IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 28048 of 2010(E)
1. A.L.ANTONY, S/O.LONAPPAN, AGED 59,
... Petitioner
2. A.A.JAMES, S/O.LATE A.D.ANTONY,
3. E.A.JOSE, S/O.ANTONY, AGED 50,
4. MOTHI.D., PALLISSERRY, S/O.DEVASSY,
Vs
1. FR.JOSEPH MURINGATHERY,
... Respondent
2. A.A.DAVIS, S/O.A.O.ANTONY,
3. M.A.OUSEPH, S/O.M.O.ANTONY,
4. THE DIRECTOR,
5. THE SUPERINTENDING ARCHAEOLOGIST,
6. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
7. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR.
8. DR.S.HEMACHANDRAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGE KURUVILLA(ALAPPUZHA)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :23/09/2010
O R D E R
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