10_IA_6305_26.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6305 OF 2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 12181 OF 2012 Hemant Naiknavare, s/o. Dattaji Naiknavare and another … Applicants/Petitioners vs. Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Culture and others … Respondents Mr. P. K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate (through V.C.) a/w. Mr. Jaydeep Deo for applicants/petitioners. Mr. Ram Apte, Senior Advocate (through V.C.) a/w. Mr. Y. R. Mishra, Mr. D. P. Singh, Ms. Samiksha Kanani and Mr. Upendra Lokegaonkar for respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM : MANISH PITALE & SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ DATE : 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C. : . Heard learned counsel for the applicants (original petitioners) and the respondents. 2. Mr. Dhakephalkar, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants submits that by this application, the applicants/petitioners intend to add proposed respondent Nos.5 and 6 i.e. the National Monuments Authority and the Regional Director (W) ASI and Competent Authority, Maharashtra respectively, as parties to the writ petition and they also seek specific directions for the said proposed respondents to consider/reconsider the application moved on their behalf, seeking to repair/renovate, construct/reconstruct within the regulated zone of the Aga Khan Palace, in terms of Ancient 1/4 PRIYA KAMBLI Digitally signed by PRIYA KAMBLI Date: 2026.09.22 18:15:02 +0530 10_IA_6305_26.doc Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains, 1958 and Rules framed thereunder. 3. It is the case of the applicants that the proposed work undertaken on their behalf, is beyond the prohibited zone and within the regulated zone of the said archaeological site i.e. Aga Khan Palace at Pune. 4. It is submitted that such an application moved on behalf of the applicants, was rejected as per communication dated 22.05.2026, on the ground of pendency of present writ petition in this Court and that as per the provisions of the statute, the application would be considered after such legal dispute/encumbrance is cleared. 5. In the first place, we do not consider the pendency of present writ petition as being in the nature of a legal dispute/encumbrance, for the concerned authority to have postponed the consideration of application of the applicants. It appears that mere pendency of the writ petition has been used as a ground for declining to even consider the said application. 6. Since necessary directions are sought against the proposed respondent Nos.5 and 6, it would be appropriate to allow the prayer in the present application for joining the said authorities in the writ petition also. This would also facilitate comprehensive consideration and disposal of the writ petition and hence, we are inclined to grant the application. 7. The consequential prayers made in the application also deserve consideration, in the light of the fact that mere pendency of the 2/4 10_IA_6305_26.doc petition ought not to be considered as a prohibition for the proposed respondent Nos.5 and 6 to consider the aforesaid application of the applicants. 8. Mr. Apte, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents submits that if the proposed respondent Nos.5 and 6 are added as party respondents in the writ petition, appropriate instructions would be taken. But, we are of the view that once the said proposed respondents are added in the writ petition, a direction can follow, so that the aforesaid application is considered on its own merits and subject to further orders that may be passed by this Court in the writ petition. 9. In view of the above, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (c). The amendment for adding the proposed respondent Nos.5 and 6 as party respondents in the writ petition, shall be carried out within two weeks from today. 10. This Court further directs that upon the applicants/petitioners moving a fresh application within two weeks before the newly added respondent No.6 – Competent Authority, the same shall be considered by both the proposed respondents and appropriate order shall be passed thereon within eight weeks of the application being submitted in the office of the said respondent No.6. Copy of the order passed by the said respondents shall be placed on the record of the writ petition. 11. We have granted the aforesaid direction on the basis of the statement made by the applicants/petitioners that they would be applying for undertaking the aforesaid works in an area which is 3/4 10_IA_6305_26.doc beyond the prohibited zone, but within the regulated zone of the said archaeological site. 12. We make it clear that the proposed respondent Nos.5 and 6 shall consider the application on its own merits and the same shall not be rejected merely because the writ petition is pending. 13. The application stands disposed of in above terms. 14. List the writ petition on 12.10.2026 at 03:00 p.m. (SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.) 4/4 Priya Kambli