Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lokendra Singh vs Secretary The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 May, 2010
W.P. No.8221/2009 (PIL)
05.05.2010
Shri Ashish Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Prashant Singh, learned Additional Advocate
General for the respondents/State.
In the instant writ petition filed as a public interest litigation the petitioner has sought for a direction to restrain the respondents from constructing ropeway on the hill of Maa Sharda Devi Temple at Village, Arkandi, Tahsil, Maihar, District, Satna (M.P.).
Sharda Devi Temple is one of the important religious place within the Vindhya Region and devotees in large number visit the temple everyday. Since the temple is located on top of the hill, the old and infirm devotees were facing lot of inconvenience and difficulties while climbing the hill for visiting up to the shrine. The respondents, therefore, decided to construct the ropeway for the convenience of the devotees.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the construction of the ropeway is bound to disturb the greenery of the area and will also cause damage to the hill and; therefore, it is in the public interest that the same may not be allowed to be constructed.
The respondents in their return have stated that the pilgrims after installation of the ropeway have started availing the facility and are happy with the installation of the ropeway. The allegation in the writ petition that no proper information was given to the State Government regarding construction of ropeway has been denied and it has been stated that communication was made with the State Government by the administrator of respondent No.6 through the Collector, respondent No.2. It has also been stated that before proceeding with the construction, the Chairman of respondent No.6 visited the office of Central Building Research Institute, Rurki for the evaluation of stability of hillock of Maa Sharda Devi Mandir and for suggesting measures to improve the stability of rock, slopes surrounding the temple structure for its safety and to prevent from any damages. It has further been stated that thereafter three members team consisting of Scientists visited the site on 31.3.1993 and on 11.4.1993 and they prepared an exhaustive report and accordingly remedial measures suggested by them were taken. It has been submitted that all proper steps were taken by the respondent No.6 before installing ropeway on the site in question. The petitioner has not denied those averments by giving rejoinder. In view of the averments made in the return, it appears that appropriate steps for protection of the hillock and to prevent it from deterioration etc., were taken before proceeding with the construction of ropeway.
We are of the view that the construction of the rope way having been made for the convenience and benefit of the public at large specially to devotees by no means, it cannot be held to be against public interest. Besides that, admittedly, the construction has already been completed and ropeway has been commissioned and working satisfactorily. It also appears that large number of devotees are availing the facility of ropeway since last six months. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed.
(S.R.Alam) (K.S. Chauhan)
Chief Justice Judge
A.Praj.