JUDGMENT

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

This is a Public Interest Litigation filed by a Parish Member of the IC Maria Church, Neyyattinkara, Thiruvananthapuram District, the 5th respondent, seeking the following reliefs:

1. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondent No.2 to forthwith consider Exts.P5 and P7 applications and do the needful to protect the ancient monument – Church IC Maria, Neyyattinkara, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. Issue a declaration that the IC Maria Church, Neyyattinkara, is an ancient monument, deserving all statutory protection under Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.

3. Direct the first respondent to cause an inspection on the IC Maria Church, Neyyattinkara and do all that is needful to protect the said ancient monument in terms of Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the Parish and the Latin Diocese of Neyyattinkara, the 4th respondent, have taken a decision to demolish the church constructed in the year 1908 during the British regime, which is also an ancient monument. According to the petitioner, some unscrupulous members in the Parish Council prevailed upon the Latin Catholic Diocese and the Parish Church and decided to demolish the super strong ancient monument for personal gains alone.

3. According to the petitioner, the church funds are spent unnecessarily, in spite of opposition from the petitioner and the like minded. He has also produced photographs of the church to show that the archaeological features of the church are unparalleled and since it is 118 years old, it has to be retained as such by making suitable repairs and day-to-day maintenance.

4. The further case of the petitioner is that even though Exts. P5 and P7 representations were made before the statutory authority, namely the Director of Archeology, Archaeological Department, Government of Kerala, the 2nd respondent, no action was initiated to prohibit the Parish and the Diocese from demolishing the ancient church structure. Since after the filing of the writ petition, the church building was demolished to a larger extent, additional documents, including the photographs showing the remains of the demolished church, were produced. It is also submitted by the petitioner that as per the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 ('Act, 1958' for short), the Central Government is duty bound to protect the church as an ancient monument after declaring it as a national monument.

5. The Parish Church and the Latin Diocese has filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations and the averments made by the writ petitioner, inter alia, stating that the General Body of the church had unanimously decided to pull down the existing church and construct a new one in its place. It is also pointed out that originally a decision was taken by the Parish Council of the church in the year 2010 to demolish the existing church and reconstruct it and that the writ petitioner was one of the then 24 members of the Parish Council which took a decision, and who had not even raised a dissent. The said decision of the Parish Council was placed in the General Body of the church and it was unanimously resolved by the General Body to demolish the church and reconstruct a new one in the place of the old one. There also, the writ petitioner did not raise any dissent. However, in the meanwhile, the writ petitioner could not get elected to the Parish Council, which infuriated him and he has taken a volte face and is trying his level best to sabotage the reconstruction of the church.

6. It is also admitted that the church was constructed in the year 1908. However, the claim raised by the petitioner that it is an ancient monument of national importance, is disputed. That apart, it is submitted that the Director of Archeology, Archaeological Department, Government of Kerala, functioning under the provisions of the Kerala A