Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed two appeals challenging an interlocutory order of the Orissa High Court in a Public Interest Litigation concerning alleged unauthorised construction within the prohibited area of the Shree Jagannath Temple complex in Puri, Odisha. The High Court had recorded submissions of the Advocate General and directed the matter to be listed along with another petition, without granting any interim injunction. The appellants, who were intervenors before the High Court, claimed that the construction violated the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (AMASR Act). The Supreme Court granted leave and heard extensive arguments. The appellants argued that Section 20A(4) of the AMASR Act prohibits any construction in the prohibited area after the 2010 Amendment, and that the National Monuments Authority (NMA) had no power to permit construction, being only a recommendatory body under Section 20I. They also pointed to an ASI inspection report indicating irregularities. The State of Odisha and the Temple Managing Committee countered that the works were for public facilities like toilets, queue complexes, and drainage, which are excluded from the definition of 'construction' under Section 2(dc) of the Act. They also relied on a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from NMA dated 4.9.2021 and the appointment of a competent authority under Section 2(db). The Supreme Court noted that a three-judge bench in Mrinalini Padhi vs. Union of India had already directed improvement of facilities for devotees at the temple. The Court held that the High Court's order was merely interlocutory and did not warrant interference. It observed that the construction was in public interest and that the State had obtained necessary permissions, including NOC from NMA. The Court dismissed the appeals, allowing the construction to continue subject to compliance with law.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Interlocutory Order - Appealability - Interlocutory order refusing interim injunction is not a final order and ordinarily not interfered with by Supreme Court unless there is grave injustice or perversity - Held that the High Court's order recording submissions and directing listing is not amenable to interference (Paras 1, 19). B) Ancient Monuments - Prohibited Area - Construction - Section 20A(4) of Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 prohibits construction in prohibited area after 2010 Amendment - However, public works essential to public may be permitted by competent authority after NOC from NMA - Held that the construction of toilets, queue complexes, and other facilities for devotees is in public interest and may be allowed subject to compliance with statutory provisions (Paras 10, 13-16, 21-22). C) Ancient Monuments - National Monuments Authority - Powers - Section 20I of AMASR Act, 1958 - NMA is only a recommendatory authority and cannot grant permission for construction - Competent authority under Section 20D grants permission after considering NMA's recommendation - Held that NOC dated 4.9.2021 was a recommendation, not a final permission (Paras 11, 13). D) Ancient Monuments - Definition of Construction - Section 2(dc) of AMASR Act, 1958 excludes reconstruction, repair, renovation, drainage, water supply, electricity, and similar public facilities from the definition of 'construction' - Held that the proposed works may fall within the exception and thus not require separate permission (Para 14). E) Public Interest - Temple Facilities - Supreme Court in Mrinalini Padhi vs. Union of India (2019) 18 SCC 1 directed improvement of facilities for devotees at Shree Jagannath Temple - Held that the State's acquisition and development plan is in line with this Court's directions and serves public interest (Paras 15-16, 21-22).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court's interlocutory order refusing interim injunction against construction within prohibited area of Shree Jagannath Temple should be interfered with by the Supreme Court.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, upholding the High Court's interlocutory order. No interim injunction was granted against the construction. The Court allowed the construction to continue subject to compliance with the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.
Law Points
- Interim order not appealable
- Public interest in temple facilities
- Construction in prohibited area
- NOC from NMA is recommendatory
- Competent authority's role under AMASR Act
