Edgar Caridad Pinto v. The Competent Authority Kerala Circle Office of the Competent Authority, Sree Padam Palace, Fort Thiruvananthapuram; The Superintending Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of India, Thrissur Circle; Conservation Assistant Archaeological Survey of India, Kochi Sub-Circle; The Oil Merchants Association; Kochi Municipal Corporation

## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1945 ``` ## `WP(C) NO. 5125 OF 2024` ## `PETITIONER/S:` ``` EDGAR CARIDAD PINTO, AGED 57 YEARS S/O. GABRIAL FELIX CARIDAD PINTO, RESIDING AT 1/815,NIRVANA, NEAR PARADE GROUND, FORT KOCHI, FORT KOCHI VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682001 BY ADVS. K.L.JOSEPH P.SAREENA GEORGE JOBY KURIAKOSE T.J ``` ## `RESPONDENT/S:` - `1 THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY KERALA CIRCLE OFFICE OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY, SREE PADAM PALACE, FORT THIRUVANATHAPURAM. *CORRECTED AS PER ORDER DATED 13.02.2024 IN I.A.1/2024 IN WP(C) 5125/2024 THE ADDRESS OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN WP(C) 5125/2024 IS AMENDED AS OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF ARCHAEOLOGY, KERALA CIRCLE OFFICE OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY, SREE PADAM PALACE, FORT THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN-695023., PIN - 695023` - `2 THE SUPERINTENDING ARCHCOLOGIST ASI, THRISSUR CIRCLE, PURATATTVA BHAVAN, FF 19 (A), KSHB FLATS, PULLAZHY, THRISSUR., PIN - 680012` - `3 CONSERVATION ASSISTANT ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA, KOCHI SUB- CIRELE, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682002` - `4 THE OIL MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION THE OIL MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, THALATH MOHAMMED, VI/198, V/690, JEW TOWN MATTANCHERY ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682002` - `5 KOCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682011 BY ADVS. SUVIN R MENON` ``` WP(C) NO. 5125 OF 2024 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## `BIJU ABRAHAM` ``` K. JANARDHANA SHENOY ``` ## `OTHER PRESENT:` ``` SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE-GP; SRI SUVIN R MENON-R2 &R3; SMT DINI LILLY-R4; SRI K JANARDHANA SHENOY-SC ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 5125 OF 2024 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## `JUDGMENT` ``` The petitioner has approached this Court, impugning Ext.P3 permission granted by the 1[st] respondent, for restoration of tthe building in question, which, he says, is situated in a “Regulated Zone”, under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2010 (the 'Act' for short). He says that, as per Ext.P3, the roof of the existing building has been permitted to ``` ``` be retrofitted by aluminum sheets and “metal ``` ``` truss work” and this is in blatant violation of the provisions of the 'Act'. He thus prays that Ext.P3 be set aside. ``` ``` 2. Sri.K.L.Joseph – learned counsel for the ``` ``` petitioner, submitted that the building in question is not merely a monument, but one that ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 5125 OF 2024 ``` ``` 4 ``` ``` echoes the culture and tradition of the Jewish Community; and added that, when it is defaced, by allowing its roof to be removed and replaced by aluminium sheets, it is not merely in violation of the statutory prescriptions, but also the declarations of this Court in Director ``` ``` General, Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi and Others v. Moideenkutty Haji and Another [2014 (1) KHC 405]. He explained that, ``` ``` his client has been constrained to challenge Ext.P3 because, even though there is no mention therein that the traditional tiles on the roof ``` ``` of the building can be replaced by aluminium ``` ``` sheets, this is exactly what is being done by ``` ``` the 4[th] respondent, who has been entrusted with ``` ``` the work of restoring it. He thus prayed that ``` ``` Ext.P3, to such extent, is be set aside. ``` ``` 3.Pertinently, in response to the afore submissions of the petitioner, the learned ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 5125 OF 2024 ``` ``` 5 ``` ``` Government Pleader – Smt.Vidya Kuriakose, submitted that even a close reading of Ext.P3 would render it perspicuous that the 1[st] respondent has only allowed the existing building to be repaired. She added that “repair” means retaining the building in the same fashion ``` ``` as it was earlier, without altering its integrity in any manner; and therefore, that the ``` ``` apprehensions of the petitioner are completely unfounded. She argued that, for such reason, a challenge to Ext.P3 is unnecessary, particularly because, it is without doubt that, if the ``` ``` building is not immediately repaired, it would even collapse, which would be even against the ``` ``` interests of the petitioner, projected in this Writ Petition. She concluded, saying that Ext.P3 has, in fact, been issued under Section 20C of the ‘Act’ and that any deviation from its terms will be viewed seriously and all necessary ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 5125 OF 2024 ``` ``` 6 ``` ``` action taken. ``` ``` 4.Smt.K.J.Dini Lilly – learned counsel ``` ``` for the 4[th] respondent, in response, submitted that the challenge to Ext.P3 by the petitioner is confutative and counter productive because, withoutnecessaryrepairsbeingdone ``` ``` immediately, the building will certainly face deracination. She argued that, when the intent of her client is only to protect the building, ``` ``` by replacing its roofs in terms of the sanction ``` ``` given in Ext.P3, without use of aluminum sheets, ``` ``` as alleged; the attempt of the petitioner to challenge such, can only be seen to be ``` ``` questionable in nature. She, therefore, prayed ``` ``` that this Writ Petition be dismissed. ``` ``` 5.Sri.Suvin R.Menon – learned Central ``` ``` Government Counsel, appearing for respondents 2 and 3, submitted that the controversy projected ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 5125 OF 2024 ``` **==> picture [11 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** ``` in this case is between the petitioner and the ``` ``` 1[st] respondent because, it is the latter’s order ``` ``` which has been impugned. He submitted that, ``` ``` therefore, he does not have any comment to make ``` ``` on it, at this stage. ``` ``` 6.I have evaluated and considered the ``` ``` afore rival submissions, on the touchstone of the various materials on record. ``` ``` 7.Interestingly, it is common case for all ``` ``` sides that the building requires to be urgently protected. ``` ``` 8.The only question is how it has to be ``` ``` done. ``` ``` 9.In Ext.P3, the 1[st]respondent has ``` ``` permitted the repair of the building; however, ``` ``` without allowing any additional constructions, or increase of its roof height; and this obviously, means that its roof should be ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 5125 OF 2024 ``` ``` 8 ``` ``` retrofitted and restored to its original status. ``` ``` The petitioner impels a contention that this is ``` ``` being done using aluminum sheets, and Ext.P4 series photographs indicate, there may be something in what he is now saying. ``` ``` 10.Indubitably, if the restoration of the ``` ``` roof is not as per its original status, but by using other material, then it is for the 1[st] ``` ``` respondent to look into it and issue appropriate ``` ``` orders; but, for which, I do not think that ``` ``` Ext.P3 requires be set aside because, if I do ``` ``` so, then the building could not be able to be repaired and it may even collapse. ``` ``` In the afore circumstances, I record the ``` ``` submissions of the learned Government Pleader, that the restoration of the roof of the building using Aluminum sheets and “truss work” has not been authorised in Ext.P3 order; and thus allow ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 5125 OF 2024 ``` ``` 9 ``` ``` this Writ Petition to the limited extent of directing the 1[st] respondent to depute necessary number of officers to inspect the building in question and ensure that its repairs are being done strictly in terms of Ext.P3 and only in the manner as allowed therein. Any deviation therefrom will be taken note of and necessary reparatory orders and measures issued and undertaken, without any avoidable delay. ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ``` DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN ``` ``` JUDGE ``` ``` SAS ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 5125 OF 2024 ``` ``` 10 ``` ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5125/2024` |`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`|| |---|---| |`Exhibit P 1`|`TRUE COPY OF THE IAND TAX RECEIPT IN RESPECT`| ||`OF THE LAND OF THE PETITIONER, DATED`| ||`16/06/2023 BEARING NO. KL07011202703/2023`| ||`ISSUED FROM VILLAGE OFFICE, MATTANCHERY`| |`Exhibit P 2`|`TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DATED`| ||`27/12/2023 BEARING NO. 6016911060975 ISSUED`| ||`R.OM CORPORATION OF KOCHI IN RESPECT OF THE`| ||`BUILDING OF THE PETITIONER`| |`Exhibit P 3`|`TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVED PERMISSION WITH PLAN`| ||`BEARING NO. 464/23/CA/AMASR DATED 07/12/2023`| ||`ISSUED BY THE LST RESPONDENT, TO THE 4TH`| ||`RESPONDENT`| |`Exhibit P 4`|`THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE VIOLATION OF`| ||`EXHIBIT P3 PEMISSION`| |`Exhibit P 4 a`|`THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE VIOLATION OF`| ||`EXHIBIT P3 PEMISSION`| |`Exhibit P 4 b`|`THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE VIOLATION OF`| ||`EXHIBIT P3 PEMISSION`| |`Exhibit P 4 c`|`THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE VIOLATION OF`| ||`EXHIBIT P3 PEMISSION`| |`Exhibit P 4 d`|`THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE VIOLATION OF`| ||`EXHIBIT P3 PEMISSION`| |`Exhibit P 5`|`TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 28/01/2024`| ||`ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE LST`| ||`RESPONDENT, THROUGH ELECTRONIC MAIL`| |`Exhibit P 6`|`THE NEWS PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMMA DAILY`| ||`DATED 30/01/2024 CONTAINING THE UNDERSTANDING`| ||`BETWEEN THE PARTIES`| |`Exhibit P 7`|`TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 29/01/2024`| ||`ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE ASSISTANT`| ||`EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CORPORATION OF KOCHI`| |`Exhibit P 8`|`THE RECEIPT FOR THE COMPLAINT, DATED`| ||`29/01/2024 ISSUED FROM THE CORPORATION OF`| ||`KOCHI`| |`Exhibit P 9`|`TRUECOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30/01/2024`| ||`BEARING NO. 32/24/CA/AMASR ISSUED FROM THE LST`| ||`RESPONDENT, TO THE PETITIONER,`|