Tuesday, Nov 12, 2002
Tuesday, Nov 12, 2002 |
| Southern States | ||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | Southern States
-
Tamil Nadu
By A. Subramani
CHENNAI, NOV. 11. The State Government has challenged the September 21 Archaeological Survey of India notification declaring the Arunachaleswarar temple at Tiruvannamalai a monument of national and historical importance. In a petition filed in the Madras High Court today, the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Commissioner, M.A. Gowrishankar, contended that the Centre consulted neither the State Government nor officials of the HR&CE Department before issuing the notification under Section 4(1) of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act 1958. Once the temple came under the ASI, the powers of the incumbent trustee and others would be taken away completely and the day-to-day affairs of the temple would be affected badly, the petition stated. "Even for small repairs, permission will have to be obtained from the ASI, causing considerable delay.'' The move would also restrict the entry of devotees, as the watchman would be required to close the temple in the evening.
`Sanctity will be lost'
The temple would just become a tourist attraction, and its sanctity would be lost affecting the religious sentiments as well as age-old rituals. Citing the Union Government's counter-affidavit filed in connection with a pending case pertaining to the Arunachaleswarar temple, the petitioner said the Director of Monuments had stated a temple could not be declared a monument. "So, the Centre had unequivocally conceded the position that a temple cannot be declared a monument,'' Mr. Gowrishankar maintained. Though the Union Government notification required that objections be filed by the interested parties within two months, it was received by the HR&CE department only on October 10. The Centre's move was totally without jurisdiction and the notification too was "vague and bereft of details, and does not contain necessary material to enable the interested parties to raise objections". The petitioner sought the quashing of the impugned notification and, as an interim relief, prayed for a stay on its operation.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | Home |
Copyright © 2002, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|
