Taj Mahal top earning ASI monument through ticket sales from FY19-20 to FY23-24: Govt
New Delhi, Apr 3 (PTI): The iconic Taj Mahal in Agra earned the "highest income" through the sale of tickets among the ASI-protected monuments from FY19-20 to FY23-24, according to data shared by the government.
Union Culture Minister Gajendra Singh Shekhawat shared the data in a written response to a query in Rajya Sabha.
He was asked the amount that the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has received from selling entry tickets to various monuments in the last five years, year-wise and monument-wise; and the monuments that have received the highest income through selling entry tickets in the last five years.
In his response, the minister shared the data in a tabular form for cycles of financial years ranging from FY19-20 to FY23-24.
According to the data, Taj Mahal earned the top slot for all five years.
The Mughal-era architectural wonder was commissioned by Emperor Shah Jehan in the 17th century and it is considered one of the most beautiful buildings in the world.
In FY19-20, the Agra Fort in Agra and Qutub Minar in Delhi were in the second and third positions.
In FY20-21, the Group of Monuments Mamallapuram in Tamil Nadu and Sun Temple, Konark were in the second and third positions. In FY23-24, Qutub Minar and Red Fort of Delhi were in the second and third positions.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
MUDA case: Court reserves verdict in ED's petition challenging Lokayukta 'B' report
Bengaluru: The Special Court for People's Representatives, which heard the petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) challenging the Lokayukta 'B' Report that stated Chief Minister Siddaramaiah had no role in the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) illegal land allotment case, has reserved its verdict.
During the hearing, the Lokayukta's lawyer said that the petition filed by the ED is not allowed under the law. There is no clarity about the investigation in the ED's petition. The ED had given a letter and 27 documents to the Lokayukta police. Based on these documents, the Lokayukta Investigating Officer filed the 'B' Report.
The ED's letter was also leaked to the media. This letter and the documents are included on page 646 of the charge sheet. The Lokayukta Investigating Officer's opinion has also been recorded. The ED is not an aggrieved party and does not have the right to question the 'B' Report. The ED is not allowed to file such an interim application, lawyer Venkatesh Arabatdi argued, citing a Supreme Court verdict.
“The Lokayukta Investigating Officer examined all the documents collected by the police and others and gave their opinion. If the ED, a third party, is allowed to intervene, it will create complications,” lawyer Venkatesh Arabatdi urged, requesting that the ED's application not be considered.
Later, ED lawyer Madhukar Deshpande argued that the ED is a statutory informant under Section 66(2) of the PMLA Act. The ED’s powers were clarified in the Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary case. Judgments in the Martin and Nagaraj cases in 2022 also upheld the ED's powers. The Supreme Court ruled that ED and local police investigations should be complementary. In such cases, the aggrieved person does not need to be directly affected. The ED can also file a complaint against the 'B' Report, he argued.
following which, the lawyer for the complainant, Snehamayi Krishna, argued that if any person provides information, they should be considered a witness.
But while the Lokayukta police gave one version, the ED gave another. The Lokayukta said the police had not considered the ED's report.
The court, after hearing all arguments, reserved its order for April 15.
