Bhagyalakshmi Mandir costs Hyderabad's Charminar a nomination to the World Heritage Site list
The temple’s Garbha Griha uses the Charminar wall as common back wall and its back side walls are cutting into the structure on the south-eastern minar and this is causing various conservation issues.
HYDERABAD: If there were any doubts, then this statement, in the form of an affidavit, by Archaelogical Survey of India should make it clear and official: Bhagyalakshmi Mandir cost Charminar UNESCO’s World Heritage Site nomination.
The ASI said as much in a counter-affidavit filed against a writ petition, which was filed by a trustee of Bhagyalakshmi Mandir in October 2019, requesting the State High Court’s permission for ‘replacing of worn out canopy or pandal’ over the temple.
In the counter affidavit dated December 20, 2019, the ASI, while urging the High Court to deny permission, said, “....(Charminar) is of immense historical importance to the State... and it was earlier proposed to be nominated to be given the status of World Heritage Site but was rejected because of this (the temple) and such other structures in its vicinity.” The ASI termed the contention of petitioner Shashikala that there was adequate gap between the temple and Charminar as ‘false and incorrect”.
"The temple’s Garbha Griha uses the Charminar wall as common back wall and its back side walls are cutting into the structure on the south-eastern minar and there is no space at all left between the two structures and this is causing various conservation issues," the ASI said.
It is important to note that the ASI has time and again maintained that Bhagyalaxmi Mandir is an illegal structure and has also opposed the erection of a pandal around the temple. Terming the pandal and the temple as ‘affecting the visual and structural integrity of Charminar’, ASI said, “The pandal should be temporary and only permitted during festivities. Now the pandal has become a permanent feature of the temple.”
The petition was filed in October before Dasara festival after the board of the temple felt that it was necessary for the tarpaulin cover and bamboo beams of the pandal to be changed. The board had said that since devotees could not enter the temple and had to stand outside, it was necessary for the pandal and the covers to be repaired.
The High Court then passed an interim order and allowed the replacement of the old tarapulin on the condition that the existing size would not be disturbed and the pandal or tarpulin would not be extended.