- (1.) D. S. Sinha, J. Heard Shri Saghir Ahmad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri Shambhu Nath Srivastava, learned Senior Standing Coun sel of the Central Government repre senting the respondents, at length and in detail.
(2.) THE vires of Rule 8 (d) of the An cient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1959, hereinafter called the 'rules', made by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred upon it under Section 28 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, is under chal lenge in was petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is not disputed that the vires of Rule 8 (d), aforeisaid, was considered by a Division Bench Of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition N6. 10714 of 1991, Virendra Kumar Chadda v. Union of India and others, and the Writ Petitions connected therewith. The Division Bench vide its judgment and order dated 10th Septem ber, 1992, upheld the vires of Rule 8 (d) of the Rules and dismissed the petition with certain directions. Thus, the controversy raised in the instant petition is no longer res integra. ; The Court is not persuaded to take a view contrary to the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Virendra Kumar Chadda (Supra ).
(3.) IN the result, the petition fails, and is dismissed subject to the directions con tained in the penultimate paragraph of the judgment of the Division Bench dated 10th September, 1992 in the case of Virendra Chadda (Supra ). The interim order dated 26th November, 1991 is va cated. There is no order as to costs. Before parting with the case the Court considers it necessary to mention that prayer for adjournment of the hearing of the case was made by Shri Saghir Ahmad, learned counsel of the petitioners, on the ground of illness of Shri S. C. Budhwar, learned Senior Advocate, who, according to Shri Saghir Ahmad, had instruction to argue the case on behalf of the petitioners. The Court declined to entertain the prayer in view of the fact that question raised in the petition is fully covered by the Division Bench's decision of this Court in the case of Virendra Chadda (supra), and adjournment of the hear ing of the case would have served no useful purpose. Petition dismissed. .;