( 1 ) THIS petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution raises an interesting question as to the scope of the Karnataka Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1961 ('act' for short ). Petitioner seek a mandamus to the State Government to consider and dispose of their representation dt. 10-4-1983 as to the question of declaring the 'attara Cutcherry', a Government building in which the Karnataka High Court is housed, as a "protected monument" under S. 4 of the said Act. The petition is filed as sequel to the Government Order No. DPAR/188/shc/82 dt. 24-3-1982 which has accorded administrative approval for the demolition of the existing 'attara Cutcherry' and for the construction of a new High Court Building on the site. This petition is before us on its reference to a Division Bench by Swami, J.

( 2 ) PETITIONERS in their efforts to avert the demolition of this ancient building, which they cherish as a cultural-heritage and as an enduring source of enrichment of the environmental beauty and cultural-tone of the City of Bangalore, now appeal to the provisions of the 'act'. They have also challenged the decision of Government as an arbitrary decision uninformed by relevant considerations.

( 3 ) THE State of Karnataka, Respondent-1, has opposed this petition and has sought to justify its decision as one arrived at after a careful consideration of all factors relevant to the decision. It has also contended that petitioners cannot be considered aggrieved parties and have no standing to sue, and that, at all events, they have no enforceable rights under the 'act' entitling them to any relief. The Director of Archaeology, Government of Karnataka and the Bangalore Urban Art Commission, an authority constituted under S. 51 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, are, respectively, Respondents-2, and 3 Respondents 4 to 36 are Advocates of this Court who have impleaded themselves in these proceedings. They oppose the petition.

( 4 ) BEFORE we consider the merits of questions raised in the petition, we may advert to two aspects : it must, at the out-set, be said that petitioners, who are respectable citizens of Bangalore and men of eminence in their respective fields, are acting with the highest of motives and in public-interest, as they conceive it. None of them has any collateral-motives. The second aspect is that 'attara Cutcherry' is, it is not disputed, a beautiful land-mark in the City of Bangalore. It was built during the year 1864-68 at a cost of about 4 1/2 lakhs of rupees in Grecian style and is located in the sprawling 100 acre garden, in the heart of the city, named after Sir Mark Cubbon, a former Chief-Commissioner of the old princely State of Mysore (Mysore Gazetteer, Vol. 5, 1930 edition.) it would appear that in the second half of the last century the public offices of the old Mysore State were housed in an old building called the Tippu's palace' in the Fort area of Bangalore. But when Mr. Bowring assumed charge as Commissioner in 1862, he felt the need for a suitable new building and prepared a blue print for the "attara Cutcherry'. Public Offices were shifted to it when it was completed. The name 'attara Cutcherry' has historical associations. It is said that the Secretariat of Chikkadevaraya, a Ruler of Mysore, consisted of 18 departments or 'chavadies', hence the name 'attara Cutcherry' Chikkadevaraya is believed to have been influenced by Moghal traditions in this respect vide Karnataka State Gazetteer, 1983 Edn. at page 246. It is also claimed that the functional division of Government into 18 traditional departments of State, was derived from the constitutional system established by the legendary Yudhisthira of the Maha Bharatha. The 'rajatarangini', it is said, refers to the emulation by Indian Rulers, through the centuries, of this pattern of functional departmentalisation of Government, a predilection for which is stated to have been shown by the ruler