Bombay High Court
HEMANT NAIKNAVARE - S/O SHRI. DATTAJI NAIKNAVARE AND ANRversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that the pendency of the writ petition is not a legal dispute or encumbrance and allowed the amendment to join the proposed respondents, directing that the application be considered on its merits.
Summary
The petitioners sought to repair and reconstruct parts of the Aga Khan Palace, claiming the work lies within the regulated but not prohibited zone of the site. Their application to the National Monuments Authority and the Regional Director (W) ASI was rejected on the ground that a writ petition pending before this Court constituted a legal dispute, precluding consideration. The petitioners moved an interim application to join these authorities as respondents to the writ petition and to obtain directions that their application be considered on its merits. The Court held that mere pendency of the writ petition does not amount to a legal dispute or encumbrance that can bar consideration of the application. Accordingly, the Court allowed the amendment to add the proposed respondents, directed the petitioners to file a fresh application within two weeks, and ordered that the application be decided on its merits within eight weeks, disposing of the interim application in the petitioner’s favour.
Issues considered
- Whether the pendency of a writ petition constitutes a legal dispute or encumbrance that justifies refusal to consider an application under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.
- Whether the National Monuments Authority and the Regional Director (W) ASI/Competent Authority can be added as parties to the existing writ petition.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- writ petition
- interim application
- addition of parties
- regulated zone
- prohibited zone
- Ancient Monuments Act
- legal dispute
- encumbrance
- court amendment
Judgment
10_IA_6305_26.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6305 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 12181 OF 2012
Hemant Naiknavare,
s/o. Dattaji Naiknavare and another … Applicants/Petitioners
vs.
Union of India, Through Secretary,
Ministry of Culture and others … Respondents
Mr. P. K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate (through V.C.) a/w. Mr. Jaydeep
Deo for applicants/petitioners.
Mr. Ram Apte, Senior Advocate (through V.C.) a/w. Mr. Y. R. Mishra,
Mr. D. P. Singh, Ms. Samiksha Kanani and Mr. Upendra Lokegaonkar for
respondent Nos.1 to 3.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ
DATE : 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C. :
. Heard learned counsel for the applicants (original petitioners)
and the respondents.
2. Mr. Dhakephalkar, learned senior counsel appearing for the
applicants submits that by this application, the applicants/petitioners
intend to add proposed respondent Nos.5 and 6 i.e. the National
Monuments Authority and the Regional Director (W) ASI and
Competent Authority, Maharashtra respectively, as parties to the writ
petition and they also seek specific directions for the said proposed
respondents to consider/reconsider the application moved on their
behalf, seeking to repair/renovate, construct/reconstruct within the
regulated zone of the Aga Khan Palace, in terms of Ancient
Digitally signed
by PRIYA
PRIYA KAMBLI
KAMBLI Date:
2026.09.22
1/4
18:15:02 +0530
10_IA_6305_26.doc
Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains, 1958 and Rules
framed thereunder.
3. It is the case of the applicants that the proposed work
undertaken on their behalf, is beyond the prohibited zone and within
the regulated zone of the said archaeological site i.e. Aga Khan
Palace at Pune.
4. It is submitted that such an application moved on behalf of the
applicants, was rejected as per communication dated 22.05.2026, on
the ground of pendency of present writ petition in this Court and
that as per the provisions of the statute, the application would be
considered after such legal dispute/encumbrance is cleared.
5. In the first place, we do not consider the pendency of present
writ petition as being in the nature of a legal dispute/encumbrance,
for the concerned authority to have postponed the consideration of
application of the applicants. It appears that mere pendency of the
writ petition has been used as a ground for declining to even
consider the said application.
6. Since necessary directions are sought against the proposed
respondent Nos.5 and 6, it would be appropriate to allow the prayer
in the present application for joining the said authorities in the writ
petition also. This would also facilitate comprehensive consideration
and disposal of the writ petition and hence, we are inclined to grant
the application.
7. The consequential prayers made in the application also deserve
consideration, in the light of the fact that mere pendency of the
2/4
10_IA_6305_26.doc
petition ought not to be considered as a prohibition for the proposed
respondent Nos.5 and 6 to consider the aforesaid application of the
applicants.
8. Mr. Apte, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents
submits that if the proposed respondent Nos.5 and 6 are added as
party respondents in the writ petition, appropriate instructions would
be taken. But, we are of the view that once the said proposed
respondents are added in the writ petition, a direction can follow, so
that the aforesaid application is considered on its own merits and
subject to further orders that may be passed by this Court in the writ
petition.
9. In view of the above, the application is allowed in terms of
prayer clauses (a) and (c). The amendment for adding the proposed
respondent Nos.5 and 6 as party respondents in the writ petition,
shall be carried out within two weeks from today.
10. This Court further directs that upon the applicants/petitioners
moving a fresh application within two weeks before the newly added
respondent No.6 – Competent Authority, the same shall be
considered by both the proposed respondents and appropriate order
shall be passed thereon within eight weeks of the application being
submitted in the office of the said respondent No.6. Copy of the
order passed by the said respondents shall be placed on the record of
the writ petition.
11. We have granted the aforesaid direction on the basis of the
statement made by the applicants/petitioners that they would be
applying for undertaking the aforesaid works in an area which is
3/4
10_IA_6305_26.doc
beyond the prohibited zone, but within the regulated zone of the said
archaeological site.
12. We make it clear that the proposed respondent Nos.5 and 6
shall consider the application on its own merits and the same shall
not be rejected merely because the writ petition is pending.
13. The application stands disposed of in above terms.
14. List the writ petition on 12.10.2026 at 03:00 p.m.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Priya Kambli
4/4
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.