Bhavadasan, J,

This litigation is an offshoot of Ext.P3 order, whereby the State declared two churches situate side by side and a two storied building as protected monuments under the Kerala Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for brevity).

2. The monuments are located in Ramapuram, a little known town in Kottayam District. There are three structures involved. They are (1) St. Mary's Church, (2) St. Augustine's Church and (3) a two storied building in which Thoma Kathanar was residing in Ramapuram in Meenachil Taluk of Kottayam District.

3. It is believed that the first church was built in 1450 A.D., which was dedicated to

Virgin Mary and the present small church was built in 1599 at the very same site where the old one was situated. The main altar of the old church constructed in 1450 A.D with mural paintings in Indian style having preserved in sanctum of the present church and the same has been dedicated to the memory of St. Augustine. The new church constructed in 1864 is larger in size than the first church, but is an exact replica of the smaller one. They are situated in the heart of Ramapuram town. These churches are the centre of attraction for a large number of pilgrims and visitors, both from inside and outside the State. We get a glimpse of the grandeur of the churches from the two reports available in the records. The structures appear to be very unique and exquisite. As further description of the churches may not be very relevant here, they are skipped. It admits of no doubt that the churches and the two storied building attract devotees, pilgrims and visitors. Considering the structure, the age and importance of the churches and the building, and the need for preservation and protection of the same, the State felt that these structures must be brought within the ambit of the Act.

4. When the State formed such an opinion as envisaged under Section 4(1) of the Act, they have issued Ext.P1 notification, thus disclosing their intention to declare that the church and other building as protected monuments. Petitioners and others filed their objections. After considering the objections and hearing them, the State issued a notification under Section 4(3) of the Act declaring the ancient monuments to be protected monuments. The said notification was challenged in the writ petition.

5. In the writ petition, several grounds were taken. Among them, what were urged at the time of hearing appear to be (1) the formation of opinion as contemplated under Section 4(1) was not supported by any material, (2) Section 4(1) and (3) did not lay down any guidelines for exercising the power conferred with the State and therefore they are unconstitutional.

6. The learned Single Judge found on a consideration of the various provisions of the Act that there are sufficient guidelines provided by the statute itself for formation of the opinion. The learned Single Judge referred to Section 2(a), (d), (g) and (k) read along with Section 4(1) and (3) and came to the conclusion that sufficient indication and criteria were given in the statute. This criteria was sufficient for determining the issues involved and the Sections do not suffer from any vice. The learned Judge held that

formation of the opinion on the basis of the materials available from the statute itself, which provides sufficient guidelines would satisfy the requirements of law.

7. It is interesting to note that the learned Judge referred to the objections filed by the petitioners to Ext.P1 notification and has extracted the statements which find a place in the objections numbered as items. 1 to 12, which would indicate that the structures qualified to fall within the ambit of the Act. The learned Judge has also noticed that the petitioners have admitted that the structures are more than 100 years old. Based on the above materials, the learned Judge repelled the contentions taken by the petitioners.

8. In th