Kerala High Court
V.Sudharsanan vs The Malabar Devaswom Board on 5 April, 1944
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/30TH JYAISHTA 1934
WP(C).No. 6328 of 2012 (M)
--------------------------
PETITIONER :
--------------------
V.SUDHARSANAN,
S/O V. GOVINDAN KUTTY NAIR, PULIANKULANGARA VEEDU
PALAKKAD 678531
BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN C. MENON
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------------------
1. THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD,
KOZHIKODE - 673 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE-673 001
3. SRI. CHENTHAMARAKSHAN,
SWATHI. PERUVAMBU, PALAKKAD 678531
4. SRI. P.V. RADHAKRISHNAN,
EAST GRAMAM, PERUVAMBU, PALAKKAD 678531
5. SRI. P.V. THANKAPPAN,
VALLINAD HOUSE, PERUVAMBU, PALAKKAD 678531
R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYANAN, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-06-2012,
ALONG WITH WP(C). 7857/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
Mn
...2/-
WP(C).No. 6328 of 2012 (M)
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :
EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONER FOR
HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS, MADRAS IN O.A 52 OF 1943 UNDER
THE MADRAS HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS ACT 1926 (MADRAS ACT
11 /1947) DATED 5-4-1944
EXT. P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22-2-2012
EXT. P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF CANDIDATES IN THE KIZHAKKETHARA
WARD OF PERUVAMBU GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 24-09-2005
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
Mn
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan
&
K.Vinod Chandran, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C)Nos.6328 of 2012-M & 7857 of 2012-F = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 20th day of June, 2012.
Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
1.The first among the captioned matters is by a devotee and the other by the hereditary trustees of the temple in relation to which, these writ petitions are filed. Under challenge is the selection and appointment of the private respondents as non-hereditary trustees. Though the petitioners argued that the hereditary trustees were entitled to notice and hearing of the proposal to appoint non-hereditary trustees, that plea would not stand because, this is not a case where non-hereditary trustees are being appointed for the first time. Therefore, the situation does not fall under sub-section 2 of section 39 where the Commissioner has to consider WPC6328 & 7857./12 -: 2 :- the necessity to appoint a non-hereditary trustee on grounds referable to the affairs of the temple. This is only a case where selection could have been for the vacancies that have arisen among the non- hereditary trustees. That falls under sub-section 5 of section 39 of the Act. There is a clear distinction from the specific terms of the above two sub-sections. While sub-section 2 makes it obligatory to issue a notice of hearing to the hereditary trustees, all that sub-section 5 requires is to record reasons. We may straightaway see that the event of the Commissioner taking a decision to appoint and fill up the vacancies of the non-hereditary trustees, in the case in hand, was some time in 2010. Ultimately, the selection and appointment happened in 2012. The decision of 2010 is not called for in question by the petitioners when the notifications inviting applications for appointment as non-hereditary trustees were issued in 2010.
2.With this, the next plea that is taken is that the persons selected and appointed are in excess of the WPC6328 & 7857./12 -: 3 :- available number of vacancies. Only three persons can be appointed as non-hereditary trustees. The appointment is of four persons. It is submitted on behalf of the MDB that the appointment will be trimmed down to be only to three persons. We would not record as to which among the four now selected would be appointed. That is left to the wisdom of the MDB.
3.The surviving question is the plea of the petitioners that the persons selected are disqualified from being non-hereditary trustees on account of their alleged political allegiance and the fact that they are active political workers. That question is essentially a question of fact. That has to be decided if any such objection is raised. Such decision making has to be done by the appointing authority. Therefore, if any among the petitioners has any objection or complaint in that regard, he may place it before the MDB within one month from now and if any such objection or complaint is received, the competent authority will issue notice to the non-hereditary trustee WPC6328 & 7857./12 -: 4 :- concerned and give him an opportunity of being heard and take a decision on that issue, in accordance with law. These writ petitions are ordered accordingly paving way for the appointment of three persons from out of the selected list, in accordance with law.
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge.
K.Vinod Chandran, Judge.
Sha/210612