PANAJI
The High Court of Bombay at Goa has ordered a joint inspection of the Chandreshwar Bhootnath temple site at Paroda in Quepem, after allegations of hill-cutting and blasting activities being carried out under the pretext of “beautification and upgradation” of the ancient monument and its surroundings.
A Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Ashish Chavan directed that the inspection be held on October 15 and 16 in the presence of petitioner Aditya Dattu Raut Dessai, a Mahajan, along with officials from the Goa Tourism Development Corporation (GTDC), the Directorate of Archives and Archaeology, and members of the temple devasthan committee.
The court has asked for a detailed report with photographs to be submitted within two weeks, before the next hearing on
November 10.
The Public Interest Litigation (PIL), filed by a Mahajan of Shri Chandreshwar Bhootnath Devasthan, alleged that construction of a retaining wall involved hill-cutting and blasting, which caused cracks threatening the temple’s structural safety. The petitioner also stated that the temple is a notified ancient monument under the Goa Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1978.
Petitioner’s counsel, Advocate Nigel Da Costa Frias, submitted photographs showing that the blasting had caused large cracks, endangering the temple and its surroundings.
One of the respondents, represented by Advocate Gaurish Agni, argued that the work had been completed in 2021 and the site was handed over to the devasthan thereafter.
The Bench noted that preserving heritage sites is a constitutional duty. It observed that once a site is declared a protected monument, it is the responsibility of not only the Department of Archaeology but also the devasthan and other authorities to ensure its protection under Article 49 of the Constitution.
“The functionaries of the State must act along with the Director of Archives and Archaeology to protect every monument or site of artistic or historical importance from any kind of damage or disfigurement,” the order stated.
The court added that it was necessary to review the current condition of the site, assess the extent of damage, and identify possible restoration measures before deciding on further action.
