IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 2480 of 2009(S)
1. THE THEKKINKADU SAMRAKSHANA ACTION
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE THRISSUR CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS
... Respondent
2. COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR,
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND CHAIRMAN,
4. THE SUPERINTENDING ARCHAEOLOGIST,
5. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR
For Respondent :SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP,SC,COCHIN D.B
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN
Dated :26/03/2009
O R D E R
P.R.RAMAN & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------
W.P(C).No.2480 of 2008
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th March, 2009
JUDGMENT
Raman, J.
The matter relates to construction of a monumental gate
to the park in the Thekkinkadu Maidan. The Thrissur
Corporation, is the licensee of the area, which is surrounded
by a compound wall. They started construction of the
monumental gate in the place of an old one, which give rise to
the present complaint and the Writ Petition. It is alleged that
this is a permanent construction, and placing reliance on some
judgments of this Court, it is contended by the petitioner that
such constructions are prohibited by this Court. The
Corporation, on the other hand, would contend that this is not
a construction in strict sense. It is an archaeological gate. In
its place there was another gate which is part of the
beautification of the city. Since this is a land belonging to the
Cochin Devaswom Board, in the absence of any sanction
obtained from the Devaswom Board, construction could not
have been proceeded with. Hence, we directed the Thrissur
Corporation to make an application in that behalf to the Board,
WP(C).2480/09 2
whereupon the Cochin Devaswom Board will consider the
same. We recorded in our order dated 19.2.2009 that the
Devaswom Board accorded sanction imposing certain
conditions and the Corporation will complete the construction
after strictly complying with the conditions so stipulated. Now
the construction is over.
2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do find
that the construction so made is only a gate in replacement of
the existing one will not in any way be considered as
objectionable construction. Further it is a public park which
is to be closed during night. Whether the construction is done
in accordance with the conditions is a matter which the Board
may verify. If there is any violation of conditions, it is open to
the Board to take up the matter. In case the same has been
done in accordance with the conditions stipulated, no further
action is needed.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE
P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE
vgs.
