Nos. 1 and 2 again submitted application dated

24.6.1993 for sanction of the building plan. The DDA vide its

letter dated 1.10.1993 suggested to the Corporation that plot

No. 14, Janpath Lane formed part of redevelopment scheme

and the building plan should be approved as per the

Development Control Norms. The building plan was finally

sanctioned by the Corporation sometime in September 2000

and was released on 5.3.2001. Thereafter, respondent Nos. 1

and 2 demolished the existing structure and started digging

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL)NO. 697 OF 2017 IN CA NO.2431 OF 2006

SHIV DARSHAN SINGH VS. RAKESH TIWARI, DIRECTOR GENERAL,

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA (ASI) & ORS.

15

foundation for the new building. On 5.5.2001, the

Conservation Assistant of Archaeological Survey of India

lodged a complaint about the excavation and construction

being undertaken by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in violation of

the prohibition contained in notification dated 16.6.1992. The

Superintending Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of

India, vide his letter dated 10.5.2001 informed the

Corporation that the sanction given by it was contrary to

notification dated 16.6.1992. Thereupon, the Corporation

issued notice dated 23.5.2001 to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and

directed them to stop the construction and obtain the requisite

permission from the Archaeological Survey of India.”

(h) The effect of newly introduced Sections 20A to 20F by way of

amendment was considered by this Court in the Judgment as under:-

“29. … … In terms of Section 20A(2), it has been made clear

that no person other than an Archaeological Officer shall carry

out any construction in any prohibited area. This is subject to

Section 20C, which can be treated as an exception to Section

20A(2). That section lays down that any person who owns

any building or structure, which existed in a prohibited area

before 16.6.1992 or had been subsequently constructed with

the approval of the Director General may carry out any repair

or renovation of such building or structure by making an

application to the competent authority. The term “renovation”

appearing in Section 20C will take its colour from the word

“repair” appearing in that section. This would mean that in

the garb of renovation, the owner of a building cannot

demolish the existing structure and raise a new one and the

competent authority cannot grant permission for such

reconstruction. Section 20A(3) lays down that the Central

Government or the Director General can, in exceptional cases

and having regard to the public interest, pass a reasoned order

and permit a public work or any project essential to the public

or other construction in a prohibited area provided that such

construction does not have substantial adverse impact on the

preservation, safety, security of, or access to the protected

monuments or its immediate surrounding. The use of the

expression “such other work or project” in clause (b) of

Section 20A(3), if interpreted in isolation, may give an

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL)NO. 697 OF 2017 IN CA NO.2431 OF 2006

SHIV DARSHAN SINGH VS. RAKESH TIWARI, DIRECTOR GENERAL,

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA (ASI) & ORS.

16

impression that the Central Government or the Director

General is empowered to allow any other work or project by

any person in the prohibited area but, in our view, the said

expression has to be interpreted keeping in view the mandate

of Article 49 of the Constitution and the objects sought to be

achieved by enacting 1958 Act, i.e. preservation of ancient

and historical monuments, archaeological sites and remains of

national importance. This would necessarily imply that ‘such

other work or project’ must be in larger public interest in

contrast to private interest. In other words, in exercise of

power under Section 20A(3), the Central Government or the

Director General cannot pass an order by employing the stock

of words and phrases used in that section and permit any

construction by a private person de hors public interest. Any

other interpretation of this provision would destroy the very

object of the 1958 Act and the prohibition contained in

notification dated 16.6.1992 and sub-section (1) of Section

20A would become redundant and we do not think that this

would be the correct interpretation of the amended provision.

It also needs to be emphasised that public interest must be the

core factor to be considered by the Central Government or the

Director General before allowing any construction and in no

case the construction should be allowed if the same adversely

affects the ancient and historical monuments or archaeological

sites.”

(emphasis added)

(i)As regards the directions issued by the High Court with respect to

review or reconsideration of the Notification, the Judgment observed as

under:-

“Therefore, in the name of development and accommodating

the need for multistoried structures, the High Court could not

have issued a mandamus to the Central Government to

review/reconsider notification dated 16.6.1992 and that too by

ignoring that after independence large number of protected

monuments have been facing the threat of extinction and if

effective steps are not taken to check the same, these

monuments may become part of history. One of such

monument is Jantar Mantar, New Delhi. Some of its

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL)NO. 697 OF 2017 IN CA NO.2431 OF 2006

SHIV DARSHAN SINGH VS. RAKESH TIWARI, DIRECTOR GENERAL,

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA (ASI) & ORS.

17

instruments have become unworkable/non-functional. This is

largely due to construction of multistoried structures around

Jantar Mantar. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that

the High Court was not justified in directing the Central

Government to review or reconsider notification dated

16.6.1992 and, to that extent, the impugned judgment is liable

to be set aside. We may add that with the insertion of Sections

20A and 20B, the direction given by the High Court for

review of notification dated 16.6.1992 has become infructuous

and the Government is no longer required to act upon the

same.

(j)Finally the operative part of the Judgment stated was under:

“33.In the result, Civil Appeal No.2430 of 2006 is allowed

and the direction given by the Division Bench of the High

Court for review of notification dated 16.6.1992 is set aside.

However, it is made clear that in future the Central

Government or the Director General shall not take action or

pass any order under Sections 20A(3) and 20C except in

accordance with the observations made in this judgment.

Civil Appeal No. 2431 of 2006 is dismissed. The parties are

left to bear their own costs.”

(emphasis added)

(k)Soon after the Judgment, on the recommendations of NMA

3

, ASI gave

permission for renovation/ repairs of the building standing at the subject plot

by its order dated 16.12.2013. Thereafter, Chief Architect of NDMC by his

letter dated 05.06.2014 released permission to Respondent Nos.4 and 5.

(l)On 12.01.2015, the petitioner cancelled the Power of Attorney given

in favour of Respondent No.4 by a registered Cancellation Deed and on his

3

National Monument Authority

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL)NO. 697 OF 2017 IN CA NO.2431 OF 2006

SHIV DARSHAN SINGH VS. RAKESH TIWARI, DIRECTOR GENERAL,

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA (ASI) & ORS.

18

representations, ASI vide letter dated 06.04.2015 cancelled the permission

which was granted on 16.12.2013. However, by subsequent letter dated

01.07.2015 the permission for repairs/renovation was revived by ASI. This

led to the filing of Civil Suit No.211 of 2015 in the Court of Additional

District Judge – 05, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi seeking reliefs of

mandatory and permanent injunction against Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and

Writ Petition No.3425 of 2016 by the petitioner in the High Court of Delhi

seeking directions against Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to withdraw/revoke

permission given to Respondent Nos.4 and 5 and for direction to stop any

work or construction in the subject plot. The Suit as well as the Writ Petition

are still pending.

(m) On 29.01.2016 a show cause notice was issued by NMA to

Respondent Nos.4 and 5 as to why permission granted earlier on 16.12.2013

be not cancelled since the present construction on the subject plot was neither

existing on 16.06.1992 i.e. on the day the Notification was issued nor was

such construction erected with the approval of Director General, ASI. On

27.06.2016, NMA – cancelled the earlier permission dated 16.12.2013 on the

ground that it was erroneously granted.

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL)NO. 697 OF 2017 IN CA NO.2431 OF 2006

SHIV DARSHAN SINGH VS. RAKESH TIWARI, DIRECTOR GENERAL,

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA (ASI) & ORS.

19

(n)Respondent Nos.4 and 5, therefore challenged the Show Cause Notice

dated 29.01.2016 as well as the order dated 27.06.2016 passed by the NMA

by filing Writ Petition (C) No.7018 of 2016. This Writ Petition is still

pending consideration by the High Court.

(o)The instant Contempt Petition was filed in this Court in December

2016 submitting as under:-

“12. That it is submitted that the order dated 31/05/2002 of

Ld. Single Judge in Suit No.645/02, order dated 23/07/2004

of Ld. Division Bench in FAO 414/2002 and Hon’ble

Supreme Court order / judgment dated 16/01/2012 when

read together categorically prohibits any building activity,

leave alone building construction, at the suit premises in

question. Further the construction, if any done by the

builder/contemnor nos. 4 & 5 has to be demolished upto

DPC level since ultimately this Hon’ble Court came to the

conclusion that no building activity can take place there.

13. That all the respondents/contemnors have willfully and

voluntarily disobeyed/defied the orders of the Ld. Division

Bench upheld by this Hon’ble Court. The

Contemnor/Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, who are responsible

officers of Govt. Department are willfully and deliberately

not complying/implementing the orders/directions of this

Hon’ble Court and are liable to the punished as per Section

30-A and 30-C of the AMSAR Act, as amended in 2010

besides being liable for contempt.”

It was prayed:-

“a.issue contempt notices to the Contemnors;

b. punish the Contemnors for committing the contempt of

the Court for willfully disobeying the order dated

16/01/2012 passed by this Hon’ble Court in CA

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL)NO. 697 OF 2017 IN CA NO.2431 OF 2006

SHIV DARSHAN SINGH VS. RAKESH TIWARI, DIRECTOR GENERAL,

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA (ASI) & ORS.

20

No.2431/2006 titled as “Narender Anand Vs.

Archaeological Survey of India & Ors.”;

c.Issue orders to the Contemnor Nos. 1 to 5 to

immediately demolish the unauthorized structure raised by

the contemnor nos. 4 & 5 since it is a settled law that the

contemnor should not be allowed to enjoy or retain the

fruits of his contempt as held by this Hon’ble Court in Delhi

Development Authority Vs. Skipper Construction

Company (P) Ltd.;”

Notice was issued by this Court on 10.07.2017. Respondents appeared

and filed their responses.

11.On 24.09.2018 following order was passed by this Court:

“The Principal Secretary, New Delhi Municipal Council

(NDMC) is directed to conduct a local inspection with notice

to all the parties and submit a report along with an affidavit to

this Court as to whether Mr. Narender Anand (Respondent

Nos.4 & 5) has done any new construction based on the

permission granted by the National Monuments Authority

and if so what is the construction, which has been so

undertaken, in violation of the order of the Delhi High Court

as upheld by this Court. This shall be done within four weeks

from today.”

12. Accordingly, local inspection was conducted on 09.10.2018 in the

presence of the concerned parties and the consequential Report prepared on

22.10.2018 made following observations:-

“4. During inspection held on 09.10.2018, the entire building

was found completely finished and status given below reflects

the work carried out after 05.06.2014 (when the plans were

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL)NO. 697 OF 2017 IN CA NO.2431 OF 2006

SHIV DARSHAN SINGH VS. RAKESH TIWARI, DIRECTOR GENERAL,

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA (ASI) & ORS.

21

released for finishing work on the basis of approval by NMA)

in comparison to the earlier status of construction observed

during PANCHNAMA held on 07.05.2003:

Sl.NoStatus of Construction recorded

as per Panchnama on

07.05.2003

Status of

Construction as on

09.10.2018 (after

completion of

finishing work as

per approval by

NMA on

16.12.2013)

i.Party has structurally completed

the ground floor + 4 uppers

floors including two level

basements having height 61’6’’

from the ground level to terrace

level of 4

th

floor.

Additional structure

work of Mumty,

Lift Machine Room,

Water tank

enclosures at two

places at terrace;

and

Under Ground

Water Tank, under

ground Fire Water

tank, STP Tank and

Rain Water

Harvesting Tank at

Ground Level are

found completed.

ii.Party has constructed the

external wall upto sill level on

all the floors and has almost

plastered the external surface

towards East and North side.

Finishing of

external walls

including windows/

glazing work has

been completed on

all the floors.

Complete finishing/

plastering of

external surfaces on

all sides of the

building has been

completed.

iii.The fire escape staircase

towards east side has been

finished with kota stone upto 3

rd

floor but the main stair case and

other FES is unfinished.

The fire escape

staircase towards

east side has been

completely finished

with kota stone.

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL)NO. 697 OF 2017 IN CA NO.2431 OF 2006

SHIV DARSHAN SINGH VS. RAKESH TIWARI, DIRECTOR GENERAL,

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA (ASI) & ORS.

22

The fire escape stair

case towards west

side and the main

stair case have been

finished completely

i.e. flooring work,

wall finishing,

railing etc. complete

in all respect.

iv.Lower Basement:- The lower

basement is totally unfinished.

The Lower

Basement is found

finished with

respect to flooring,

plastering etc. with

partitions to make

enclosures and

sprinkler system,

AC ducting etc.

v.Upper Basement: - The upper

basement is totally unfinished

(approx.). Party has fixed the

frame for ventilators towards

East and North side. Party has

not constructed the ramp from

upper basement level to ground

level towards West Side.

The Upper

Basement is found

completely finished.

Ventilator work has

been found

completed on all

sides of the building

Ramps connecting

upper basement

level to ground

level have been

constructed and

completely finished.

Electric equipments

pertaining to

Electric sub-station/

AC plant were

found installed.

vi.Ground Floor: - Party has

finished the internal walls and

roof ceiling with cement plaster

and also fixed the rolling

shutter at external façade at

places, partitions have been

constructed at places 3 ft. high

without plaster. Party has

Ground Floor:

Finishing work of

all internal walls

and roof ceiling has

been found

completed. All the

rolling shutters at

external façade have

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL)NO. 697 OF 2017 IN CA NO.2431 OF 2006

SHIV DARSHAN SINGH VS. RAKESH TIWARI, DIRECTOR GENERAL,

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA (ASI) & ORS.

23

constructed two small toilet

blocks which are not finished.

There is no floor finished at

whole of the Ground Floor.

been fixed. Both

the toilets have been

completely finished.

Flooring work of

the whole ground

floor including Lift

Lobby is found

completed.

vii.First Floor: - Party has not

finished the flooring except at

part portion of the main

corridor and has also plastered

the ceiling and internal walls

constructed at site. Two rolling

shutters have been fixed near

lift lobby and also fixed door

frames and door shutters in part

portion. Two toilet blocks have

been constructed and are

unfinished.

First Floor:

Flooring work has

been found

completed in the

entire first floor

including Lift

Lobby. Ceiling and

walls were found

completely finished.

All the door frames

and shutters have

been fixed. Both

the toilets have been

completely finished.

viii.Second Floor: Party has

completed the internal

plastering work. Flooring have

not been finished except in a

part portion of lift lobby and

corridor. Two toilet blocks are

unfinished. The door frames

have been provided/fixed at

places.

Second floor:

Flooring of entire

second floor

including lift lobby

and corridor have

been found

completed. Both

the toilets have been

completely finished.

All the door frames

and door shutters

were found fixed.

ix.Third Floor: - Party has

completed the internal

plastering work of the walls as

constructed at site including the

ceiling. The toilet blocks are

totally unfinished. Flooring has

not been laid except in a part

portion of corridor. Wooden

door frames have been fixed.

Third Floor: The

entire third floor

including toilet

blocks including

Lift Lobby and

corridors are found

completely finished.

All the door frames

and door shutters

were found fixed.

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL)NO. 697 OF 2017 IN CA NO.2431 OF 2006

SHIV DARSHAN SINGH VS. RAKESH TIWARI, DIRECTOR GENERAL,

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA (ASI) & ORS.

24

x.Fourth Floor: - This floor is

totally unfinished and is without

partition walls. Shuttering has

not been removed towards outer

face of South East Side.

Fourth Floor: The

entire fourth floor

including Lift

Lobby was found

completely finished.

Partition walls were

also found finished

in all aspect. All

the door frames and

door shutters were

found fixed.

xi.Terrace: - Party has

constructed 3’-3” high parapet

towards north side only. Two

RCC columns 2.6m. high and

two RCC columns of 1.25 m

high have been constructed

behind the main stair case.

Steel bars of various heights of

all the structural columns are

seen erected above the terrace

level.

Terrace: Parapet

wall has been

completed on all

sides of the building

at terrace. Lift

machine room and

Mumty has been

constructed with

complete finishing

work over lift well

and main stair case.

Lift machines are

found installed in

the machine room.

Still Frame with

louvers enclosures

were found erected

around the overhead

water tanks at two

locations.

xii.The open to sky surface are at

ground level has not been

finished.

Open area at ground

level surrounding

the building was

found completely

finished. One

generator was found

installed in open

area on eastern side.

The south side

boundary wall &

railing has been

shifted towards

inside plot for road

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL)NO. 697 OF 2017 IN CA NO.2431 OF 2006

SHIV DARSHAN SINGH VS. RAKESH TIWARI, DIRECTOR GENERAL,

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA (ASI) & ORS.

25

widening, as

required/shown in

the Sanction Plan.

(Generator was not

shown in the plans

approved by NMA/

NDMC)

xiii.The building material and

shuttering material are scattered

in the open area as well as on

various floors of the building.

One lift crane and concrete

mixture are lying at the site.

Scaffolding is existing at some

places around the building.

Almost all the

floors inside the

building and open

area at ground floor

were found clear of

building material,

scaffolding and

shuttering material

or any machinery

used in construction

work, except some

unused building

material was found

stacked in small

portions in second

floor, upper

basement and lower

basement.

xiv.Coloured photographs taken at

the time of Panchnama on

07.05.2003 are enclosed at

Annexure ‘R-14’.

Coloured

photographs taken

during the

inspection on

09.10.2018 are

enclosed at

Annexure ‘R-15’.

Coloured

photographs of the

building prior to

building plan

sanction on

05.03.2001, as

available in the file

records of Architect

Department, are

enclosed at

Annexure ‘R-16.

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL)NO. 697 OF 2017 IN CA NO.2431 OF 2006

SHIV DARSHAN SINGH VS. RAKESH TIWARI, DIRECTOR GENERAL,

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA (ASI) & ORS.

26

13.An affidavit was thereafter filed by the Chief Architect of NDMC

enclosing the aforesaid Report. The affidavit asserted:-

“7. It is pertinent to mention that previously the Hon’ble

High Court of Delhi vide order dated 02.05.2003 passed in

FAO(OS) No.414/2002 had been pleased to stay the

construction activities at the premises and had directed

NDMC and Archeological Survey of India (ASI) to inspect

the premises. Pursuant to this order, the premises had been

inspected and a panchnama was drawn 07.05.2003 wherein it

has been recorded that two basement + ground floor + four

upper floors having height of 61’6” from the ground level to

the terrace level of the 4

th

floor had been completed.

8. That the building was not habitable at the time of

preparation of Panchnama on 07.05.2003. However, during

the inspection undertaken on 09.10.2018, it was observed that

the building was found habitable. While the whole building

was illegal after judgment dated 16.01.2012 in Civil Appeal

No.2431 of 2006 by this Hon’ble Court, however, even at the

time of Panchnama on 07.05.2003 the height of the building

was found 61 ft 6 inches in contravention to the 55ft height

allowed by Hon’ble High Court vide its order dated

22.03.2002 in CS(OS) No.645/2002.

9. That the construction of the building itself having been

held to be illegal by this Hon’ble Court vide its order dated

16.01.2012, the same being within 100 metres of the

prohibited area of a protected monument, no construction

activity was permissible in the said parcel of the land in

question and the entire building is liable to be demolished

and accordingly NDMC had revoked/cancelled the sanction

plans on 27.01.2017. Further NDMC has already issued a

Show Cause Notice u/s 247 of NDMC Act on 07.09.2017 and

passed a sealing order u/s 250(I) on 09.09.2017. The SCN

and order issued by NDMC has been challenged by Narender

Anand (Respondent Nos.4 & 5) by filing an application in

W.P.(C) 7018/2016 before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.

The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated

11.09.2017 has restrained the NDMC from taking any action

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL)NO. 697 OF 2017 IN CA NO.2431 OF 2006

SHIV DARSHAN SINGH VS. RAKESH TIWARI, DIRECTOR GENERAL,

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA (ASI) & ORS.

27

on the said property in question and stayed the Show Cause

Notice issued by NDMC dated 07.09.2017. The stay order

dated 11.09.2017 is still continuing and the next date of

hearing before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi is

01.11.2018.”

14.During the course of hearing of this Contempt Petition on 23.01.2019,

certain developments and factual aspects came to light on perusal of the files.

It appeared that though some queries were made and doubts were raised by

the Legal Advisor of NDMC in his noting dated 11.03.2014, those queries

were not dealt with and yet permission was granted by NDMC. Notices were

therefore issued to certain officials including the then Chairperson and

Member Secretary of NMA to explain the circumstances in which permission

to go ahead with reconstruction/repairing was granted by them. Notice was

also issued to the competent authority of ASI to explain his role in the entire

matter. Appropriate responses were thereafter filed by the concerned

noticees. It is not necessary to deal with every single response but suffice

it to say that the factual development leading to the letter dated 05.06.2014 by

Chief Architect of NDMC releasing Sanctioned Plans for finishing the

existing building as per approved drawings by NMA/ASI, were dealt with in

detail in the affidavit by the Deputy Chief Architect, NDMC filed in this

Court on 19.02.2019.

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL)NO. 697 OF 2017 IN CA NO.2431 OF 2006

SHIV DARSHAN SINGH VS. RAKESH TIWARI, DIRECTOR GENERAL,

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA (ASI) & ORS.

28

15.We heard Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned Senior Advocate for the

contempt petitioner, Mr. Yogender Handoo, learned Advocate for NDMC

Respondent No.2, Mr. Gopal Shankar Narayanan, learned Senior Advocate

for Respondents 4 and 5, Mr. ADN Rao, learned Advocate for ASI and NMA

and Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, learned Senior Advocate and Mr. Gourab Banerji,

learned Senior Advocate for some of the other noticees.

16.This Contempt Petition principally prays for an appropriate direction

that the structure in existence at the site or in the subject plot be demolished

and submits that action be taken against the alleged contemnors for violation

of the directions issued in the Judgment. In its paragraph 29, the Judgment

laid down “This would mean that in the garb of renovation, the owner of a

building cannot demolish the existing structure and raise a new one and the

competent authority cannot grant permission for such reconstruction. …… In

other words, in exercise of power under Section 20A(3), the Central

Government or the Director General cannot pass an order by employing the

stock of words and phrases used in that section and permit any construction

by a private person de hors public interest. …… ”.

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL)NO. 697 OF 2017 IN CA NO.2431 OF 2006

SHIV DARSHAN SINGH VS. RAKESH TIWARI, DIRECTOR GENERAL,

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA (ASI) & ORS.

29

Having laid down the principles of law, in its operative part, the

Judgment directed, “… … in future the Central Government or the Director

General shall not take action or pass any order under Sections 20A(3) and

20C except in accordance with the observations made in this judgment.”

17.The facts on record need to be considered in the light of the principles

so laid down and the direction so issued, to see if any action in exercise of

Contempt Jurisdiction is called for.

It is clear from the record that as on the date when the matter was

considered and the Judgment was delivered by this Court, the structure as

indicated in the Spot Panchnama dated 07.05.2003 was in existence. In the

local inspection held on 07.05.2003 it was found that Respondents 4 and 5 had

structurally completed the ground floor plus four upper floors including two

levels of basement having height of 61 ft and 6 inches from the ground level

to the terrace level of the 4

th

floor. However, the finishing work in the lower

basement, upper basement, ground floor, first, second, third and fourth floor

as well as terrace was yet to be completed. Though the challenge raised by

Respondents 4 and 5 was negatived in the Judgment, no specific direction was

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL)NO. 697 OF 2017 IN CA NO.2431 OF 2006

SHIV DARSHAN SINGH VS. RAKESH TIWARI, DIRECTOR GENERAL,

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA (ASI) & ORS.

30

passed as to the status of structure that was in existence on the date of the

Judgment and whether that structure be pulled down or not.

As evident from the affidavit of the Chief Architect of NDMC and the

inspection held on 09.10.2018, though there was no vertical or horizontal

expansion of the building as against what obtained in the year 2003, the

building was found to be habitable in the inspection held on 09.10.2018

whereas it was not so in the year 2003. The aforesaid affidavit further

indicates that apart from cancellation of Sanction Plans on 27.01.2017, action

in the form of a Show Cause Notice dated 07.09.2017 and Sealing Order dated

09.09.2017 was undertaken by NDMC, which are subject matter of challenge

in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7018 of 2016.

18.It is true that though no specific directions regarding demolition of the

structure that was in existence as on that date were passed in the judgment, the

authorities were directed not to take any action or pass any order under

Section 20A(3) and 20C of the Act except in accordance with the observations

made in the judgment. The basic submission of the petitioner in the contempt

petition, however, is that the cumulative effect of all the proceedings

including the Judgment passed by this Court would mean that the structure in

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL)NO. 697 OF 2017 IN CA NO.2431 OF 2006

SHIV DARSHAN SINGH VS. RAKESH TIWARI, DIRECTOR GENERAL,

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA (ASI) & ORS.

31

existence has to be demolished and since no action in that behalf has been

taken or initiated, the concerned authorities are guilty of contempt.

After the Judgment was passed by this Court, ASI had initially given

permission for renovation/ repair of the structure that was in existence, based

on which appropriate permission was also granted by the NDMC. However,

those permissions now stand revoked in terms of order dated 27.06.2016 i.e.

even before the filing of the present Contempt Petition. A Writ petition filed

by Respondents 4 and 5 challenging said order dated 27.06.2016 is still

pending consideration by the High Court.

19.In the backdrop of these facts, we have gone through the record and

the notings in the file pursuant to which the aforesaid permissions were

granted by ASI on 16.12.2013 and by NDMC on 05.06.2014. The

permissions were only for completing the finishing work of the existing

building without any vertical or horizontal extension of the structure. Though

the concerned authorities ought to have been careful when the matter in that

behalf was considered, since the challenge is pending consideration before the

High Court, we refrain from going into the matter. For the present purposes

what is crucial to consider is whether any express direction issued by this

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL)NO. 697 OF 2017 IN CA NO.2431 OF 2006

SHIV DARSHAN SINGH VS. RAKESH TIWARI, DIRECTOR GENERAL,

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA (ASI) & ORS.

32

Court in the present matter stood violated or not. As this Court had not dealt

with the matter as regards status of the construction which was in existence on

the day when the matter was considered by this Court, it would not be

possible in these proceedings to direct demolition of the existing structure as

is sought to be submitted on behalf of the contempt petitioners. The direction

that the authorities must not take any action or pass any order under Section

20A(3) and 20C of the Act except in accordance with the observations made

in the Judgment is definitely capable of being implemented. But, whether the

permissions were rightly granted or not and what is the affect of withdrawal or

revocation of those permissions are the issues which must logically and in

fairness, be considered in the pending matters. In any event of the matter,

with the passing of the order dated 27.06.2016 it cannot be said that the

authorities were in violation of the orders passed by this Court. We, therefore,

see no reason to entertain this Contempt Petition any longer and the present

Contempt Petition is closed.

20.We, however, request the High Court to dispose of all pending matters

as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six months in the light of

the law declared by this Court in the Judgment. We make it clear that we

have considered the matter only from the perspective whether contempt has

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL)NO. 697 OF 2017 IN CA NO.2431 OF 2006

SHIV DARSHAN SINGH VS. RAKESH TIWARI, DIRECTOR GENERAL,

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA (ASI) & ORS.

33

been made out or not and leave all the issues including status of the structure

in existence in the subject plot and whether that structure needs to be

demolished or not to be decided in the pending matters.

.………..…..……..……J.

(Uday Umesh Lalit)

..………….……………J.

(Indira Banerjee)

New Delhi;

July 9, 2019.