Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010129732026 2026:GAU-AS:9130-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2162/2026 In PIL No.12/2024 (D/O) 1.THE STATE OF ASSAM THROUGH ITS CHEIF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, BLOCK-C 3RD FLOOR ASSAM SACHIVALAYA DISPUR GUWAHATI 6 2: PUBLIC WORKS (BUILDING AND NATIONAL HIGHWAY) DEPTT. THROUGH ITS SPECIAL COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM BLOCK B GROUND FLOOR ASSAM SECRETARIAT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 3: DEPARTMENT OF CULTURAL AFFAIRS THROUGH DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ARCHAEOLOGY GOVT. OF ASSAM GOPINATH BORDOLOI ROAD AMBARI GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN-781001 4: DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GOVT. OF ASSAM ASSAM SECRETARIAT (CIVIL) BLOCK F 3RD FLOOR DISPUR GUWAHATI- 06 ASSAM VERSUS 1.GITIKA BHATTACHARJYA and ORS W/O- SAILEN BHATTA, D/O- LATE PABITRA BHATTACHARJYA, R/O- A-1, TULIP VILLA, DAKHIN GAON ROAD, KAHILIPARA, KAMRUP (M), PIN- 781019, ASSAM OCCUPATION- SOCIAL ACTIVIST, AUTHOR, MANAGING DIRECTOR AT SAGIVISH DISTILLARIES PVT. LTD. 2:JOYSHREE MUNSHI W/O- SIDDHARTH SINGHAL R/O- TOWER C2 FLAT NO- 1005 TULIP GRAND APARTMENTS OPPOSITE O.P JINDAL GLOBAL UNIVERSITY SECTOR 35 SONIPAT-131029 HARYANA OCCUPATION- ASSTT. PROFESOR AT UNIVERSITY AND RESEARCHER IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY Page No.# 2/6 3:RAJARSHI RANJAN NANDY S/O- SUJIT KUMAR NANDY R/O- AC 237 STREET NO- 39 ACTION AREA 1 NEW TOWN KOLKOTA-56 BENGAL OCCUPATION-AUTHOR COLUMNIST AN UPASAKA 4:YOGENDRA KHUSHIRAM SHARMA S/O- KHUSHIRAM SHARMA R/O- M-55/A ADANI SAMSARA GOLF COURSE EXTENSION ROAD SECTOR 60 GURGAON-122001 HARYANA OCCUPATION-SENIORMANAGEMENT POSITION WITH AN INDIAN SUBSIDIARY OF JAPANESE MULTINATIONAL COMPANY 5:AMIT JUMAR JAIN S/O- ABHAY KUMAR JAIN R/O- 19 2ND CROSS JALADARSHINI LAYOUT RMV 2ND STAGE SANJAY NAGAR BENGALURU -94 KARNATAKA OCCUPATION-SALES IT H/W 6:DR. EASHA RAMAWAT D/O- MANOHAR RAMAWAT R/O- 306 ROMANSQUE CHIKOTI GARDENS BEGUMPET HYDERABAD-16 TELAMGAMNA OCCUPATION-DOCTOR- OPTHALMOLOGIST 7:NITIKA SHARMA D/O- NAVEEN KUMAR SHARMA R/O- 23 BANK COLONY NEW JAWAHAR NAGAR JALANDHAR PUNJAB. OCCUPATION- ASTROLOGER 8:RAMANJANEYALU RAMAKRISHNA VALMIKI S/O- A RAMAKRISHNA R/O- 47 SUNCITY HERITAGE NEAR SHABARI NAGAR KUSUGAI ROAD HUBLI-23 KARNATAKA OCCUPATION-DIRECTOR- HIBISCUS NEOTECH PVT.LTD 9:ISHANI BASU RAY D/O- JAYANTA BASU RAY R/O- 26/S/A BLOCK B NEW ALIPORE KOLKATA-53 BENGAL 10:PRUTHVI M.E S/O- EREGOWDA M.P R/O- 5467 2ND FLOOR 8TH CROSS KANAK DASA NAGARA DATTAGALLI 3RD STAGE MYSORE-23 KARNATAKA 11:KAPUGANTY VAMSI KIRAN S/O- SURYA RAO KAPUGANTY R/O- SHREYAS 15-2-6 BEHIND GRAND BAY HOTEL BESIDE SAIRAM APARTMENT MAHARANIPETA VISHAKAPATNAM- 02 ANDHRA PRADESH 12:D.H PAVANKUMAR S/O- D.S HANUMESH R/O- 131 A 3RD WARD MAJOR SANDEEP ROAD BAGEPALLI-07 KARNATAKA Page No.# 3/6 13:KANDALA ROHINI D/O- NUTI RAJAGOPAL R/O- PLOT NO-161 DEFENCE COLONY SAINIKPURI P.O- SECUNDRABAD-9 For the Applicant(s) : Mr. D. Saikia, Advocate General, Assam assisted by Mr. D. Nath, Senior Government Advocate, Assam. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. U. Hazarika, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. K.P. Pathak and Mr. N.K. Baruah, Advocates. –B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 24.06.2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam for the applicants and Mr. U. Hazarika, learned Senior Advocate for the respondents. By the present Interlocutory Application, leave has been sought by the applicants from this Court to modify/change the foundation depth of the proposed construction over the playfield, somewhere near the Maa Kamakhya Temple, from “2 metres” to “2.5 metres to 4.4 metres” in respect to Multi-Utility Block, which, according to the applicants, would be within the prescribed limit of 6.4 metres, while constructing “Maa Kamakhya Temple Access Corridor”. To briefly state the background facts and the circumstance under which the present Interlocutory Application has been filed, PIL No.12/2024 was entertained by this Court on account of the apprehensions expressed by the petitioners in the afore-noted PIL that Page No.# 4/6 the proposed project work of “Maa Kamakhya Temple Access Corridor” would damage the age-old structure of the Maa Kamakhya Temple and other temples in the precincts and would also adversely affect the underground water springs, which would completely destroy the sanctity of the Temple. The reason for undertaking such a project is stated to be the unplanned buildings which have come up in and around the Maa Kamakhya Temple premises and the burgeoning constructions presently undergoing around the temple, which have made the access to the Temple very constricted. Since every year, there are tremendous footfalls of the devotees in the Temple, it was decided that a project should be initiated for management of the pilgrims by creating open public space, amenities for the pilgrims, including all-weather access corridor(s) with special focus on elderly and differently-abled persons. In order to ensure that such a project is carried out without interfering with the architecture and ancient sculptures in the Temple premises and also without causing any damage to the underground springs, which is the source of flow of water inside the temples; necessary care was directed to be taken by having the entire project vetted by Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Guwahati and National Institute of Hydrology (NIH), Roorkee. Necessary geophysical and hydrological studies have been conducted and only thereafter, detailed plan has been prepared for execution of the project. It has been submitted on behalf of the applicants that as per Page No.# 5/6 the report of NIH, Roorkee and the recommendations of the IIT, Guwahati, it is agreed that for the proposal of Multi-Utility Block over the playground area, the maximum foundation depth would be 6.4 metres; for Chinnamasta Block 1.9 metres; for the Pilgrim Management Block, which lies outside the Maa Kamakya Temple would be 1.9 metres; and for the Siddheswar Block, the maximum foundation depth recommended is 3.9 metres. The initial drawing and the structural design was for 2 metres foundation depth from the existing ground level for the Multi-Utility Block at playground area. However, in the process of starting the construction, it was observed that the playground area, where the Multi Utility Building would come up, does not have soil coverage of even depth. A borehole investigation was recently conducted at the site for the purposes of ensuring design safety of the building and the project, in which it was found that it would safer to have a foundation depth varying from 2.5 metres to 4.4 metres below the ground level. It may be noted here, as referred to above, that the maximum foundation depth in the playground area recommended in the reports of NIH, Roorkee and IIT, Guwahati is 6.4 metres. Filing of this Interlocutory Application has been occasioned because of an affidavit filed on behalf of the State and PWD (respondent No.6 in the afore-noted PIL) declaring that in the Multi-Utility Building, the foundation depth would be between 2 metres to 2.5 metres. Since the safety of the upcoming building in the playground area would be secured by having a foundation depth of 4.4 metres at the maximum, it Page No.# 6/6 was considered to be necessary to apprise this Court and seek its leave by way of abundant caution. Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam, while pressing the present Interlocutory Application, has reiterated that all steps are being and shall be taken to ensure that while executing the afore-noted project work, there shall be no damage to the already standing Temple structure/sculpture or any underground holy water spring. Considering the afore-noted facts and the assertion made by the learned Advocate General, Assam and finding that the proposed change in the structural design is within the permissible limits, as per the recommendations of the NIH, Roorkee and IIT, Guwahati, we permit the same by allowing this Interlocutory Application. However, we make it clear that any damage to the Temple structure, or interference with the holy springs, would not only spoil the whole purpose of making the Corridor but it would also be a breach of the promise made by the applicants, which shall be viewed very seriously. With the afore-noted caution, this Interlocutory Application stands allowed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant