1. Petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:
“Issue rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ(s) or Order(s) and/or Direction(s) of the like nature should not be declared the Tripura Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1997 (Tripura Act No. 2 of 1997) as arbitrary and contrary to the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (No. 24 of 1958) and utra-vires the Constitution of India;
As to why a writ in the nature of a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Orders and/or Direction(s) of the like nature should not be directed the Respondents to declare all ancient and historical monuments and archaeological sites and remains which bears national importance in the State of Tripura to be preserved and protected under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (No. 24 of 1958);
As to why a writ in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Orders and/or Direction(s) of the like nature should not be directed the Respondents with the prime objective to ensure the proper upkeep and repairing of ancient buildings, monuments, place of interment, cave, rock sculpture etc. lying in the State of Tripura.
As to why a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ(s)/direction(s) and order(s) should not be directed the Respondents to placement funds for implementation of repairing works of ancient buildings, monuments, place of interment, cave, rock sculpture etc. lying in the State of Tripura.
As to why a writ or any other appropriate writ/direction and order should not be directed the Respondents to engage approved empanelment of Architects and consultants with Archaeological Survey of India.
As to why a writ or any other appropriate writ(s)/direction(s) and order(s) should not be directed the Respondent No. 2 to implement all illustrated points in the Memorandum of Settlement signed between the Government of Tripura and All Tripura Tribal Force on 23rd August 1993 in particular for preservation of Ujjayanta Palace as historical monument and renaming of villages etc. and also should not be directed to revert in its original named ‘Ujjayanta Palace’ as a historical monument in place of new named ‘Tripura Government Museum’;
As to why a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Orders and/or Direction(s) of the like nature should not be passed directing the Respondents to set up Expert Committee under the supervision of this Hon'ble High Court, comprising the representatives of the Archaeological Survey of India, State of Tripura and individual experts/representatives from NGO from Tripura to fine, discover and identify the physical conditions of the ancient and historical monuments, place of interments, caves, rock-sculptures inscription, antiques etc situated in various places in Tripura which has already been in existence for more than 100 years bearing national importance;
As to why a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Orders and/or Direction(s) of the like nature should not be passed directing the Respondents to constitute a Committee for identifying the changes/renamed of original villages, place rivers etc. comprising government officials and senior citizens of the concerned village or locality and experts;
As to why such other writ or any other appropriate writ, direction or order as your Lordships deem just looking to the facts of the present case should not be pleased to pass so as to give full relief/reliefs, as sought in the petition, upon causes shown to make the rule absolute.”
2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record, we are of the considered view that at this point of time, considering the issues involved, it would be prudent that the State itself takes a decision on the issue raised and also takes action if so required of pursing the matter with the authorities constituted under the Act i.e. the Tripura Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1997 as also the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.
3. As mutually agreed, petition is disposed of in terms of the following directions:
(a) Petitioner shall approach the respondent-authorities highlighting the surviving grievances, if any.
(b) We are hopeful that on receipt of such communication, appropriate action shall be taken by the concerned authorities in accordance with law, within a period of 3(three) months thereafter;
(c) We also direct that the petitioner shall be afforded opportunity of hearing by the competent authority, if so required and desired, in accordance with law.
(d) Liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the Court on the same and subsequent cause of action, if so required and desired, in accordance with law.
4. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.