K .Guruprasad Rao vs . State of Karnataka and Ors .

MANU/SC/0697/2013

Preservation and protection of ancient and historical monuments. Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (1958 Act); Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1959 (1959 Rules); Karnataka Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1961 (Karnataka Act); Rules 11 to 15 of Karnataka Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1966 (Karnataka Rules); Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (1957 Act). Appellant filed a writ Petition and prayed for cancellation of mining lease granted to Respondent No. 4 and for issue of a mandamus to official Respondents to stop mining activity within one kilometer from temple. He further prayed for issue of a direction to Respondent No. 9 to take steps for restoration of temple to its original state. High Court dismissed writ Petition without dealing with any of issue raised by Appellant, Hence, present Appeal. As whether certain restriction should be imposed as recommended by Committee appointed by Court (Committee). Held, report submitted by Respondent No. 9 showed that extensive damage caused to temple and its surroundings due to blasting carried out by leaseholders. Mining operations/activities in vicinity of ancient and historical monuments and archaeological sites were governed by 1958 Act and similar enactments made by State Legislatures including Karnataka Act – 1959 Rules and Karnataka Rules provided for grant of permission licence in prescribed form to undertake any mining operations in a protected and/or regulated area. Private Respondents having not obtained such licence under Rules 11 to 15 of Karnataka Rules, for permission to undertake mining operations within prohibited and/or regulated area, could not be allowed to operate mines in protected and/or regulated area. Committee unanimously agreed that mining operations carried out using blasting operations at a distance of less than 200 meters from temple had already caused irreparable damage to temple and eco-environs of its immediate neighbourhood – Detailed reasons recorded by Committee for not accepting recommendations of expert bodies about distance upto which mining should not be allowed were correct and those recommendations could not relied upon for rejection of recommendations made by Committee. Committee’s recommendations were not on conflict with provisions of 1957 Act and Rules framed thereunder, Recommendations and suggestions made by Committee for creation of Core Zone and Buffer Zone appropriately created that balance, While mining activity was sure to create wealth for leaseholders and also State, immense cultural and historic wealth could not be ignored and every effort had to be made to protect temple the impugned order was set aside and Report of Committee was accepted and State Government was directed to implement recommendations contained in Part V thereof.Appeal allowed.