LUCKNOW: The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court ha majority (2-1) Judgement recently rejected the petition for stoppage of digging at Ayodhya while another application was moved for putting a halt to the construction work which has been continuing.

 In separate but concurring orders Justice S.C-Mathur and Justice Brijesh Kumar held that the applicant Mohammed Hashim a resident of Ayodhya had not put forward sufficient material in Support of his contention that the digging would lead to seepage.

 The third judge on the bench Justice SHA Raza-in a differing Judgement opined that no Loss much less irreparable loss would be caused to Uttar Pradesh if the digging operation was stopped.

 The judges gave their verdicts after hearing at length the arguments of the Uttar Pradesh advocate general Y.K S. Chaudhary and Abdul Manan counsel of Hashim.

Justice Mathur said it was not possible to appreciate the Petitioners apprehensions of facts like the distances between the structures in the complex and the place where the digging operations were being conducted.

 Justice Brijesh Kumar said on the opinion that sufficient material had not been brought on record to show that any real danger existed to the structures. He however said the petitioner could approach the court if and when any such eventuality arose or any real danger was apprehended.

The two judges ruled it may be also stated that the application is absolutely vague. It does not give relevant facts. It does not disclose the distance between the outer walls of the structure the inner Courtyard and the outer courtyard on the one hand and the place where impugned activity is being carried on the other.

Justice S.H.A Raza however said the apprehension of the petitioner that water may accumulate into wenches in the low Tying areas which have been recently dug and as result of the seepage of water the structure may collapse cannot be brushed aside.

He held that further digging and leveling operations must come to fan end Moreover if water accumulates in the ditch trenches or pit the UP government would make every effort to pump out water Justice Raza observed the court should not hide its hook and face into the sand as an ostrich. The consequence of such an act of cowardice would be fatal to the rule of law. He was also of the opinion that no significance should be attached to the counter affidavit filed by Alok Sinha secretary tourism on behalf of the state government because Sin has information was not based on firsthand knowledge.

Emphasis is now more on the laying of the foundation and the taking up of other construction activities. Therefore a mew application calling for a halt to the construction work was moved in the court where the petitioner has assured that what is being done at Ayodhya is the building of a stricture of a permanent nature. The permanent construction on the land under acquisition has been commenced and the permanent construction is going on. The petitioner was also present in the near vicinity at that time at a safe point to match the above activitis he pleaded.

This permanent construction is at present going on every day by filling of about six feet deep foundation by a concrete and cement mixture which is definitely of a permanent nature he as send.

The petitioner has quoted newspaper reports and referred 10 Doordarshan broad casts to support his convention. Thus in order to save the rule of law the dignity of the court the basic structure of the Constitution based upon the democracy and rule of law.

He also requested the court to post adequate forces with a clear direction that any such activity which is violative of the orders of the court or the order of the honorable Supreme Court be immediately prevented.

The petitioner is of the view that the order of the special bench of the Allahabad High Court has been violated by these construction activities.

Therefore he has also demanded suitable action against the chief minister Kalyan Singh the district magistrate of Faizabad of which Ayodhya is a part and other officials concerned.

Article extracted from this publication >> July 24, 1992