Bombay High Court Questions Goa Archaeology Department Over Temple Hillock Destruction
The Bombay High Court has launched a stern interrogation of Goa's directorate of archives and archaeology regarding the significant destruction and damage inflicted upon a hillock situated within the sacred precincts of the Chandreshwar Bhoothnath Temple at Paroda in Quepem. This temple holds the distinguished status of a state-protected monument under the stringent provisions of the Goa Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act of 1978.
Questionable NOC and Subsequent Damage
On September 27, 2018, the directorate issued a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to the Goa Tourism Development Corporation (GTDC). This permission authorized the construction of a 300-meter-long retaining wall, a platform designated as a viewpoint, a toilet block, and various beautification works in and around the temple complex. The GTDC had initially submitted its proposal seeking approval for these beautification initiatives on September 20, 2018.
During the court proceedings, the directorate presented its defense, stating that the appointed contractor, working under GTDC's supervision, was responsible for causing the damage to the hillock. The department claimed this destruction fell outside the officially sanctioned scope of work.
Court's Sharp Rebuke and Concerns
A division bench comprising Justices Valmiki Menezes and Amit Jamsandekar expressed profound dissatisfaction with this explanation. "We would assume that a place of this sort, which is protected by your department, must have your engineer and your archaeologist on site when the work is going on. It's happening right under your nose and you don't bother," the bench stated emphatically during the hearing.
The justices voiced a broader concern about the pattern of archaeological destruction under the guise of tourism promotion. "Every archaeology site is being destroyed like this with these contracts in the name of tourism. Tourism is not this. You can preserve the site and let tourists come and see it but not destroy some place... then there's nothing for tourists to see and everyone throws their hands up," the bench remarked, highlighting the counterproductive nature of such development.
Demand for Accountability and Restoration
The court bench expressed its determination to uncover the decision-making process that led to granting the NOC. "We will hold the person, whoever it is in your department who should have been at site, responsible for this fiasco of damaging something. It can't even be restored now as it's part of an ancient monument," the bench asserted, underscoring the irreversible nature of the damage to a culturally significant site.
In a particularly pointed comment, the bench questioned the outcome of the substantial expenditure, reportedly around three crore and sixty-nine lakh rupees, asking, "Three crore and 69 lakh and what have you achieved? Destruction of the whole surroundings of the temple... we are concerned... we have to get to the bottom of this."
The directorate informed the court that restoring the hillock presents a unique challenge, as there is no specific organization with expertise in such restoration. They are currently seeking guidance from the Goa Engineering College to develop a viable restoration plan.
Court's Directives for Investigation
To facilitate a thorough investigation, the High Court has issued specific directives:
- The Managing Director of GTDC must file a detailed affidavit. This document must include the complete proposal submitted to the directorate, all associated plans and annexures, a copy of the issued work order, and a comprehensive breakdown of both incurred and proposed expenditures.
- The directorate of archives and archaeology is required to submit an affidavit that meticulously explains the decision-making process and the specific mechanism employed in granting the NOC to GTDC for undertaking construction at a protected monument.
- Furthermore, the directorate must provide the court with a formal estimate detailing the financial cost required to restore the damaged site to its original, pre-construction condition.
This case brings to the forefront the critical tension between promoting tourism and preserving India's rich archaeological heritage, with the High Court demanding strict accountability for the protection of state-designated monuments.
