IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 8041 of 2010(E)
1. C.GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O.GOPALANKUTTY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF ARCHAEOLOGY,
3. THE DOCUMENTATION OFFICER,
4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
5. THRIKKUR MAHADEVA BHAKTHA JANA
6. SRI.T.K.PARASURAMAN, PRESIDENT,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :28/10/2010
O R D E R
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.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
aks