Allow appropriate multipurpose activities but restrict use of laser lights, loud music, and fireworks in “Sisodia Rani ka Bagh”

Rida Farid Bazmi | Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad | 12th May 2020

The Director, Department of Archaeology and Museum, Jaipur & Anr. Vs. Ashish Gautam & Ors. (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4070 OF 2016).

Fact:

The matter addresses the Monument “Sisodia Rani ka Bagh”, situated Jhalana, Jaipur (Rajasthan).  The monument was supervised by the Department of Archaeology and Museum as certain events and marriage ceremonies used to be held in the monument for which a notification was passed where the conditions for holding such ceremonies were specified. The Respondent filed a writ petition by a way of Public Interest Litigation before the High Court of Rajasthan in order to issue appropriate directions concerning the safety and security of the wildlife in the Reserve Forest Area and further instructions to prohibit the use of laser lights, loud music and fireworks in the Monument.

Judgement:   

The Rajasthan High Court transferred the matter to the National Green Tribunal. By the way of impugned judgment and order, the Tribunal held that Monument is a part of forest area and order that no permission should be given to arrange social functions such as marriage and other for the use of loud music and fireworks in the Monument. An appeal was made by the appellants arguing that the prohibition imposed shall adversely affect on the State Tourism as it situated on the Jaipur Agra Highway and is only 3 km away from Jaipur city. Also, it would make no use of the Monument and it would be difficult to preserve and maintain it.  As the Monument is a historical place and is located in an ideal location it has a significant impact on the tourism and the revenue generated by conducting any ceremony is an incentive to the State exchequer.

 The prayer made in the original application was to only enforce requirements for organising events in such a manner that it does not disturb the wildlife. There is already a specific guideline and in case any further restriction was required it could have been order rather than a blanket ban. The order of the Tribunal was said to be both against the Public Interest and Interest of Tourism in the State of Rajasthan as No major lighting was allowed which would have disturbed the wildlife, traffic is limited in the vicinity of the Monument as only two – wheelers are allowed to pass through the place and there is a restriction on the use of  loudspeakers in High Volume. No one is allowed to violate the restrictions imposed by the District Administration, Jaipur and also the Monument in the question is not a part of Tiger Project.

An order dated 22.10.2019 was passed by Supreme Court directing the State Government to draft a plan for embellishment of the area and gardens of the Monument. With respect to the order a meeting was conducted by the Principal Secretary, Art and Culture Department, State Secretariat which was attended by various administrating authorities such as Chief Conservator of Forest and HOFF, Director of Archaeology and Museum Department and others. The decision was taken to employ a Consultant to prepare a comprehensive plan for Monument’s development and beautification and the same was approved by the Chief Secretary. Upon the receipt of the Consultant’s opinion appropriate actions will be taken accordingly for the embellishment of the Monument to attract more tourism. 

However, the respondent asserted that there should be no interference in the order passed by the Tribunal.

The Appellant filed the Tourism Development Plan of the Monument along with the outline of purposed work, and the cultural, architectural and economic significance. It was also highlighted that approximately Rs 170 Lacs has been incurred for the conservation, restoration and development of the Monument in the last five years as around 100 tourists visit the Monument every day.

The Supreme Court issued following directions such as:

1. The Monument may be used for appropriate multi­purpose activities between 8.00 A.M to 8.00 P.M only. 
2. Use of laser lights, loud music, and fireworks should be completely restrained.
3. Musical and other fountains to be maintained and to be kept in working order.
4. Other conditions imposed by the Department be observed strictly.
5. Requisite supervisory and other staff/gardeners, etc. be dedicated for the maintanance. 
6. A Consultant should be appointed for further embellishment and additional project plan and horticultural development should be drafted and placed on record.

With this the Supreme Court modified the order of Tribunal and the appeal was allowed in part.

A time of one month was granted for the Consultant’s report and report on any additional developmental plan.