Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Bombay heard four writ petitions together concerning the validity of a notification dated 16.6.1992 issued under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1959. The notification prohibited mining and construction operations within 100 meters and regulated them within 200 meters of protected monuments. Two petitions were filed by builders—M/s. Naiknaware & Associates and Jayant Maniklal Lunawat—challenging the notification and consequential stop-work orders or refusal of building plan sanctions. Another petition by a public-spirited citizen sought enforcement of the Act around Shaniwarwada, while the fourth petition by builders similarly challenged the notification. The builders argued that the notification was ultra vires Rules 31 and 32, as it was general and not specific to individual monuments, and that the Rules themselves violated Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution by conferring unguided blanket power. They also contended that monuments declared protected after 1992 could not be covered by the notification. The Union of India defended the notification and the Rules, asserting their validity and substantial compliance. The court first addressed the threshold challenge that Rules 31 and 32 were ultra vires Section 38 of the Act. It held that Section 38 expressly empowers the Central Government to make rules for prohibiting or regulating mining and construction near protected monuments, and the Rules of 1959 were framed in exercise of that power. The court observed that the Rules provide a prescription for protection and are not vague or ultra vires. The judgment text does not contain the court's decision on the validity of the notification itself or on the constitutional challenges, as the available extract ends mid-discussion. Consequently, only the finding on the vires of Rules 31 and 32 is discernible from the provided material.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Delegated Legislation - Ultra Vires Challenge to Subordinate Legislation - Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, Section 38; Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1959, Rules 31-32 - The court held that the rule-making power under Section 38 of the Act is wide and clear, empowering the Central Government to prohibit or regulate mining and construction near protected monuments; the Rules of 1959 were framed in exercise of that power and provide a prescription for protection of ancient monuments; the Rules are not vague or ultra vires the parent Act, though a notification issued under them may be invalid for vagueness. (Paras 12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the notification dated 16.6.1992 is ultra vires the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1959, and whether Rules 31-33 of the said Rules are constitutionally valid under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution
Final Decision
The court held that Rules 31 and 32 of the 1959 Rules are not ultra vires Section 38 of the Act. The decision on the validity of the notification and constitutional challenges is not contained in the available text.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Rules 31 and 32 of Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules
- 1959 are intra vires the rule-making power under Section 38 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act
- 1958
- rules are not vague or ultra vires
