JUDGMENT

Dated this the 3rd day of February 2021 S.MANIKUMAR, C.J.

Petitioner/the Public Library Protection Council is a charitable society registered under Kerala Charitable and Literary Societies Registration Act. This writ petition is filed seeking preservation of the building and premises of State Central Library, Trivandrum, maintaining the heritage and monumental value of the same. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that by Ext.P2 order dated 3.8.2010 in W.P.(C)No.37574/2009, an Hon’ble Division Bench of this court directed to maintain status quo with respect to constructions in the premises of State Central Library. According to the petitioner, at present there is one big statute in front of the complex and yet another statue is also permitted as per Ext.P3 and there are demands for installing numerous other statutes as well in the premises. Grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that if the statutes, which are sought to be installed, are effected the same shall destroy the very heritage, beauty and value of the 200 year old library complex. Hence this writ petition is filed with the following reliefs:

i) issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or direction directing respondents 1 to 4 to ensure that no statutes or other constructions are put up or effected in the premises of State Central Library, Thiruvananthapuram and over the land adjacent to and surrounding the library building.

ii) issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ or direction calling for entire records leading upto Exhibit P3 and quash the same as improper and illegal.

Iii) to direct respondents 1 to 4 to take necessary steps to preserve the library building and the adjacent property as heritage premises and to put the same under the control of 2nd respondent as well with respect to any constructions therein after enlisting and grading the same as a heritage building.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

3. It is to be noted that during the pendency of this writ petition, W.P.(C)No.37574 of 2009 has attained finality. By a common judgment dated 18.11.2015 in W.P.(C)No.37574/2009 and W.A.No.288/2013, this court passed the following directions:

14. It is stated that though steps were taken for measurement of the property in metes and bounds, the property has not been assigned in favour of the Library Council. Therefore, no specific right could have been claimed by the Library Council as far as the right to property is concerned. It might be true that they have proceeded with certain expenditure for preparation of plan and to proceed with the project. But the fact remains that no construction has been made in the property other than laying the foundation stone.

15. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that Ext.P1 was issued by way of a mistake. Though it is not pointed out, under what circumstances the mistake has occurred, still, by considering the fact that no right had accrued to the Library Council, they cannot claim any legal right to remain in possession of the property nor can they seek enforcement of Ext.P1. Hence they do not have any legal right to direct the Government to grant them right over the property.

16. But before cancelling Ext.P1, as rightly observed by the learned single Judge, the Library Council ought to have been heard. Hence P3 is therefore clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice. But having said so, the learned Single Judge ought to have directed the matter to be decided afresh after notice to the Library Council. As already stated, no assignment has been made pursuant to Ext.P1 order. Hence the direction of the learned Single Judge permitting the petitioner to proceed with the construction was unwarranted and unjustified. To that extent, we are interfering with the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

Under such circumstances, the writ appeal is partly allowed as follows:

(i) Quashing of Ext.P3 is confirmed.

(ii) The direction