The court held that the construction of a world class museum in Patna, at the cost of about Rs. Five hundred crores, in a prime land of 17 ½ acres between the Secretariat and the Patna High Court, is not in public interest and the manner in which the contracts of consultancy etc. were awarded is far from transparent and objective.

The petitioner is a Post Doctoral Fellow, in the Department of History, Patna University. He filed this writ petition in public interest, with a prayer to restrain the respondents from constructing the world level museum at Patna, with huge financial allocation.

2. On coming to know that the State of Bihar is proposing to construct a world class museum at a prime locality by demolishing large number of structures, the petitioner made a representation on 05.12.2011 to the Chief Minister, with a request to stop the project and utilize the amount for civil amenities. He stated that when information was sought by him about the details of the project, evasive reply was given, and in that view of the matter, he made another representation on 17.04.2012. Thereafter he filed this writ petition.

3. The principal grounds urged by the petitioner are that a) the financial resources of the State of Bihar are limited, and they cannot be utilized for construction of international museum, b) there are well established and famous museums in the State at various places, and even while subjecting them to gross negligence, starving them from funds, the State is proposing to spend hundreds of crores on construction of international museum, and c) that the existing museum at Patna can be upgraded to world class with little expenditure. He pleaded that there are not bonafides in the entire issue, and contends that the project was not in the public interest, but is intended to serve interests of a selected few.

4. The writ petition was admitted on 05.09.2012 and the interim relief was denied. Thereafter, it was listed for hearing on 05.02.2015. A counter affidavit was filed by the Executive Engineer of the Building Construction Department, without addressing any of the questions raised by the petitioner. The matter was adjourned to by two weeks, and thereafter counter affidavits were filed by the Department of Art and Culture. It is stated that the State of Bihar is adorned with several historical structures, and they can be exhibited as museum of international standards, which would attract large number of tourists, particularly from the foreign countries, and that in turn would help the State to earn revenue. The project is said to have been estimated at about Rs.500 crores. The manner in which the contracts were awarded to various agencies and their particulars are stated. The plea of the petitioners that the project is not in the public interest, and that there is no transparency in the entire work is denied.

5. Sri Abhinav Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the State of Bihar is adorned with several monuments spread over various places, and in the city of Patna itself excellent museums were constructed during the British period. He submits that the museums constructed at various places as well as the historical structures spread over centuries and millennia were subjected to gross negligence, and instead of maintaining them properly, the State thought it fit to spend huge amount of about Rs.500 crores for construction of museum at a time when it was proclaimed from every platform that the financial condition of the State is fragile and it is unable to satisfy the basic necessities or demands of the people due to paucity of funds.

6. He contends that whether one goes by the parameters of safety, the use of the land, traffic, or the judicious spending of the limited resources, the project is misconceived and is contrary to public interest. Learned counsel submits that the State has demolished large number of Government buildings for making the site which is almost abutting the High Court, and that is not at all suitable from the point of view of crowd management, or other aspects. He contends that when, on the one hand, the Government did not think it fit to provide at least basic facilities to the existing monument