Judgment :- 1. The petitioner. a resident of Kovalam. has filed this Original Petition in the public interest for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari to quash Ext. P4 proceedings of the Government of Kerala permitting the construction of a mosque at Kovalam beach on Government puramboke land. 2. Kovalam is a place of tourist attraction and a tourism complex has come into existence at the Kovalam Beach. The area developed as a tourism development complex was in the possession of the State of Kerala till 1968. Thereafter the entire development complex was handed over to the second respondent. namely. the India Tourism Development Corporation (I.T.D.C.). 3. The Executive Engineer of the ITDC by Ext. P2 dated 1-6-1983. reported to (he District Collector about the unauthorised construction of a mosque at Kovalam Beach in Government land handed over to the ITDC. There is reference also in Ext. P2 about the preparations for the construction of a temple and the local rumours about the proposal for the construction of a church. all within the area of the tourism development complex. Apparently on the basis of Ext. P2 and a report of the village officer. the Tahsildar of Neyyattinkara Taluk passed a prohibitory order Ext. P3. restraining the President and Secretary of the Kovalam Muslim Jamaath from proceeding with the construction of the mosque in Survey Nos. 388/4. 388/9 and 488/1 of Kottukal village in the Kovalam area. Thereafter. by Ext. P4 proceedings of the Government of Kerala dated 26-12-1983. permission was granted for the construction of a mosque on three conditions that the height of the building shall not exceed 15 ft. there will be no broadcasting of prayers by use of loud speakers and no burial ground will be permitted to be established anywhere rear the mosque. Ext. P5 dated 28-12-1983 is a direction by the District Collector to the Tahsildar requiring him to obtain written undertaking from the mosque authorities embodying the conditions mentioned in Ext. P4 and further directing the withdrawal of the prohibitory order Ext. P3. 4. The fourth respondent. namely. Ext. P5 dated 28-12-1983 is a direction by the District Collector to the Tahsildar requiring him to obtain written undertaking from the mosque authorities embodying the conditions mentioned in Ext. P4 and further directing the withdrawal of the prohibitory order Ext. P3. 4. The fourth respondent. namely. the Kovalam Muslim Jamaath Mosque Reconstruction Committee in its counter affidavit states that there was an ancient mosque in the area which happened to be washed away due to sea erosion and the Muslims in the locality as early as in 1120 M.E. had submitted a petition to the then Government for permission to construct a mosque at the cost of the Government. Muslims in the locality being too poor to undertake the construction. were having their prayers in a thatched shed until a committee was formed for the reconstruction of the mosque and this writ petition is filed at a time when the reconstruction of the mosque is almost completed. The Government in its counter affidavit has stated that the prohibitory order Ext. P3 was passed at a time when the mosque was being constructed in about 15 cents of land belonging to the Government and included in the ITDC complex area. Since the matter involved religious sentiments of a section of the community. there were proposals for the acquisition of an alternate site for the mosque. But before the acquisition could be completed. the mosque committee had put up the super structure of the mosque which necessitated the passing of the prohibitory order Ext. P3. There were representations to the Government seeking permission for the completion of the construction to facilitate the Muslims in the locality to have a common place of prayer. The matter was considered at the Governmental level and the Government by Ext. P4 proceedings granted permission for the constitution of a mosque subject to the conditions mentioned above. The learned Government Pleader has placed the files relating to the case for my perusal. The files disclose that the question of granting permission for the construction of a mosque in 15 cents of land at Kovalam Beach was discussed at the cabinet level before permission was granted. The files also disclose that there were further deliberations and discussions even after the order Ext. P4 at a meeting held on 1-3-1984 where the Chief Minister. the Deputy Chief Minister. the Chief Secretary. Secretary. Local Administration. The files also disclose that there were further deliberations and discussions even after the order Ext. P4 at a meeting held on 1-3-1984 where the Chief Minister. the Deputy Chief Minister. the Chief Secretary. Secretary. Local Administration. the General Manager of ITDC and other top officials were present. The mosque committee had executed an agreement in terms of Ext. P4 and what is granted is only a permission by way of a licence for the construction of a prayer hall for the Muslims in the locality. The prayer hall is located within the area of the tourism complex in the possession of ITDC. The ITDC has no complaint against the grant of permission and it has acquiesced and accepted Ext. P4. As earlier stated. the General Manager of the ITDC was a party to the deliberations at the meeting held at Governmental level on 1-3-1984. 5. If there is any breach of conditions of the licence. it is open to the Government to resume the land. The licence itself in this case is granted after the construction itself was almost over and it may be open to the Government. if found necessary. to terminate the licence and resume the land. Whether a licence of this nature should be granted or not in the circumstances of the case is a matter for the Government to decide. The decision in such cases is not a judicial or quasi-judicial determination. It is only an administrative action of the Government. taking into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case there is no dispute that there was an ancient mosque which gat submerged under the sea due to sea erosion. the Muslims in the locality are mostly poor and they were having their prayers in a thatched shed constructed for that purpose. It is in the place of the thatched shed a mosque for the purpose of prayer only has been put up. The total area occupied by the mosque and its lite is only 15 cents. The administrative decision taken at the highest level of the Government is not a matter for interference by this court in proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution. Lord Diplock in C.C.S.U. v. Minister for Civil Services. The total area occupied by the mosque and its lite is only 15 cents. The administrative decision taken at the highest level of the Government is not a matter for interference by this court in proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution. Lord Diplock in C.C.S.U. v. Minister for Civil Services. (1984) 3 W. L. R.1174 stated at page 1197: "...The reasons for the decision-maker taking one course rather than another do not normally involve questions to which. If disputed. the judicial process is adapted to provide the right answer. by which I mean that the kind of evidence that is admissible under judicial procedures and the way in which it has to be adduced tend to exclude from the attention of the court competing policy considerations which. if the executive discretion is to be wisely exercised. need to be weighed against one another a balancing exercise which judges by their upbringing and experience are illqualified to perform...". The Supreme Court in Shri. Sachidanand Pandey and another v. State of West Bengal and others (A.I. R.1987 SC 1109) considering the validity of the grant of a plot of land carved out of the zoological gardens in Alipore in Calcutta to the Taj group of hotels stated at page 1127: "The proposition that a decision must be arrived at after taking into account all relevant considerations. eschewing all irrelevant considerations cannot for a moment be doubted. We have already pointed out that relevant considerations were not ignored and. Indeed. were taken Into account by the Government of West Bengal. It is not one of these cases where the evidence 1s first gathered and a decision is later arrived at one fine morning and the decision is incorporated in a reasoned order. This is a case where discussions have necessarily to stretch over a long period of time. Several factors have to be independently and separately weighed and considered. This is a case where the decision and the reasons for the decision can only be gathered by looking at the entire course of events and circumstances stretching over the period from the initiation of the proposal to the taking of the final decision. It is Important to note that unlike Mohinder Singh Gill's case where the Court was dealing with a Statutory Order made by a statutory functionary who could not. therefore. It is Important to note that unlike Mohinder Singh Gill's case where the Court was dealing with a Statutory Order made by a statutory functionary who could not. therefore. be allowed to supplement the grounds of his order by later explanations. the present is a case where neither a statutory function nor a statutory functionary is involved but the transaction bears a commercial though public character which can only be settled after protracted discussion. clarification and consultation with all interested persons." On these grounds. the grant of land to the Taj group of hotels was upheld. 6. It is after considering the relevant facts such as the existence of an ancient mosque. its submersion due to sea erosion and the need for a prayer hall for the local Muslims in the place of a thatched shed that the Government had at its highest level decided to grant a licence for a prayer hall on a plot of land 15 cents in extent subject to the restrictions and conditions imposed in Ext. P4. It is also brought to my notice that a temporary injunction prayed for in this O.P. was not granted and the so-called mosque has started functioning as a prayer hall from 1984 onwards. Considering all these circumstances. I am of the view that no case is made out for relief under Art.226 of the Constitution. The Original Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Dismissed.