Delhi High Court
Mithilesh Kumar Pandey vs Union Of India & Ors. on 5 November, 2014
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Bench: Chief Justice, Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 5th November, 2014
+ W.P.(C) No.6487/2014
MITHILESH KUMAR PANDEY ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Adv. with Petitioner
in person.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr. Ripu
Daman Bhardwaj & Ms. Rajul Jain,
Advs. for UOI.
Mr. Angha Desai with Mr. Mithilesh
Kumar, Advs. for R-4.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
1. This petition, by an advocate, filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), seeks a direction to the Union of India (UOI) through the Secretary, Ministry of Culture and to the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to provide financial, technical and other assistance necessary to preserve, protect and maintain the articles belonging to Dr. Baba Saheb Bhim Rao Ambedkar kept at Shantivan, Nagpur, a private museum. WP(C) No.6487/2014 Page 1 of 4
2. It is the case of the petitioner, i) that the said private museum has been set up by the respondent no.5 Indian Buddhist Council on land ad-measuring 11.36 acres, in Chicholi, Nagpur, Maharashtra; ii) that the said respondent no.5 sought assistance from the Central Government for preservation and maintenance of articles belonging to Dr. Ambedkar exhibited in the said museum; iii) that the Minister of Culture and Tourism in the year 2008 requested ASI to take appropriate steps; ASI informed the respondent no.5 that it was unable to provide any funds for maintenance of the articles in a private museum; and iv) that the respondent no.5 also approached the respondent no.4 Nagpur Improvement Trust and the respondent no.3 Dr. Ambedkar Foundation in this regard but to no avail.
3. Though the petition is filed in public interest but the petitioner, in the list of dates accompanying the writ petition, has mentioned that this petition has been filed pursuant to a letter dated 23rd August, 2014 of the Treasurer of the respondent no.5 to him, seeking assistance in the matter.
4. The learned ASG appearing on advance notice stated that as far as the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 are concerned, the same are applicable to sites, WP(C) No.6487/2014 Page 2 of 4 monuments, artifacts more than 100 years old and the subject artifacts do not qualify to be considered under the said Act. It is further stated that the petitioner ought to approach the State Government for the relief required, as the State Government alone would have jurisdiction over the matter. It is further stated that considering the reverential position of Dr. Ambedkar, the ASI had vide its letter dated 2nd January, 2014 to the respondent no.5 Museum offered technical assistance for preservation but no response was received thereto.
5. The petitioner is unable to show us any provision of law or any policy or Scheme under which the petitioner /respondent no. 5 is entitled to financial assistance as is sought. We even otherwise find it strange that such financial assistance be given to a private museum for preservation of artifacts / articles. We have thus enquired from the petitioner as to why the said articles / artifacts are not offered to the National Museum and which, if decides to take over the same, would axiomatically also take steps for preservation thereof. The petitioner stated that the respondent no.5 Museum had in fact offered the said articles to the National Museum but the same were not taken over. However none of the letters / representations filed by the petitioner before us contain any such offer. The petitioner, having no WP(C) No.6487/2014 Page 3 of 4 authority from the private museum to which the said artifacts / articles are stated to belong, also is not in a position to make such offer today. We have also wondered as to why the said private museum, if desirous of any such relief, has not approached the Courts directly. The petitioner, to this states, that the three Trustees of the said museum are very old and illiterate. However the fact remains that they did approach the petitioner, an advocate. The petitioner, instead of filing proceedings on behalf of the said private museum, has chosen to file this as a PIL and which is unexplainable. We are also of the view that the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur would be a forum conveniens for dealing with the matter and for granting the relief if any in the subject matter.
6. We may however express our confidence that if the articles aforesaid are offered to the National Museum, such offer shall be considered in appropriate perspective and in right earnest.
7. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J CHIEF JUSTICE NOVEMBER 05, 2014/'gsr' WP(C) No.6487/2014 Page 4 of 4