The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation set in the Constitution of India and the Directive Principles of State policy for the preservation of ancient historical and archaeological sites.

Ravi S.Dhavan, J.

1. Within the district of Jehanabad, an ancient site has been discovered known as "Meera Bigha site". At this site excavations have revealed remains of 9th and 10th century A.D. constructions and temple. Excavations have also unearthed sculptures and idols. Clearly, this site needs protection under The Ancient Monuments And Archaeological Sites And Remains Act, 1958 (Act 24 of 1958). In this regard not to be ignored is an enactment of the State of Bihar known as The Bihar Ancient Monuments And Archaeological Sites Remains And Art Treasures Act, 1976 (Bihar Act XIX of 1976). This State enactment itself is referring to The Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904. The reason the Court is drawing its attention to these enactments is to show the comparison between the legislative intent to preserve these sites of cultural heritage and the indifference of the State government as shown in the affidavit of the Secretary, respondent no. 3 one Ramashankar Tiwary who at the time of filing of the affidavit was the Secretary, Department of Art, Culture and Youth Affairs, Government of Bihar.

2. State counsel present mentions that this Secretary is not the in-charge of this subject at present. However, this will not change the situation as whatever has been submitted in this counter affidavit is the submission on behalf of the Government of Bihar. The counter affidavit is a bundle of contradictions totally oblivious to the provisions of the Constitution of India. The reading of this counter affidavit gives one the impression that the State government of Bihar has no interest in preserving its rich cultural heritage. Bihar has an exclusive position in the nation, as it is rich with ancient sites and remains the like of which other States do not have. It makes very sad reading that there is a talk of cultural heritage as a drawing room subject and when it comes down to doing a job the persons who are directly in-charge of it run away from the situation.

3. The counter affidavit accepts that the excavations have revealed that the site is rich with content. The counter affidavit mentions that the State of Bihar is quite conscious of this site and that "the Assistant Engineer of the Archaeology Directorate has been given instructions to prepare plan and estimate for the development and conservation of this protected site." This affidavit also submits that "the Department had initiated for the development and conservation of the site for which it is in close contact with the District Administration, Jehanabad."

4. So far so good. The next submissions which follow reflect that there is no sincerity in protecting the cultural and archaeological heritage of Bihar. It is further stated that because of shortage of funds the government has decided to transfer this archaeological site to Archaeological Survery of India under Ministry of Culture vide letter dt... :

The narrative of the affidavit does not even mention the letter though it is appended as an annexure. What has been submitted in the affidavit and what is written in this letter dated 29 April, 2003 (Annexure A) are not compatible. That Bihar government does not have funds is the submission of the Secretary. The letter which has been written by the Secretary to the government of India does not mention any paucity of funds. The letter is reproduced:

5. The submissions which have been made by the Secretary have been given out as "true to my information derived from the record." The Secretary has not disclosed to the High Court as to the source of information on which the government of Bihar had declared that it has no funds to protect its ancient sites and monuments.

6. Further, in the affidavit it has been mentioned that "the site is of utmost importance not only for historical and Archaeological point of view but also this place can be developed as an important tourist site." Thereafter, the counter affidavit states that the State government has deputed a monument a