The Gujarat High Court has dismissed a review plea seeking to reopen a public interest litigation regarding alleged underground archaeological excavations at the Somnath Temple. In an order made public on Saturday, the court reaffirmed that a review petition cannot introduce new claims or serve as a second hearing for a decided matter.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D N Ray turned down the review application filed by Maharashtra resident Dr. Vilas Tukaram Kharat. While rejecting the petitioner’s request for reconsideration, the bench allowed a four-week extension to deposit a fine of Rs 2 lakh previously imposed on him, warning that failure to pay within the extended timeframe would result in recovery as arrears of land revenue.
During the proceedings, the bench refused to adjourn the matter despite the petitioner citing the illness of his senior counsel. The court noted that advocate Ratna Vora, who originally argued the public interest litigation, was present in the courtroom but chose not to present arguments for the review application.
Court Ruling on Review Scope
Addressing the fresh assertions made in the review petition, the bench emphasized that a review cannot be used to expand upon original court pleadings. The court stated that all new statements added in the application were impermissible at the review stage, citing established law that prohibits re-hearing concluded cases.
Background of the Case
The review stems from a June 25 judgment in which the High Court threw out Kharat’s original petition. That petition had requested public disclosure of purported archaeological surveys beneath the Somnath Temple by IIT Gandhinagar and the Archaeological Survey of India.
In that earlier ruling, the court categorized the filing as publicity-driven litigation designed to drag the Shree Somnath Trust into an unnecessary dispute. Judges noted that the claims rested solely on unverified social media posts and newspaper clippings rather than official documentation. Additionally, the court found that Kharat had not sought information from competent administrative authorities before filing and failed to prove his claimed association with an organization named Sanatan Dhamm.
