Friday, September 20, 2024
154,225FansLike
654,155FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe

Punjab and Haryana High Court dismisses PIL challenging Centre, Punjab pact on Ranjit Singh fort

The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) which sought to quashing of the agreement between the State of Punjab, the owner of the Maharaja Ranjit Singh Fort, Phillaur, District Jalandhar, and the Central Government alleging the same to be contrary to Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 read with Section 18 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.

It is not in dispute that the said monument is an ancient monument declared as such under the 1958 Act.    

The grievance of the petitioner, as projected by the counsel and the pleadings in the petition, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal noted that general public does not have free and full access of visiting the fort.  

From a bare perusal of the agreement in question and the averments made in the replies already filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 – Union of India as well as respondent No. 3 – State of Punjab and also the oral submissions made by Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab,  the Court noted that the fort is accessible to the general public on every Thursday and a request has already been made by the Director, Punjab Police Academy, Phillaur to the Director General of Police (Training-1, Branch), Punjab, Chandigarh vide letter dated 20.04.2013  for giving access to the general public visiting the fort on Tuesday as well. The said request is yet to be considered.

The ‘1958 Act’ recognises the concept of an agreement under Section 6 between the Central Government and the owner of the ancient monument. The owner of the ancient monument in question in the present case is the State of Punjab. The agreement in terms of the provisions of Section 6 of the ‘1958 Act’ is entered into, essentially, for the purpose of maintenance of the monument.   

There is no averment in the petition that the monument is not being properly maintained.   

In view of the above and the fair stand taken by the respondents, the Court does not deem it appropriate to keep the petition pending.

spot_img

News Update