Judgment :- Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. This review petition is filed by the Archaeological Department against our judgment dated 31.3.2010 permitting the petitioners in the writ petition to construct temporary shed to provide shelter to the devotees waiting in the queue for participating in the ANNADHANAM. Petitioners in the writ petition, representing the Kshethra Samrakshana Samithi, submitted that in the Thriprayar Sree Ramasway Temple ANNADHANAM that is supply of noon meal is a main ritual participated by a large number of people. These people have to wait for long time in the open air in queue to collect the ticket and then to enter the Oottupura where food is served. During noon time, there will be either rain or sunshine and the devotees suffer a lot on account of the long time exposure to sunlight and rain. Therefore, Kshethra Samrakshana Samithi, represented by petitioners, which is constituted by the devotees, proposed to construct a temporary roof by way of shed to protect the devotees from rain and sunlight. Taking into account the nature of construction, this Court permitted the same under the judgment. However, the Archaeological Department has filed this review petition stating that construction is not permissible under the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 as amended by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2010, hereinafter referred to as the “Act”. 2. We have heard counsel for the review petitioner and counsel for the respondents. Standing counsel appearing for the review petitioner referred to sub-section (4) introduced in Section 20A of the Act, which is as follows: “(4) No permission, referred to in sub-section (3), including carrying out any public work or project essential to the public or other constructions, shall be granted in any prohibited area on and after the date on which the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Amendment and Validation) Bill, 2010 receives the assent of the President.” 3. The contention of the review petitioner is that the above provision prohibits construction of any kind, which is to protect the ancient monuments and archaeological sites. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contended in the first place that construction made pursuant to our judgment is only a temporary one, which is a shed and is not covered by the definition of construction under Section 2 (dc) of the Act. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contended in the first place that construction made pursuant to our judgment is only a temporary one, which is a shed and is not covered by the definition of construction under Section 2 (dc) of the Act. Alternatively it is contended that construction of shelter to devotees standing in sum and rain would come within the exclusion clause of Section 2(dc) of the Act, which defines construction in the following lines: 4.2.(dc) “Construction” means any erection of a structure or a building, including any addition or extension thereto either vertically or horizontally, but does not include any reconstruction, repair and renovation of an existing structure or building, or, construction, maintenance and cleansing of drains and drainage works and of public latrines, urinals and similar conveniences, or, the construction and maintenance of works meant for providing supply of water for public, or, the construction or maintenance, extension, management for supply and distribution of electricity to the public or provision for similar facilities for public .” 5. After hearing both sides, we do not find any ground to review the judgment because, there is no controversy that the temple is one of the major temples in Thrissur District attracting a large number of devotees on a regular basis. What is protected by the Archaeological Department in the temple is the mural paintings on the walls of the Sreekovil, which is Sanctum Sanctorum located in the center of the temple compound. The Sanctum Sanctorum, the walls of which are covered by mural paintings is within the campus of chuttambalam which comprises of a continuous square building around the sanctum sanctorum leaving open the courtyard between the Sreekovil and the chuttambalam. In other words, even the Sreekovil building, the mural paintings on which are declared ancient monuments and protected by the department itself is insulated and protected by the chuttambalam. In fact, Oottupura where food is cooked and served is outside the chuttambalam though in the temple premises and therefore providing shelter for devotees waiting for entry to Oottupura will not in any way affect the monuments protected by the department. The only objection raised by the review petitioner is that certain distances are provided for the protected monuments within which construction is not permissible. The only objection raised by the review petitioner is that certain distances are provided for the protected monuments within which construction is not permissible. We are of the view that the construction for convenience to the devotees falls within the exemption clause of Section 2(dc) of the Act. The exemption clause itself visualizes that protected monuments may be buildings used by people whose convenience is referred to in Section 2(dc) of the Act. Since none of the provisions in the Act provide for closure of temples or stoppage of devotees’ entry, it necessarily follows that all facilities required for the devotees should be provided even in the protected monuments. Therefore, we do not find anything wrong in our judgment permitting construction of temporary shed for the devotees to protect them from heat and rain when they wait for participating in the ANNADHANAM. Review petition therefore lacks merit and the same is dismissed.