IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 7078 of 2010(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SRI.M.NAMBIRAJAN,SUPERINTENDING ARCHAEOLOGIST, THRISSUR CIRCLE, PURATATIVE BHAVABN, KSHB, FLATS, PULLAZHY, THRISSUR,.KERALA. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM THOMAS (PUTHURAN) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE(PRISONS) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS NORTH ZONE, THRISSUR. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 6. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. 7. THE SUPERINTENDENT SPECIAL SUB JAIL, PALAKKAD. BY GOVT.PLEADER SHRI K.RAMESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C)No.7078/10 PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE WITH THE PROGRAM CHARG PUBLISHED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE PETITIONR DATED 1.3.2010 VIDE NO.4/1/KPA/2009-M 829 TO 836. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE SENIOR CONSERVATION ASSISTANT DATED 1.3.2010 VIDE NO.1/15/09/M-TRS/95. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF MADRAS HOME DEPARTMENT DATED 28.2.1921. TRUE COPY T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.7078 OF 2010 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF MARCH, 2010 J U D G M E N T This Writ Petition is one filed by the Archaeological Survey of India, aggrieved by the proposal to conduct a meeting inside the Palakkad Fort which is a protected monument. This Court passed an interim order on 5.3.2010, permitting the programme to be conducted, but on the condition that no damage will be caused to the protected monument. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the meeting was not conducted as proposed in Exhibit P1. It is further pointed out that in future whenever a meeting or any function is proposed to be held within the area of a protected monument, the parties may be directed to adhere to Rule 7 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1959 and Section 19(1) of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites W.P.(C)No.7078/10 -2- and Remains Act, 1958. The above provisions will be taken note of by the parties concerned who may require the premises for conducting any meeting, etc. and appropriate permission will be obtained before scheduling any meeting. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE dsn