High Court Quashes Notice to Halt Toilet Block Construction Near Heritage Site — Upholds Public Convenience. The court found that the construction of a toilet block does not require permission under the Maharashtra Ancient Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Act, 1960, as it does not fall within the definition of 'construction'.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD
  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The Writ Petition No. 10507 of 2019 was filed by the Mutawalli of Dargah Hazrat Sayed Shah Raju Khattal Husaini, challenging notices issued by the State Archeological Department to halt the construction of a toilet block near the Dargah. The Municipal Council supported the petitioner, while the State and its Archeological Department contested the petition, arguing that permission was required for construction within 100 meters of a protected monument as per Section 21 of the Maharashtra Ancient Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Act, 1960. The petitioner contended that the construction of a toilet block did not constitute 'construction' as defined by the Central Act, and that permission had already been granted by the District Collector. The court analyzed the definitions of 'construction' and the implications of the relevant sections of both the State and Central Acts. It noted that the absence of sanitation facilities caused hardship to devotees visiting the Dargah, especially during significant religious events. The court emphasized the need for basic amenities near heritage sites to enhance visitor experience and prevent open defecation. Ultimately, the court quashed the notices to stop construction, directing the Archeological Department to decide on the petitioner's application for permission within two weeks, while also allowing for the possibility of relocating the toilet block if all parties agreed. The ruling underscored the balance between heritage preservation and public convenience. The decision was pronounced on 04 November 2026.

Headnote

A) Administrative Law - Construction Permissions - Requirement of Permission for Construction Near Monuments - Maharashtra Ancient Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Act, 1960, Section 21 - The court held that the construction of a toilet block does not fall under the definition of 'construction' as per the Central Act, thus no permission was required. The impugned communication directing to stop construction was quashed. (Paras 12-22).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the construction of a toilet block near a protected monument requires permission under the Maharashtra Ancient Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Act, 1960.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court quashed the notices directing to stop construction and ordered the Archeological Department to decide on the petitioner's application for permission within two weeks, allowing for the possibility of relocating the toilet block if agreed upon by all parties.

Law Points

  • Construction permissions
  • Public convenience
  • Heritage preservation
  • Sanitation facilities
  • Ancient Monuments Act
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (BOM) (11) 48

WP-10507 of 2019

2026-11-04

Jitendra Jain, Kishore C. Sant

Afzal Husain M. Vakil, S. A. Pathan, S. B. Pulkundwar, Usha P. Kale

Dargah Hazrat Sayed Shah Raju Khattal Husaini

State of Maharashtra, Municipal Council, Archeological Department

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging notices to stop construction of a toilet block near a Dargah.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought to quash the notices and allow construction.

Filing Reason

Notices issued by the State Archeological Department to halt construction.

Issues

Whether permission is required for construction near a protected monument. Interpretation of 'construction' under relevant acts.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the construction of a toilet block does not require permission as it is not defined as 'construction'. Respondents contended that permission was necessary due to proximity to a protected monument.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the construction of a toilet block does not fall within the definition of 'construction' as per the Central Act, thus no permission was required under the State Act.

Judgment Excerpts

The court held that the construction of a toilet block does not fall within the meaning of 'construction' as defined by the Central Act. The impugned communications directing respondent no.2 to stop construction of toilet block is quashed and set aside.

Procedural History

The petition was filed challenging the notices issued by the State Archeological Department, with hearings conducted and arguments presented by both sides.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Ancient Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Act, 1960: Section 21, Section 17(1)(c)(ii), Section 42
  • Ancient Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958: Section 2(dc)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Actress for Defamation and Obscenity Allegations — Remarks on Premarital Sex Not Obscene. Citing lack of prima facie case and political motivations behind complaints.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Regarding Termination of Employment Under Standing Orders. The court upheld the validity of termination under the Standing Orders, finding no violation of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.