Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 42854
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, K. V. Jayakumar, JJ
SREEKUMAR V.D – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 44611 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P.P.BIJU
For the Respondents: SHRI.G.BIJU, SC, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, SHRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, SRI.G.SUDHEER, SRI.R.HARIKRISHNAN
Compliance with construction regulations around protected monuments is paramount to prevent unauthorized activities.
Headnote:The judgment pertains to Writ Petition WP
(C) NO. 44611 OF 2024 filed by Sreekumar V.D concerning construction around the Thiruvallam Sree Parasu Rama Swami Temple. The court noted the relevant statutes concerning archaeological protection and concluded that there is currently no construction underway without the proper sanctions, thus the petitioner's concerns were unfounded. The court framed the issues around construction permissions and the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites Act, 1958, stating that ensuring compliance with this law is pivotal, ultimately closing the petition regarding the undertaking given by the respondents.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. construction activities surround the protected site. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. concerns about unauthorized construction are unfounded. (Para 4) |
| 3. the petition is concluded based on respondents' assurances. (Para 5) |
Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J.
This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or direction directing the repondent No's 1 to 6 to take immediate action to stop the construction carrying out by the respondents No's 7 to
11 forthwith.
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or direction directing the Respondents No's 1 to 6 to ensure no construction shall be carry out within 100 meters away from the Thiruvallam Sree Parasu Rama Swami Temple, Thiruvallam, Thiruvananthapuram District.
iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or direction directing the Respondents 7 to 12 shall not carry out any construction without permission from the 3rd respondent and violating the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remain Act, 1958.
iv) Call for the records pursuant to Exhibit-P8 and quash the same by issuing writ of certiorari.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 7th respondent, wherein, after detailing the facts and circumstances, it has been stated as under in paragraph No. 6:
6. It is submitted that Thiruvallam Sree Parasurama Temple is a protected monument under the conservation and management of the Archeological Survey of India. Considering the difficulties faced by the devotees, the Board decided to construct a semi-permanent pandal inside the temple facing the bali mandapams, after obtaining permission from the Archeological Survey of India authorities, so that the devotees can do the rituals during sunny and rainy seasons. Several petitions were submitted by Board seeking permission to provide basic minimum facilities to the devotees. In response to the letter No. 228/24/CA/AMASR dated 24/12/2024 of the competent Authority issued to the Administrative Officer, Thiruvallam, the Board submitted an application No. 39/2025 dated 5/5/2025 in the prescribed form (Form No. I). True copy of the covering letter No.39/2025 dated 5.5.2025 issued by the Administrative Officer, Thiruvallam Devaswom, Travancore Devaswom Board to the Competent Authority, Sreepadam Kottaram along with the Form 1 Application is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R7(a) . But no sanction is granted so far. In the absence of sanction, the Board is not in a position to carry out any developmental activities in the temple.
3. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that although the Board has taken a decision to construct a semi-permanent pandal within the temple premises, facing the bali mandapams, such construction shall be undertaken only after obtaining prior permission from the competent authorities of the Archaeological Survey of India.
4. It is an undisputed fact that no construction has commenced as of now. The apprehension expressed by the petitioner that the construction may proceed without obtaining the requisite permission from the Archaeological Survey of India appears to be misconceived and unfounded, in light of the categorical assertion in the counter affidavit that no construction shall be carried out without first obtaining such permission.
5. In view of the factual matrix noted above and the unequivocal undertaking given by the 7th respondent, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that the Writ Petition may be closed, recording the undertaking contained in the counter affidavit.
This Writ Petition is closed.
