IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2010 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 8041 of 2010(E) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- C.GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O.GOPALANKUTTY, CHEMBALIPURATH MARATH HOUSE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRIKKUR VILLAGE, THRIKKUR DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF CULTURAL AFFIARS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF ARCHAEOLOGY, TRIVANDRUM-1. 3. THE DOCUMENTATION OFFICER, ARCHAEOLOGICAL MUSEUM, THRISSUR. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 5. THRIKKUR MAHADEVA BHAKTHA JANA SANGHATANA (REG.NO.1218), REP.BY SECRETARY, GIRI.P., S/O.ARAVINDAKSHAN, KOZHIPRA HOUSE, P.O.THRIKKUR, PIN-680 314, 6. SRI.T.K.PARASURAMAN, PRESIDENT, THRIKKUR MAHADEVA BHAKTHA JANA SANGHATANA, PUTHANMADOM, POST THRIKKUR, PIN-680 314. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.T.K.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU R5 BY ADVS. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ WP(C).No. 8041/2010(E) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT SEEKING TO PREVENT EXCAVATION WORKS OVER 50 METERS PERIPHERY OF TEMPLE. P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20/02/2010 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE FORUM 'JANAVEDI'. P4: COPY OF THE REPORT APPEARED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 24/02/2010 ALSO SHOWING A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE DESTRUCTION. P5(a): TO P5(c):COPY OF THE A FEW PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE EXCAVATION BY JCB AND ALSO THE AFTERMATH OF SUCH WORKS. P6(a):COPY OF THE INFORMATION SOUGHT BY THE PETITIONER. P6(b):COPY OF THE INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THRIKKUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE svs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 8041 of 2010 E ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 28th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a devotee of Thrikkur Sri Mahadeva Temple near Ollur in Thrissur District. The temple is said to be an ancient cave temple. Admittedly, the temple is declared as a protected monument under the provisions of the Kerala Ancient Monument and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1968. 2. Respondents 4 and 5 are the present office bearers of the temple. It is stated that the respondents commenced work for the construction of 'Gopuram'. Petitioner alleges that in the process of construction of a 'Gopuram', the respondents demolished the ancient steps leading to the temple. At that stage, this writ petition was filed, stating that the further activities should be stopped, mainly on the ground that the activities are in violation of the provisions of the W.P.(C) No.8041/2010 : 2 : aforesaid Act. 3. While admitting this writ petition, this Court passed order dated 11-03-2010, directing respondents 2 to 4 to stop further excavation and construction works being done in the periphery of the temple. Subsequently, by order dated 07-04- 2010, this Court directed the second respondent to look into the controversy raised and file a report before this Court. Accordingly, second respondent has filed an affidavit dated 12-07-2010. It is stated therein that the temple authorities had replaced the old stone floor within the 'Nalambalam' and replaced the same with new marble slab which, according to the second respondent, is in violation of the Act. It is also stated that the temple authorities have demolished about 4 to 5 steps for the construction of the new temple 'Gopuram' and that the same is also said to be in violation of the provisions of the Act. On this basis, it is stated that further demolition of the steps for the construction of the 'Gopuram' is to be stopped. Finally, it is stated that the construction of the new W.P.(C) No.8041/2010 : 3 : 'Gopuram' can be permitted on condition that there should not be any further demolition of the steps and that the demolished steps shall be replaced in its original place. 4. The stand taken by the party respondents is that the petitioner's main grievance is against the Committee and the petitioner has also instituted various proceedings against the Committee. It is stated that their intention is only to construct a 'Gopuram' in the best interest of the temple and that they do not have any intention to cause any damage to the temple or any of the structures in the temple premises. 5. Admittedly, the temple in question is a protected monument. Definition of protected monument covers even the steps leading to the temple. Therefore, any destruction of any portion of the structure including the steps is impermissible. In view of this, the respondents could not have gone ahead with the construction activities causing any damage even to the steps leading to the temple. Therefore, if respondents 4 and 5 want to proceed with the work, the same W.P.(C) No.8041/2010 : 4 : has to be done without in any manner not affecting the temple or any portion of the temple structure. They will also have to replace the demolished steps in its original place and in the original form as suggested by the second respondent. 6. In this view of the matter, I dispose of this writ petition, directing that if the party respondents want to proceed with the construction work of the 'Gopuram', they will do so without, in any manner, affecting the structure of the temple including any portion of the steps and only after replacing the demolished steps to its original form. Once they do this rectification work, they will intimate the same to the second respondent, who shall, either by himself or by a competent officer of his department, inspect the temple, get a report and if satisfied with the work done, will issue an order and only thereafter, the party respondents will be permitted to proceed with the work. Needless to say that this judgment will not by itself, enable the respondents to proceed with the work and if any W.P.(C) No.8041/2010 : 5 : statutory or other requirements are to be complied with, they shall be responsible to comply with those requirements also. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks The words “respondents 4 and 5” occurring in paragraphs 2 and 5 of the judgment dated 28-10-2010 in W.P.(C) No.8041/2010 are corrected and substituted as “respondents 5 and 6” as per order dated 09-02-2011 in I.A.No.2067/2011. Sd/- Registrar (Judicial)