CUTTACK: The controversy over constructions under the Jagannath Temple heritage corridor project has intensified with the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) stating in the Orissa High Court that the works have been carried out without required permission.
While raising serious apprehensions about damage to the archaeological remains of the ancient structure, the ASI has also stated that the structural designs in the detailed project report (DPR) are different from the one presented to the National Monument Authority (NMA).In pursuance of the court’s order, the ASI had undertaken a joint inspection of the site along with State government officials on May 1.
The joint inspection report submitted in the court said, "There is every possibility that the agency Odisha Bridge Construction Corporation during the excavation/soil removal might have destroyed the archaeological remains of the heritage site. It was found that the ongoing construction work of the project has no valid permission/NOC issued by the competent authority."
The drawings and structural designs included in the DPR are different from the one presented to the NMA. Frequent changes have been noticed, the report also said.The HC, however, noted in its order that the conclusion in the joint inspection report of ASI is 'vague and fails to be specific as to whether any actual damage has in fact been caused to any archaeological remains at the heritage site'.
Advocate General Ashok Kumar Parija pointed out that NOC was granted by the NMA on September 4, 2021. He further submitted that he would like to file a specific reply to the joint inspection report since it proceeds on the basis that no such permission has been obtained from the NMA.
Taking note of it, the division bench of Chief Justice S Muralidhar and Justice RK Pattanaik allowed the State government to file the reply on or before June 20 and fixed June 22 as the next date of hearing on the matter.
As recorded in the court's order, the report submitted by ASI stated that the work on toilets, drains and electrical works do not fall within the definition of construction and therefore, can be carried out even in the prohibited area.
"Some other works such as reception centre fall squarely within the definition of construction and being in the prohibited area, are not permitted.a Even for works in the regulated area which fall within the definition of 'construction', appropriate permission is required to be obtained under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (AMASR) Act and that for such works “no prior permission has been obtained from the National Monument Authority," the report also stated.
Parija clarified that the reception center is now being moved out of the prohibited area and is being constructed in the 'regulated area'. Referring to ASI's affidavit that both ASI and the State Government should work together to ensure that no archaeological remains are missed out or damaged, he stated that the latter fully accepts the said position.
He also made references to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mrinalini Padhi vs Union of India (2019) stating that it formed the basis of the present works being undertaken at the site.The HC observed that the State Government will keep in view observations of ASI when it undertakes any further works at the site.