K.A.Aboottyhaji vs District Collector on 25 March, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 3907 of 2009(M)


1. K.A.ABOOTTYHAJI
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR
                       ...       Respondent

2. SECRETARY

3. SECRETARY AND CHAIRMAN OF ART OF AND

4. SIVAPURAM JAMA-ATH COMMITTEE

5. C.ABOOTTY HAJI

6. THIRUVANGADAN LATHEEF

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.V.ASOKAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.R.SURENDRAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :25/03/2010

 O R D E R
                      ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                    ================
                W.P.(C) NO. 3907 OF 2009 (M)
               =====================

           Dated this the 25th day of March, 2010

                        J U D G M E N T

The prayer sought in this writ petition is to direct

respondents 1 to 3 to take steps to preserve the mosque-

Sivapuram Jama Ath as an ancient monument and to prevent its

demolition. Further direction requiring respondents 1 to 3 to

issue necessary proceedings forbearing respondents 4 to 6 from

demolishing or in any way disturbing the basic structure of the

mosque is also sought for.

2. The writ petition was filed on the basis that the

mosque is an ancient monument. In order to ascertain the

correctness of this assertion of the petitioner, this Court by order

dated 18th of March, 2009 directed the 3rd respondent to get the

mosque inspected by the Archaeological Department of the

Government of Kerala and to report whether the mosque is of any

archaeological importance. In compliance with the said order, an

inspection was conducted by Sri.B..Balamohanan, Documentation

Officer, Archaeological Museum, Trichur and his report is Ext.R3

(a). Based on the above report, the Director in charge of the

WPC No. 3907/09
:2 :

Department of Archeology has submitted his letter dated 8/6/09

to the Government of Kerala to the effect that the mosque in

question is not having any archaeological importance.

3. Now that the expert opinion suggests that the mosque

is not having any archaeological importance, the premise on

which the writ petition has been filed has been proved to be

incorrect. If that be so, there arise no question of issuing any

direction as sought for by the writ petitioner.

Writ petition is therefore only to be dismissed, and I do so.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp