NW18[PIL Against ₹200 VIP Entry At Trimbakeshwar Temple] Bombay HC Questions ASI, Issues Notice To Central and State Government

The Division Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Abhay Ahuja on Wednesday asked the Archaeological Survey of India what steps it has taken to implement its own direction issued to Trimbakeshwar Trust for not charging ₹200 for VIP entry.

The bench asked Advocate Ram Apte appearing for the Union of India and ASI "What has been done to implement these directions?". Advocate Apte informed the bench that he would take instructions and inform the court.

The bench was questioning Advocate Apte with regard to communications issued to Trimbakeshwar Trust since 2013 to not charge ₹200 for VIP entry for a closer darshan.

The division bench also issued notice to the Central Government and State Government. The bench further sought a reply from the ASI and the Trimbakeshwar Trust for charging ₹200 as VIP entry.

The petitioner informed the court that the temple has been declared an ancient monument under the Ancient Monuments Protection Act and therefore it was a protected monument under the control of ASI.

During the course of the hearing, the Bench asked the advocate for petitioner Rameshwar Gite regarding the source of one of the paras in the PIL which was a communication between the ASI and the Trust. The Chief Justice asked, "Where did you get this communication from? Since this is a PIL you have to disclose the source"

Advocate Gite responded that the petitioner is a former trustee of the Trimbakeshwar Trust and he will clarify the source in the next hearing.

The petitioner also sought interim relief but the bench said that it will hear the case on January 16 which is not too far away.

The petition is filed by social worker Lalita Shinde which argues that the levy of ₹200 discriminates between the rich and the poor. It states that various representations were made before the Archaeological Department and the ASI had written to the collector stating that such collection was in contravention of the Ancient Monument Preservation Act and was illegal. However, the collector did not take any action.