Kerala High Court
V.K.Krishnan Namboodiri vs The Government Of Kerala on 4 February, 2021
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 15TH MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.31479 OF 2018(H)
PETITIONER:
V.K.KRISHNAN NAMBOODIRI
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O V.K. RAMAN NAMBOODIRI, KEEZHSANTHI, SREE
THIRUMADHAKUNNU BHAGAVATHI TEMPLE, ANGADIPPURAM,
RESIDING AT KARIPPATH SREENILAYAM, VALAMBUR P.O.,
PATTIKKAD(VIA), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN CODE -679 325
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI
SRI.S.M.PRASANTH
SRI.G.RENJITH
SMT.R.S.ASWINI SANKAR
SRI.T.H.ARAVIND
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE(DEVASWAM), GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001
2 THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD,
KOZHIKODE 673 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
3 THE COMMISSIONER
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE 673 001.
4 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD,
KOZHIKODE 673 001.
5 THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
THIRUMANDHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHI DEVASWOM,
ANGADIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 679 321.
6 THE HEREDITARY TRUSTEE,
THIRUMANDHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHI DEVASWOM,
ANGADIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 679 321.
WP(C).No.31479 OF 2018 2
7 SRI. PRAVEEN NAMBOODIRI,
MELSANTHI, SREE MOLLASTHANAM, THIRUMANDHAMKUNNU
BHAGAVATHI DEVASWOM, ANGADIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN 679 321.
R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER
R2-4 BY ADV. SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN, SC, MALABAR
DEVASWOM BOARD
R5 BY ADV. MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN
R7 BY ADV. SRI.K.PRAMOD
SRI. SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE - GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.31479 OF 2018 3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is stated to be working as a 'Keezhsanthi' at "Sree Thirumadhamkunnu Bhagavathy Temple", Angadippuram, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Temple' for short) and he stakes a claim to be promoted as the "Melsanthi". The petitioner's specific case is that the post of "Melsanthi" of the Temple is a non-hereditary one and therefore, that eligible "Santhis" are to be considered for promotion to the said post.
2. Shri.K.Ramkumar, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Shri.Ramparasad Unni T., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, added to the above contentions by saying that absolutely no record are available to even indicate that the post of "Melsanthi" of the Temple is a hereditary one and therefore, that the action of the respondents in having appointed the 7th respondent - Shri.Praveen Namboodiri, to WP(C).No.31479 OF 2018 4 the said post, merely because his father had been the earlier "Melsanthi" cannot be found correct in law and he asserted that this is more so because, the Thanthri of the temple - who is the highest Authority with respect to all religious rites therein - has limpidly opined that the post of "Melsanthi" is not a hereditary one, but ought to be filled up by persons who are eligible, reckoning it to be non- hereditary.
3. The learned Senior Counsel says that, however, in spite of all these, the Commissioner of the Malabar Devaswom Board has issued Ext.P6 order finding that the post is a hereditary one, solely because, it has been so incorrectly recorded in the earlier Schedules of Establishment. He then submitted that this was followed by Ext.P10 order of the Government, approving it, wherein - again, all that has been noticed is the earlier Schedules of Establishment; WP(C).No.31479 OF 2018 5 and that it is obvious from both these orders, that no other documents in substantiation had been evaluated by either of the said Authorities. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore, prayed that Exts.P6 and P10 be set aside and that his client be directed to be considered for promotion as the "Melsanthi" of the Temple.
4. In response, Shri.R.Lakshminarayan, learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board, submitted that Ext.P6 has been validly issued by the Commissioner of the Board since he is the competent Authority as per the provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). He submitted that it is indubitable from Ext.P6 that the Commissioner had gone through all the relevant documents, including the 'Dittam of the Devaswom' and the Schedules of Establishment since the year 1988, as also WP(C).No.31479 OF 2018 6 all other imperative inputs.
5. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that as per the Schedules of Establishment, which have been approved as per Rule 10 under Section 100 (2)(y)of the Act the post of "Sree Moolasthanam" of the Temple is a hereditary one and that the right of "Sree Moolasthanam Melsanthi" is vested with the "Cherukunnath Manakkal Tharawad". He added that these Schedules of Establishment have never been challenged by the petitioner at any point of time and that he had not produced any evidence to prove that the post of "Melsanthi" of the Temple is non-hereditary. He concluded his submissions by saying that since the Commissioner has found that the post is hereditary, only a member of the "Cherukunnath Manakkal Tharawad" can be appointed as the "Melsanthi" and therefore, that the petitioner cannot stake claim for being promoted, as has been prayed for in WP(C).No.31479 OF 2018 7 this writ petition. He, thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.
6.Shri.Mahesh V.Ramakrishnan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent - Executive Officer of the Temple, submitted that the petitioner's allegations are more speculative than factual, since it has always been unequivocally accepted, through the documents available with respect to the Temple, that the position of its "Melsanthi" is hereditary. He submitted that this is luculent from the opinion of the earlier Trustee of the Temple, which is reflected in Ext.R5(e), that said position is hereditary and never has been in the past construed as being non-hereditary. He submitted that in spite of this, the petitioner is now attempting to unsettle the Schedules of Establishment in an indirect manner, though he has never tried to do so directly and that this is WP(C).No.31479 OF 2018 8 indubitable from the fact the he has never invoked the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 57 of the Act, if he had any objection to the approved Schedules of Establishment.
7. I notice that a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 7th respondent, wherein, the afore submissions made on behalf of the Board and the Executive Trustee has been adopted; and it has been asserted that the "Melsanthi" of the Temple has ever from the "Cherukunnath Manakkal Tharawad". The 7th respondent asserts that his father was the "Melsanthi" earlier and that after his death, it was handed over to his brother and therefore, that he is now entitled to be appointed to the said post, it being hereditary in nature.
8. I have considered the afore submissions and have also gone through the WP(C).No.31479 OF 2018 9 materials available on record very carefully.
9. The documentary inputs available in this case reveal that the Schedules of Establishment with respect to the Temple, ever since the years 1988, have reckoned the post of "Melsanthi" to be hereditary in nature and the Commissioner of the Devaswom
- who is admittedly the competent Authority to decide this finally under the Act - records in Ext.P6 that this is so, even going by the "Dittam" of the Devaswom. The Commissioner has also found that all the Schedules of Establishment have been approved under the provisions of Rule 10 to Section 100(2)(y) of the Act and that this has never been challenged by the petitioner or anyone else until now. The fact that the petitioner has not assailed the schedules is virtually conceded, since even his learned Senior Counsel, Shri.K.Ramkumar, does not have a case that WP(C).No.31479 OF 2018 10 there was any challenge mounted to such orders at any point of time earlier.
10. That said, however, the contra view of the "Thanthri" of the temple compels me to order this writ petition, as I will presently state, since his opinion, as is available from Ext.P5, is that the post of "Melsanthi" of the Temple is not hereditary but non-hereditary. The position of a Thanthri in a Temple cannot be attenuated in any fashion, he being the highest Authority with respect to its spiritual rites and customs, and I am therefore, certain that his opinion also ought to have been considered by the Commissioner before he could have arrived at a decision, as has been recorded in Ext.P6.
11. I hasten to add, I am not saying that what has been found in Ext.P6 is wrong, but only that the views of the WP(C).No.31479 OF 2018 11 Thanthri also should have been adverted to, before a conclusive decision could have been taken, even though the Schedules of Establishment may have recorded that the post is hereditary in nature.
12. In the afore circumstances, I am of the firm view that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Commissioner - who is admittedly the competent Authority - however, after deliberation with the Thanthri of the Temple, as well the Hereditary Trustee.
In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and set aside Exts.P6 and P10 and direct the Commissioner of the Malabar Devaswom Board to reconsider the claim of the petitioner, after obtaining the opinion of the Thanthri of the Temple, as well as its Hereditary Trustees, thus leading to a fresh order thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later WP(C).No.31479 OF 2018 12 than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
I make it clear that while the afore exercise is completed, the Commissioner will advert to every document available with respect to the post in question and shall record the opinion of the Thanthri and that of the Trustees appropriately in the order to be issued in terms of these directions.
Needless to say, until the afore exercise is completed the status quo with respect to the post of a "Melsanthi" in the Temple, as on date, will be maintained by all parties and it will, thereafter, adhere to the order to be issued by the Commissioner.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/6.2.2021 WP(C).No.31479 OF 2018 13 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 20-10-2014 BY THE THANDIRI OF THE SREE THIRUMADHAMKUNNU DEVASWOM TO THE TRUSTEE EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT. 09-10-2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE SREE THIRUMADHAMKUNNU DEVASWOM EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DT 10-11-2017 IN W.P(C) NO. 36105 OF 2017 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT 20-11-2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. TBD 134/2007 DT. 28- 10-2007 BY THE TRUSTEE OF THE SREE THIRUMADHAMKUNNU DEVASWOM EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. J2-6485/2017/MDB DT.
20-01-2018 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF REVISION PETITION DT. 01-03- 2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R1 EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DT. 26-03-2018 IN W.P(C) NO. 6136 OF 2018 EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF ARGUMENT NOTE DT. 17-07-2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R1 EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. (MS) NO.
3246/2018/RD DT. 17-08-2018 ISSUED BY R1 RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R7A TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEDULE OF ESTABLISHMENT DATED 29/09/1995 OF THE TEMPLE.
EXHIBIT R7B TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEDULE OF ESTABLISHMENT DATED 01/08/1998 OF THE TEMPLE.
EXHIBIT R7C TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEDULE OF ESTABLISHMENT DATED 01/07/2014 OF THE TEMPLE.
EXHIBIT R7D TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT DATED 25/11/2014 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.WP(C).No.31479 OF 2018 14
EXHIBIT R7E TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11/12/2017 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R7F TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPROVAL DATED 08/11/2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R7G TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT DEED DATED 04/12/2017 SINGED BY THE MEMBERS OF CHERUKUNNATH MANA.
EXHIBIT R7H TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 17/07/2011 ISSUED BY THE THANTHRI OF THE TEMPLE.
EXHIBIT R5A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11/08/1976 ISSUED BY C.M.PARAMESWARAN NAMBOOTHIRI (GRAND FATHER OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT) HEREIN.
EXHIBIT R5B TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEDULE OF ESTABLISHMENT DATED 01/01/1995 OF THE TEMPLE.
EXHIBIT R5C TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEDULE OF ESTABLISHMENT DATED 01/08/1998 OF THE TEMPLE.
EXHIBIT R5D TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEDULE OF ESTABLISHMENT OF THE TEMPLE.
EXHIBIT R5E TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT DATED 25/11/2014 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R5F TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11/12/2017 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R5G TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPROVAL DATED 08/11/2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R5H TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT DEED DATED 04/12/2017 SIGNED BY THE MEMBERS OF CHERUKUNNATH MANA.
EXHIBIT R5I TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 17/07/2011 ISSUED BY THE THANTHRI OF THE TEMPLE.