IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 1ST ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 28048 of 2010(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. A.L.ANTONY, S/O.LONAPPAN, AGED 59, RESIDING AT ALAPPATTU HOUSE, PALLIPPURAM, KODANNUR P.O., THRISSUR - 680 574. 2. A.A.JAMES, S/O.LATE A.D.ANTONYKUTTY, AGED 58, ADAMBUKULAM HOUSE, KODANNUR P.O., THRISSUR - 680 574. 3. E.A.JOSE, S/O.ANTONY, AGED 50, ELUVATHINGAL PADARAN HOUSE, KODANNUR P.O., THRISSUR - 680 574. 4. MOTHI.D., PALLISSERRY, S/O.DEVASSY, AGED 42, PELLISSERRY HOUSE, AMMADAM P.O., PIN: 680 563. BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE KURUVILLA (ALAPPUZHA), SRI.JOHN NUMPELI (JUNIOR). RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. FR.JOSEPH MURINGATHERY, VICAR, ST.ANTONY'S CHURCH, AMMADAM, PARALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. A.A.DAVIS, S/O.A.O.ANTONY, ADAMBUKULAM HOUSE, P.O.AMMADAM. 3. M.A.OUSEPH, S/O.M.O.ANTONY, MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, AMMADAM.P.O. 4. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY, TRIVANDRUM. W.P.(C). NO.28048/2010-E: 5. THE SUPERINTENDING ARCHAEOLOGIST, ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA, THRISSUR CIRCLE, THRISSUR. 6. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVT.DEPT OF CULTURAL AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 7. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 8. DR.S.HEMACHANDRAN, FORMER SUPERINTENDING ARCHAEOLOGIST, DIRECTORATE OF ARCHAEOLOGY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R4,R6 & R7 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.28048 of 2010 (E) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 23rd day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Prayer sought in this writ petition is to quash Exts.P13 report & P17 order of the Government. There is a further prayer to direct respondents 4 & 6 to take steps to declare St.Antony's Church, Ammadam as a Protected Monument under the Kerala Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1968, on the basis of Exts.P3 & P5 reports. 2. Petitioners are parishioners of Sr.Antony's Church, Ammadam, Thrissur District. It is stated that on the basis of Ext.P1 mass representation, proceedings were initiated to declare the Church as a Protected Monument. Accordingly, Exts.P3 & P5 reports were submitted by the Documentation Officer to the State Archaeological Department. It is stated that subsequently political parties exerted influence on the authorities, which led to the appointment of a Committee consisting of 3 officers. It is stated that the Committee submitted Ext.P13 report based on which the Government issued Ext.P17, accepting the report of the Committee WP(C) No.28048/2010 -2- and rejecting the request to declare the Church as a Protected Monument. It is in these circumstances, this writ petition has been filed praying for quashing Ext.P13 report submitted by the Committee and Ext.P17 order of the Government and also to require respondents to declare the Church as a Protected Monument. 3. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that it was based on a mass representation received by the Government that steps were initiated and Exts.P3 & P5 reports were called for from the Documentation Officer of the Archaeological Department of the Government of Kerala. It is stated that subsequently on further representations that were received, matter was re-examined and this led to the appointment of a Committee consisting of Officers of the Archaeological Department. It is stated that the Committee submitted Ext.P13 report, which suggested that the Church was not one having any archeological importance to declare the same as a Protected Monument. It was therefore that Ext.P17 order was issued, submits learned Government Pleader. 4. First of all, pleadings in the writ petition itself show that there were three reports available before the Government, viz., Exts.P3 & P5 submitted by the Documentation Officer WP(C) No.28048/2010 -3- recommending that the Church shall be declared as a Protected Monument, and Ext.P13 report recommending that in the absence of any archaeological importance the Church does not deserve to be declared as a Protected Monument. On appreciation of the conflicting views contained in the reports referred to above, the Government have taken the view that the Church need not be declared as a Protected Monument. Therefore the view as reflected in Ext.P17 order, at any rate, is a plausible view, and so long as it is such a view, this Court cannot upset the order issued by the Government, in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Further, apart from the contents of Exts.P3 & P5 reports, the petitioners have not even produced a photograph of the Church, or any other materials to substantiate their plea that the Church in question should be declared as a Protected Monument. Thus, there is dearth of materials also for this Court to take a view different from what has been taken by the Government. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it was by political influence exerted by the local Member of Parliament that Ext.P13 report was obtained. In this context, learned counsel WP(C) No.28048/2010 -4- referred to Ext.P4 letter issued by the Member of Parliament requesting the Director of Archaeological Department to relieve the Church from enforcing the restrictions of a Protected Monument. Being the Member of Parliament representing the Constituency, where the Church in question is situated, if a letter was written to the authorities, there is nothing unusual in such a conduct of the M.P. concerned. The petitioners also have not succeeded in showing anything further to infer that any influence was exerted by that M.P. or anybody else to secure a favourable report. Similar is the case of the petitioners regarding Ext.P13 report. Apart from the case that it is inconsistent with Exts.P3 & P5, there is no material to think that the contents of this report are factually erroneous. Therefore, I am not persuaded to think that Ext.P13 is the outcome of any such political pressure and decide the case of the petitioners on that basis. In that view of the matter, the decision as reflected in Ext.P17 order being a plausible one, I am not persuaded to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg