New Delhi: In a landmark decision on Friday, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Odisha Government in the matter of the Shree Jagannath Temple Heritage Corridor project in Puri. Earlier, two petitioners had filed PILs in the Supreme Court demanding that the work being undertaken at the Shree Jagannath Temple Heritage Corridor project in Puri, Odisha be stopped.
However, the Supreme Court, coming down heavily on both the petitioners in its judgment on Friday, said that a hue and cry was made that the construction carried out is contrary to the Inspection Report carried out by the ASI. However, the Supreme Court noted that the note of the Director General of Archeological Survey of India dated February 21, 2022 as well as the affidavit filed by the ASI before the High Court has falsified this position.
Construction activities carried out by the Odisha government at the famed Shree Jagannath temple in Puri to provide essential amenities like toilets and cloak rooms are necessary in larger public interest, the Supreme Court said on Friday while rejecting petitions challenging the work.
The top court said the construction activities are being undertaken in pursuance of the directions issued by a three-judge bench of this Court in the case of Mrinalini Padhi.
"The construction is being carried out for the purpose of providing basic and essential amenities like toilets for men and women, cloak rooms, electricity rooms etc. These are the basic facilities which are necessary for the convenience of the devotees at large," it said.
The bench also took exception to the filing of frivolous PILs, and said most of such petitions are either publicity interest litigation or personal interest litigation.
"In the recent past, it is noticed that there is mushroom growth of public interest litigations. However, in many of such petitions, there is no public interest involved at all. The petitions are either publicity interest litigations or personal interest litigation. We highly deprecate the practice of filing such frivolous petitions. They are nothing but abuse of the process of law.
"They encroach upon a valuable judicial time which could be otherwise utilised for considering genuine issues. It is high time that such so-called public interest litigations are nipped in the bud so that the developmental activities in the larger public interest are not stalled," the bench said.