Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1444 (KER)

Mangaladevi Kannagi Trust v. State of Kerala

2025-05-26

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, P.V.BALAKRISHNAN

body2025
JUDGMENT : Anil K. Narendran, J. W.P.(C)No.14853 of 2014:- The 1 st petitioner, namely, Mangaladevi Kannagi Trust, represented by its Secretary, and the 2 nd petitioner, who is its Treasurer, have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 4 to chalk out a plan for restoration, preservation and conservation of the ancient monument in consultation with respondents 7 and 8 and carry out and complete the works within a time frame to be specified by this Court. 1.1. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioners are having the object of welfare and development of Mangaladevi Kannagi Temple and its maintenance and also the welfare of the devotees visiting the temple. The 4 th respondent Directorate of State Archaeology is engaged in the preservation of ancient and historical monuments and archaeological sites and remains of State importance, for the regulation of archaeological excavations and for the protection of sculptures, monuments, carvings and other like objects in the State of Kerala. Mangaladevi Kannagi Temple was taken over by the 4 th respondent on 09.08.1983 and considering the historic and archaeological value of the temple, it was declared as a protected monument. In the writ petition, it is alleged that in spite of several important archaeological pieces like inscriptions, sculptures and architectural patterns, which could lead to the identification and eventual discovery of the past history and civilization of the bygone eras, nothing has been done by respondents 1 to 4 till date to protect the said temple. Due to negligence on the part of respondents, the idol of Lord Ganesha in the temple was stolen and the Shivalingam was smashed by intruders. On the application submitted by the petitioners under the Right to Information Act, they have been informed that no amount has been expended by the Government of Kerala for any work undertaken by the State Archaeology Department for the conservation, preservation, restoration and maintenance of the monument. It is alleged that though repeated representations had been submitted by the petitioners for the preservation and conservation of the temple, no positive response has been received from respondents 1 to 4. 1.2. On 12.06.2014, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. It is alleged that though repeated representations had been submitted by the petitioners for the preservation and conservation of the temple, no positive response has been received from respondents 1 to 4. 1.2. On 12.06.2014, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. The learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 to 4 and the learned Standing Counsel took notice for the 8 th respondent. 1.3. On 05.04.2016, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Single Judge passed the following order; “In exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (3) of section 4 of Kerala Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act , 1968 (26 of 1969), the Government declared Mangaladevi Temple Idukki District as a protected monument. The petitioners have approached this Court pointing out dilapidated conditions of the temple and submits that unless immediate steps are taken to protect the monument, the temple would be collapsed. Considering the importance given by the State declaring it as a protected monument, certainly, the monument has to be protected by the State at any cost. 2. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that respondents 9 and 10 would not allow to carry out the maintenance of the monument, as the monument is surrounded by forest land. 3. It is to be noted that what is required is the protection of an existing monument. Therefore, the forest officials shall render all assistance to the 4 th respondent to carryout the maintenance of the monument. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the festival of the temple is scheduled to 24.04.2016. 4. In view of the above, the 4 th respondent shall carry out necessary maintenance work on or before 24.04.2016. The respondents 9 and 10 shall render all assistance to carry out such repairs.” 1.4. The 4 th respondent has filed a statement dated 23.06.2014. Respondents 7 and 8 have also filed a statement dated 17.11.2014. The additional 10 th respondent has filed a statement dated 11.03.2015, producing therewith Annexures R10(a) to R10(h) documents. A counter affidavit dated 01.03.2016 has been filed by the 4 th respondent producing therewith Exts.R4(a) and R4(b) documents. 2. The 4 th respondent has filed a statement dated 23.06.2014. Respondents 7 and 8 have also filed a statement dated 17.11.2014. The additional 10 th respondent has filed a statement dated 11.03.2015, producing therewith Annexures R10(a) to R10(h) documents. A counter affidavit dated 01.03.2016 has been filed by the 4 th respondent producing therewith Exts.R4(a) and R4(b) documents. 2. W.P.(C)No.19900 of 2019:- During the pendency of W.P.(C)No.14853 of 2014, the petitioners therein have filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 9 to implement Ext.P6 resolution taken in the meeting held on 28.05.2018 in the presence of the Chief Minister of Kerala, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. 2.1. 24.07.2019, when this writ petition came up for consideration before the Division Bench dealing with Devaswom matters, the following order was passed; “On going through Ext.P7, it is seen that during the course of the meeting which culminated in Ext.P7, the third respondent-Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, referred to an order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. However, the details of the said order is not mentioned anywhere in Ext.P7. In such circumstances, the learned Government Pleader shall get instructions with respect to the details regarding the order referred to in Ext.P7. List the matter for further consideration on 12.08.2019 along with W.P.(C)No.14853 of 2014.” 2.2. A statement dated 01.08.2019 has been filed by the 7 th respondent. The 3 rd respondent has filed a statement dated 03.08.2019 producing therewith Annexures R3(a) to R3(q) documents. The 3 rd respondent has also filed a counter affidavit dated 02.09.2019 producing therewith Exts.R3(a) to R3(r) documents. The learned Special Government Pleader (Forest) has filed an adoption memo dated 04.12.2019 for adopting the counter affidavit dated 02.09.2019 of the 3 rd respondent in favour of the 8 th respondent District Collector, Idukki. 3. On 13.08.2019, when W.P.(C)No.14853 of 2014 came up for consideration, this Court passed the following order; “This writ petition is listed before us pursuant to the order dated 24.07.2019 in W.P.(C)No.19900 of 2019 to list it along with the said writ petition. It is now submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that against the non compliance of the interim order dated 05.04.2016 a Contempt Petition was already moved as C.O.(C)No.2111 of 2016. It is now submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that against the non compliance of the interim order dated 05.04.2016 a Contempt Petition was already moved as C.O.(C)No.2111 of 2016. In such circumstances, it is made clear that pendency of W.P.(C)No.19900 of 2019 will not an impediment in pursuing with the said contempt petition.” 4. On 28.10.2022, when these writ petitions came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 1 st petitioner Trust had already filed a writ petition before the Apex Court on the very same issue, which is pending consideration. 5. By the order dated 07.12.2022, Registry was directed to list these matters immediately after the disposal of W.P.(C)No.144 of 2021. The said order reads thus; “Today, when this matter is taken up for consideration, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner Trust that the issue is now pending consideration before the Apex Court in W.P.(C)No.144 of 2021. Registry shall list these matters immediately after the disposal of W.P.(C)No.144 of 2021.” Registry has incorporated the order of the Apex Court dated 18.12.2024 in W.P.(C)No.144 of 2021 in both the writ petitions. 6. Today, when these writ petitions are taken for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in view of the stand taken by the State and the Forest Department in the proceedings before the Apex Court in W.P.(C)No.144 of 2021, an exhaustive amendment of the pleadings in these writ petitions are required. Therefore, the petitioners may be permitted to withdraw these writ petitions, without prejudice to their right to file a fresh writ petition with proper pleadings and reliefs, after taking note of the contentions raised by the State and Forest Department in the proceedings before the Apex Court. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Special Government Pleader (Forest) for the State and its officials and the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board, these writ petitions are dismissed as withdrawn, without prejudice to the aforesaid right of the petitioners.