Relating to Protection of Rani Pokhari

Writ NumberYear 1995 Writ Number 2991
Decision Date9 June, 1997.
Nepal Law ReviewYear 1997, Month 6.
Decision Number6391
Petitioner and RespondentAdvocate Prakash Mani Sharma and others on behalf of Pro Public Vs. His Majesty’s Government, Secretariat Office of Council of Ministers and 10 others
SubjectRelating to Protection of Rani Pokhari
Court Order
Precedent established It is not evident from the respondent's written response that they deny the historical, religious, and cultural significance maintained by the Rani Pokhari, which was created by King Pratap Malla by bringing sacred water from various pilgrimage sites, and the temples and deities established around it. The fact that arrangements for its maintenance and worship have been preserved, and the area is considered to be more secure, supports the assertion that the historical, religious, and cultural integrity of the Rani Pokhari area is upheld. Therefore, if the Rani Pokhari and its surrounding area are considered public property rather than belonging to any individual, no dispute seems to arise. In the context of public property, the terms "public interest" or "concern" used in Article 88(2) of the Constitution of Nepal, 1990 indicate that the rights and interests vested in the general public or any community under the law or constitution are recognized. Therefore, it cannot be said that any individual with a relevant interest in public matters is not entitled to take an interest. The principle that any person has the right to submit a petition on matters of public concern has been established in various cases by this court. For instance, judgments such as Radheshyam Adhikari Vs. Kalyan Bikram (Nepal Law Review 1991 Decision No. 4420), Surya Prasad Sharma Dhungel Vs. Godawari Marvel Industries Pvt. Ltd. (Nepal Law Review 1995 Suvarna Shubha Janmotsav Special Edition, page 169), Bal Krishna Neupane Vs. His Majesty's Government Secretariat of Council of Ministers (Supreme Court Bulletin 16 December (15, 1992, Issue 11, Page 1)), and Yogini Narhari Nath v. His Majesty's Government Ministry of Education, Culture, and Social Welfare (Nepal Law Review 1996, Part 38, Issue 1 Decision No. 5127) have thoroughly examined these principles. Therefore, there is no need for further consideration on this matter. The petitioner's claim by the Public Interest Protection Forum and their written response indicating a lack of rights and interests, as well as the arguments presented by the learned government lawyer Mr. Balram K.C. on behalf of His Majesty's Government, are not found to be agreeable. (Para. 21)


The directive principles and policies of the state outlined in Part 4 of the Constitution of If they are found to be neglected, the court can issue necessary directives to make this provision effective, and it seems appropriate to consider this direction. (Para. 23)
From the written responses received, as well as the arguments presented by the lawyers from both sides, there appears to be no dispute regarding the historical, religious, and cultural significance of Rani Pokhari and the various deities and temples established around it. Both sides are in agreement, and it seems that the Rani Pokhari area has been demarcated with an iron fence. Additionally, it is noted that various buildings have existed around Rani Pokhari for some time, and the site mentioned in the petition for the construction of the police building was previously occupied by the Bagmati Zonal Administration Office, and before that, by the Supreme Court for many years. There has been no prior petition indicating that the religious, cultural, or historical significance of the Rani Pokhari area has been adversely affected by any courts or other buildings or shops that have been operating in the area for many years. Moreover, the current petition does not clearly express any specific adverse impact on the religious, cultural, or historical significance due to the construction of the new police building in the central region. Regarding the petition suggesting that the construction of the police office will lead to environmental pollution due to increased traffic, it is noted that the Rani Pokhari area is a central urban hub. Given the presence of roads in all directions around the area, the level of pedestrian and vehicle traffic, as well as the fuel consumption of various transportation means, there does not appear to be a credible basis to believe that the influx of people to and from the police building would significantly increase pollution compared to the existing situation. Therefore, considering that the construction of the central region police building has already been completed, there seems to be no justification for issuing a stay order as requested in the petition. (Para. 26)
Regarding the petition's concerns about religious, cultural, and historical significance, as well as environmental protection, these issues are evidently sensitive, humanitarian, and of national or international importance. Nepal’s ratification of the International Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972) demonstrates the country’s commitment to these matters. The importance of such issues must be recognized at the international level. As mentioned in the above cases, although efforts to develop the Kathmandu Valley in a planned manner have been ongoing since the time of the late His Majesty’s government, there is a recurring sense that national policies related to religious, cultural, or historical issues, as established by earlier initiatives such as the Physical Development Project of the Kathmandu Valley in 1969 and the Kathmandu Valley Town Development Plan in 1966, have not been consistently followed. This repeated decision-making on such matters suggests a lack of adherence to established national policies. It cannot be considered acceptable for relevant authorities to show pessimism towards actions required by provisions guaranteed under Nepalese law.
This court has issued a directive order to the Government of Nepal, specifically to the Secretariat of the Council of Ministers, noting that while the principles established against Yogi Narhari Nath by the Ministry of Education, Culture, and Social Welfare during the time of the late King should not be disregarded, there is a need to monitor whether actions align with Nepal’s commitment under the International Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972). It is crucial to ensure that national policies related to religious, cultural, and historical significance are consistently implemented across all sectors. Therefore, the late His Majesty’s government must take solid and effective steps to maintain uniformity in policy-making at the national level. (Para.27)