Back
Gujarat High Court Dismisses Regarding Disclosure Of Somnath Temple Survey Documentation Records
The at Ahmedabad has formally dismissed a seeking to recall an earlier judgment concerning the public disclosure of archaeological survey data related to the Somnath Temple site. The division bench, presided over by Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray, emphasized that the judiciary’s cannot be utilized for the purpose of a rehearing.
Dispute Background and Legal Context
The original proceedings began as a filed by Dr. Vilas Tukaram Kharat, who sought judicial intervention to mandate the release of various scientific materials. These included ground penetrating radar (GPR) surveys, structural analyses, photographs, and videographic documentation produced by the and the .
On , the High Court dismissed the PIL, imposing a cost of ₹2 Lakh on the petitioner. The court observed at the time that the petition relied primarily on unverified news reports and social media content, lacking a foundation in authentic research or personal knowledge.
Developments in the Review Plea
During the hearing on , counsel for the applicant requested an adjournment, citing the unavailability of the Senior Counsel. While the petitioner’s advocate, , was present, she declined to argue the merits of the review, deferring to the absent Senior Counsel.
The court rejected this submission, noting that the contentions raised in the constituted "" to the original arguments. Under established legal principles, such material cannot be introduced or agitated during the review stage.
Key Observations of the Court
The bench reiterated the limitations governing their power to review past orders, stating:
-
"All the averments in the are fresh addition to the averments made in the , which cannot be permitted to be agitated at the stage of review."
-
"It is that within the scope of review is impermissible."
-
"We do not appreciate this submission of the learned Counsel for the review applicant."
Implications of the Ruling
The dismissal of the upholds the previous judgment requiring the payment of ₹2 Lakh in costs. In a final directive, the court granted the petitioner a four-week window to deposit the specified amount. Failure to adhere to this timeline will result in the amount being recovered as , marking a strict enforcement of the court’s earlier order regarding the misuse of the PIL process. This decision reinforces the judiciary's commitment to maintaining procedural discipline and ensuring that review petitions are not used as an opportunity for litigious re-adjudication.
