Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 7718 (BOM)

ABHIJIT VILAS PATIL v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. THE SECRETARY DEPT. OF CULTURAL AFFAIRS AND ORS.

PIL/39/2026 · 2026-09-08

Public Interest Litigationbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

51 PIL-39-2026(C).doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 39 OF 2026 Abhijit Vilas Patil. ...Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and Others. ...Respondents. —————— Mr. Niranjan D. Tiwari for the Petitioner. Ms. Tejas J. Kapre, AGP for the Respondent-State. —————— Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh & Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ. Date : September 8, 2026. P. C. : 1. By the present PIL petition, the Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to produce before this Court the entire original record pertaining to the conservation and restoration work being undertaken at Shree Karveer Nivasini Shree Mahalaxmi (Ambabai) Temple [for short “Mahalaxmi Temple”] including the administrative approvals, work order, drawings, plans, inspection reports etc and for appointment of high level expert committee consisting of eminent conservation architects, archaeologists, structural engineers and heritage experts to examine the work already undertaken. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that as per the work order dated 12th December 2025, while carrying out the Patil-SR 1 of 5 51 PIL-39-2026(C).doc work of conservation, use of machines is prohibited. He would submit that there is violation of the said condition. Upon a query by this Court as to the basis for such apprehension, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is unable to point out any material on record to demonstrate the violation of work order. He would, however, insist that an independent committee be constituted to visit premises of Mahalaxmi Temple and examine the details of the work order and the manner in which the work has been carried out. He would further rely on the newspaper articles and insist on the appointment of high level independent committee. 3. There is no dispute about the fact that Mahalaxmi Temple is one of the ancient and most revered temples in India. The Respondent authorities have undertaken the conservation and restoration project and the work order dated 12th December 2025 has been issued by the Assistant Director of Archaeological and Museums, Pune Division, Pune. Considering the immense historical and archaeological significance attached to Mahalaxmi Temple, we have no doubt that the conservation work which is being carried out, will be in accordance with the prescribed specifications and would be supervised by the Directorate of Archaeology. There is no material produced on record by the Petitioner to demonstrate that there are any serious concerns as regards the on- going conservation work. Patil-SR 2 of 5 51 PIL-39-2026(C).doc 4. The reliance placed only on the newspaper articles is clearly misconceived. Unless there is bona fide need for appointment of high level committee, as sought by the Petitioner, in our view, the PIL is clearly misconceived. The record indicates that the Petitioner has not taken any steps to verify through any experts as to whether the work of conservation would result in any negative impact on the premises of Mahalaxmi Temple. Considering the immense historical and archaeological significance of the temple, unless there is cogent material on record, we are not inclined to appoint any committee. The appointment of committee cannot be on the basis of whims and fancies of Petitioner and is required to be backed by sufficient data, which would highlight the concerns expressed in the petition. Mere reliance on the newspaper articles without anything more is not sufficient to substantiate the purported concerns. It is expected that when the PIL of this nature is filed, the Petitioner is equipped with all data and expert reports in order to demonstrate that conservation work is not in consonance with the specifications or is contrary to the work order, which will have negative impact on the structure. 5. Upon a query by this Court as to the basis on which the Petitioner alleges violation of Clause (11) of the work order dated 12th December 2025, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is unable to demonstrate any material on record. Patil-SR 3 of 5 51 PIL-39-2026(C).doc 6. Learned AGP would submit that the conservation work is being carried out under the supervision of concerned officers and none of the structures of Mahalaxmi Temple are touched. 7. From the record, we also find that irrelevant questionnaire was addressed by the Petitioner to the District Collector seeking information as regards the conservation work. The questionnaire would in fact indicate that the Petitioner is not at all aware about the nature of conservation work being carried out at Mahalaxmi Temple. The present petition is based on unfounded apprehensions. It was open for the Petitioner to seek necessary documents under the RTI Act and be prepared with necessary data before filing of the present petition. The questionnaire is by one Hindu Jansangharsh Committee of which the Petitioner claims to be president. Upon a query by this Court as to why the said Committee / Association has not filed the present PIL petition, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Association is not even registered. The Petition pleads that the organisation is actively engaged in matters concerning public interest, protection of religious institutions, heritage preservation and civic causes. There are no details of social causes espoused by the said organisation or by the Petitioner. It is evident that the present petition is publicity aimed petition. The pleadings are extremely vague and do not bear out any serious concerns about work being carried out. Patil-SR 4 of 5 51 PIL-39-2026(C).doc Though petition pleads about report dated 24th July 2026, the report has not been appended to the petition. 8. In the light of above, the PIL petition is clearly misconceived and is dismissed with cost of Rs. 2 lakh, which amount has already been deposited by the Petitioner in this Court. Let the cost of Rs.2 lakh be paid to the Respondent No.5, i.e., Shri Mahalakshmi Temple Management Committee. [Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.] Patil-SR 5 of 5