THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR v. GITIKA BHATTACHARJYA & Ors.

For the Applicant(s) : Mr. D. Saikia, Advocate General, Assam assisted by Mr. D. Nath, Senior Government Advocate, Assam. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Doley, Advocate for writ petitioners in PIL No.12/2024. : Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, Deputy Solicitor General of India for Union of India. : Mr. U. Hazarika, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. K.P. Pathak, Advocate for petitioner in WP(C) No.2700/2024. : Ms. R. Barua, Advocate for respondent No.10 in WP(C) No.2700/2024. – BEFORE – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

04.11.2024 (Vijay Bishnoi, CJ) The matter comes upon for consideration of the instant Interlocutory Application, i.e. I.A.(Civil) No.3246/2024 preferred in PIL No.12/2024. In the Interlocutory Application, it is prayed that the writ petition, being WP(C) No.2700/2024 (Navajyoti Sarma Vs. the Union of India & Ors.) be heard along with PIL No.12/2024 (Gitika Bhattacharyjya & Ors. Vs.Union of India & Ors.). It is stated in the Interlocutory Application that WP(C) No.2700/2024 is preferred by one Navajyoti Sarma, who is a Bordeori of the Kamakhya Temple, with a prayer for directing the respondent authorities to declare Maa Kamakhya Temple as well as all other temples on the Nilachal Hill as protected monuments under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 and the Assam Ancient Monuments and Records Act, 1959 along with a prayer to conduct a detailed hydrological, ecological and structural study before proceeding with any construction work of the ‘Maa Kamakhya Access Corridor’. Page No.# 8/9 It is further stated that PIL No.12/2024 has been filed with a prayer for a direction that any work relating to the ‘Maa Kamakhya Access Corridor’ would not cause any damage or demolition or destruction to the age old structures of the temple of ‘Maa Kamakhya’ and all the ‘Dasa Mahavidyas’ which are in the shape of natural water springs and cave, along with a prayer to direct the authorities concerned not to proceed with the work of the proposed ‘Maa Kamakhya Access Corridor’ without taking prior approval and clearance from the Department of Archaeology under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (amended in 2010) read with the Assam Ancient Monuments and Records Act, 1959. In PIL No.12/2024, the petitioners have also raised the issue as to whether any hydrological study/survey has been conducted to protect the natural springs or not, and the same be also clarified by the respondents. It is contended in the Interlocutory Application that the subject matter of both the writ petitions, being WP(C) No.2700/2024 and PIL No.12/2024 revolves around the same issue and therefore, both the petitions be heard together. The application is opposed by Mr. U. Hazarika, learned senior counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.2700/2024. He, while referring to Rule 2 of Chapter V-A of Gauhati High Court Rules, has argued that every application preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India other than the Habeas Corpus Application, is required to be heard before the learned Single Judge. It is submitted that in view of the above provision, WP(C) No.2700/2024 filed by the petitioner Navajyoti Sarma is required to be heard by the learned Single Judge. It is submitted that if the writ petition, WP(C) No.2700/2024 is heard by the Division Bench, the writ petitioner will be deprived of the remedy of filing an intra-Court Writ Appeal in case any adverse order is passed against the Page No.# 9/9 petitioner in the writ petition. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants has argued that since the subject matter of WP(C) No.2700/2024 and PIL No.12/2024 is one and the same, it is appropriate to hear the matters by the Division Bench to avoid chances of passing conflicting orders by both the Benches on the same subject matter. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. It is not in dispute that in both the writ petitions, i.e. WP(C) No.2700/2024 and PIL No.12/2024, the petitioners have questioned the intentions of the State Government of undertaking the work of improving the infrastructure at Maa Kamakhya Temple complex in Guwahati under the ‘Maa Kamakhya Access Corridor’ project. More or less, similar submissions have been made in both the writ petitions, more particularly, on the aspect of initiating the projects without proper survey such as hydrological survey etc. It is noticed that in this PIL petition, the Division Bench has issued certain directions from time to time to the State Government as well as to the learned counsel representing the Union of India, and the learned Single Judge has also passed orders in the said writ petition issuing certain directions to the respondents. In such a situation, we deem it appropriate to club WP(C) No.2700/2024 with PIL No.12/2024. Registry is accordingly directed to list PIL No.12/2024 along with WP(C) No.2700/2024 for further adjudication. The instant Interlocutory Application is disposed of. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant