Kerala High Court
M. Narayanan Moosad vs The Malabar Devaswom Board
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939
WP(C).No. 30706 of 2017 (K)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
1. M. NARAYANAN MOOSAD
S/O.NARAYANAN MOOSAD,
'MAYARKARA ILLOM', RANDATHANI.P.O.,
KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM- 676 510.
2. P.SREENADH
S/O.P.SANKARANARAYANAN,
'PALOLLY HOUSE', THEKKE VAVANOOR.P.O.,
PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD- 679 533.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.M.PREM
SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN (PALAKKAD)
SRI.H.NARAYANAN
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY,
HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERANHIPALAM .P.O.,
KOZHIKODE- 673 006.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD OFFICE,
CIVIL STATION, TIRUR.P.O.,
MALAPPURAM-676 101.
3. A.DINESH KUMAR
EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
SREE DAKSHINAMOORTHY TEMPLE, SUKAPURAM,
SUKAPURAM.P.O., EDAPPAL,
MALAPPURAM- 679 576.
R1 & 2 BY ADV. SRI.MAHESH V.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-12-17,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 30706 of 2017 (K)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEME OF ADMINISTRATION SETTLED AS PER
PROCEEDINGS DATED 10.3.1937 UNDER SECTION 63 OF THE
MADRAS HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1926 (MADRAS
ACT II OF 1927).
EXHIBIT P1(A) TRUE READABLE COPY OF EXHIBIT P1
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MINITES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 8.9.2017
OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF NHANGATTUR BHAGAVATHY
DEVASWOM.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND PETITIONERS LETTER DATED 11.9.2017
FORWARDING EXHIBIT P2 MINUTES TO 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO. J5/4389/2015/MDB DATED
18.9.2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT GRANTING
ADDITIONAL CHARGE OF SREE NHANGATTUR BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE
TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.9.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE
1ST PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT(S) ANNEXURES :
-----------------------
ANNEXURE R1 (a) : TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 28.09.2017 OF THE
TRUSTEE BOARD.
ANNEXURE R1 (b) : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE
1ST PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE R1 (c) : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSITANT COMMISSIONER
DATED 25.03.2017
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON
&
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JJ.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P.(C) No. 30706 of 2017
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated, this the 4th day of December, 2017
JUDGMENT
Ramachandra Menon , J.
The correctness and sustainability of Ext. P4 order passed by the Devaswom, deciding to take over the administration of the Nhangattur Bhagavathy Temple and entrust the same with the 3rd respondent/Executive Officer, is under challenge in this Writ Petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned standing counsel appearing for the Board.
3. The first petitioner is the Hereditary Trustee; whereas the second petitioner is the Managing Trustee. It is stated that the second petitioner took charge on 11.09.2015 and his tenure expired on 10.09.2017. There was a proposal to have extended the tenure, but in the meanwhile, Ext. P4 came to be issued, which made the petitioners feel aggrieved.
4. When the matter came up for consideration on 26.09.2017 W.P.(C) No. 30706 of 2017 : 2 : we referred to the last sentence of Ext. P4, whereby the Board made it clear that, if the Hereditary Trustee was prepared to take over the duty/responsibility of the Managing Trustee, it was to be communicated in writing. It was accordingly that an interim order was passed on 26.09.2017; in the following terms :
"Challenge is against Ext. P4 order dated 18.09.2017 passed by the 1st respondent, whereby the administration of Nhangattur Bhagavathy Temple is decided to be taken over and entrusted with the 3rd respondent/Executive Officer.
2. The learned Standing Counsel for the Board submits that the tenure of the 2nd petitioner, who was appointed as per order dated 11.09.2015 for a period of two years, is over by 10.09.2017 and it is true that the 2nd petitioner has submitted an application for extension of tenure, till a new Trustee Board is constituted in accordance with law. It is also pointed out that out of the two hereditary trustees, only one person (the 1st petitioner) continues and it was with reference to his old age/ailments, as pointed out along with the application preferred by the 2nd petitioner, that the matter was considered referring to the observations made by the Commissioner as to the stalemate as on date, which in turn led to Ext. P4 order, W.P.(C) No. 30706 of 2017 : 3 : making alternate arrangements. At the same time, it is to be noted that as per the last sentence of Ext. P4, the 1st respondent/Commissioner had given an opportunity to the 1st petitioner, who is the existing hereditary trustee, to inform whether he was prepared to take over the duty/responsibility of the Managing Trustee, in writing. It was accordingly that such willingness/preparedness was expressed by the 1st petitioner as per Ext. P5, sent by registered post on 23.09.2017, also serving a copy on the same day, as borne out from the endorsement therein. As per the said communication [Ext. P5], the request of the 1st petitioner is only to enable him to complete the on- going steps, which are taken up by him in connection with the 'Navaratri festival'. In the said circumstance, the interception made by the 1st respondent as per Ext. P4 shall not be implemented in so far as the task undertaken by the 1st respondent till the 'Navaratri festival' is over.
List this matter for further consideration next week."
5. Pursuant to the above interim order, the 'Navarathri festival' was conducted quite peacefully and to the satisfaction of all concerned. The Devaswom Board has put forth its version in the W.P.(C) No. 30706 of 2017 : 4 : statement dated 06.10.2017, followed by the additional statement dated 10.10.2017 as well. With reference to the contents of the statements, the learned standing counsel for the Devaswom Board submits that the second petitioner does not have any 'locus standi' at all, in so far as his tenure is over. With regard to the claim put forth by the 1st petitioner, who was the Hereditary Trustee, it was pointed out that the interest of such Hereditary Trustee was only to have the 'Navarathri festival' conducted, as made clear in the interim order. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the first petitioner Hereditary Trustee has made it clear point blank, as per Annexure R1
(b), that he is no longer interested to take over the functioning of the Managing Trustee and as such, no further proceedings are necessary on Ext. P5 preferred by him in this regard.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a counter affidavit has been filed by the second petitioner who happens to be the second respondent in I.A. No.15923 of 2017. The learned counsel further submits that the averments and allegations levelled against the second petitioner in the Writ Petition are not correct and hence they have been denied in the counter affidavit. We do not find it necessary to go into such facts and figures, so long as the idea W.P.(C) No. 30706 of 2017 : 5 : and intention of the first petitioner Hereditary Trustee has been made clear as per Ext.R1 (b). Nothing remains to be considered further, with reference to grievance projected in Ext. P5. In the said circumstances, the Writ Petition stands closed accordingly.
sd/-
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE kmd /True copy/ P.A. to Judge