Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Kunhappan vs The Assistant Commissioner

Author: C.T.Ravikumar

Bench: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, C.T.Ravikumar

       

  

  

 
 
                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                             PRESENT:

               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
                                                   &
                         THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

                WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2012/1ST CHAITHRA 1934

                                    WP(C).No. 5390 of 2012 (W)
                                        --------------------------

PETITIONER:
-----------------

             KUNHAPPAN,, AGED 72 YEARS
             S/O.CHENNAPPAN, PATTEKATTIL HOUSE
             VETTOM.P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

             BY ADVS.SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT
                         SRI.K.N.ABHILASH
                         SMT.R.LEELA

RESPONDENTS:
-----------------------

          1.         THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
                     MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
                     CIVIL STATION, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
                     PIN-676101

          2.         THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                     SRI VEMANNA DEVASWOM
                     VETTOM.P.O, TIRUR
                     MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-676102

          3.         THE SECRETARY
                     TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                     SRI ULLARA VEEDU BHAGAVATHI TEMPLE
                     VEMANNA DEVASWOM, VETTOM.P.O, TIRUR
                     MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676102.

             R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYANAN, SC, MDB
             R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN


            THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-03-2012,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


STK

WP(C).No. 5390 of 2012

                                  APPENDIX




PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:


P1:   TRUE COPY OF THE OP NO.38360/2002 WITHOUT THE EXHIBITS.

P2:   TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SAID INTERIM ORDER IN WP(C)11317/2004.

P3:   THE REPLY DATED 14/09/2004 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE ASST.
      COMMISSIONER HR & CE.

P4:   TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF THE FESTIVAL NOTICE OF VETTAM-
      VEMANNA SRI.ULLARUVEEDU BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE.

P5:   TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28/01/2012 PREFERRED BY THE
      PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.


RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL


                                                       //TRUE COPY//


                                                       P A TO JUDGE


STK



             THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN &
                       C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
                ----------------------------------------
                      W.P.(C)No.5390 of 2012
                ----------------------------------------
               Dated this the 21st day of March, 2012

                             JUDGMENT

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

The complaint of the petitioner is that in spite of Ext.P2 no Devaprasnam was conducted and at this distance of time collection of funds are being made under the cover of Devaprasnam.

2. On instructions, in writing, the learned counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board states that on 7.4.2004 a Devaprasnam was conducted in terms of what was submitted before this Court on 6.4.2004 and recorded in Ext.P1. He also has placed before us a communication faxed down on 17.3.2012 from the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, Malappuram. We see that the instructions given by the Assistant Commissioner makes reference to a prasnacharthu which is available with the Devaswom. It is in the form of a book and different aspects following the Devaprasnam are recored therein. It also discloses that the Devaprasnam was carried out by persons who had been named in that prasnacharthu, including with their phone numbers. Kaimukku Vaidikan WP(C).No.5390/2012 2 Raman Bhattathirippad, A.K.Madhava Panicker are two of the names available in that prasnacharthu. With all these details, we see Ext.P5 issued by the petitioner to the Assistant Commissioner in which he also says that a Devaprasnam was held. His complaint was that it was done in a land belonging to a private individual. He says that the said Devaprasnam was conducted in violation of an order of stay granted by the High Court. Therefore, he obviously admits the fact that a Devaprasnam was conducted. He did not make any complaint about any such action after 7.4.2004 till he filed this writ petition or made Ext.P5 representation on 28.1.2012. The materials on record with the petitioner itself shows that this Court had not granted any order of stay against the Devaprasnam but had directed the Devaprasnam to be held on 7.4.2004 following the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader.

3. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no ground to issue any directions in this writ petition as sought for. The original petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.

The learned counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board will provide a readable photostat copy of the fax message under his WP(C).No.5390/2012 3 attestation to the Court Officer, who will receive it and incorporate as part of the case file.

Sd/-

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN Judge Sd/-

C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS/21.3.2012