Kerala High Court
Sunil Kumar .S vs Travancore Devaswom Board on 16 February, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 KER 1323
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 27TH MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.30015 OF 2019(B)
PETITIONER:
SUNIL KUMAR .S.,
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O.SIVAN PILLAI, KARALATHU THARA, MOTTACKAL, THEVALAKKARA,
KOLLAM-690 524
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN
SMT.T.V.NEEMA
RESPONDENTS:
1 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NANTHANCODE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 003.
2 DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695 003.
3 DEPUTY DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DEVASWOM
COMMISSIONER, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645
4 ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,
TRAVAANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, KOTTARAKKARA GROUP, OFFICE OF THE
ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, KOTTARAKKARA-691 506
5 M.G.SANKARA NARAYAN POTTI,
MULLASERI MATOM, AIPPALLOOR, KIZHAKKETHERUVU. P.O,
KOTTARAKKARA PIN-691 531.
6 ABHINANTH SANKAR,
MULLASERI MATOM, AIPPALLOOR, KIZHAKKETHERUVU.P.O,
KOTTARAKKARA PIN-691 531.
*ADDL SECRETARY, TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE,
R7 VETTIKKAVALA DEVASWOM, KOTTARATHARA GROUP, VETTIKKAVAL P.O,
KOTTARAKKARA-691 506.
*(ADDL R7 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 24-01-2020 IN IA
2/2020.)
BY SRI.C.K.PAVITHRAN, SC, TDB
BY ADV. SRI.D.SOMASUNDARAM
BY ADV. D.AJITHKUMAR
BY ADV. SMT.HARSHA S. NAIR
BY ADV. SMT.T.MANASY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.02.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.30015 OF 2019(B)
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is stated to be a person included in a Rank List prepared by the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB for short), for appointment to the post of 'Santhi' to its various Temples. He says he has approached this Court through this writ petition being aggrieved because the post of 'Santhi' under "Vettikavala Devaswom" has been reserved to a family by name 'Mullasseri Matam' saying that they are enjoying a "karanma right'.
2. The petitioner asserts that 'Mullasseri Matam' has no such right and that there are absolutely no documents on record to show that any such right had been conceded to them at any point of time. He argues that, in fact, the persons who had worked as 'Santhi' in Temple, except one or two, all the others were from outside this family, which very clearly indicates that the family does not enjoy any 'Karanma' right, as far as 'Santhi' post is concerned.
3. The petitioner adds that, in fact, the report of the Deputy Commissioner of Devaswom, namely Ext.P4, demonstrates that the post of 'Santhi' in the Temple in question WP(C).No.30015 OF 2019(B) 3 is not covered by any 'Karanma' right and therefore, prays that said post be filled up only by persons like him in the Rank List.
4. Sri.Mohanakannan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, further submitted that, even though the factual circumstances are as above, when his client's complaint was assessed by the Board, it has issued Ext.P7, wherein, they have relied upon a partition deed of the 'Mullasseri Matam' to hold that 'Santhi' in post is covered by 'Karanma' right. Sri.Mohanakannan, argues that said order itself makes it clear that the Deputy Commissioner of Devaswom, after his enquiry, had found that no such right is available to the 'Mullasseri Matam' and further that the reliance on a partition deed by the Board in Ext.P7, in substantiation of the claim of the 'Mullasseri Matam' for 'Karanma' right over the post of 'Santhi', is irregular and contrary to Ext.P1 Rules framed under Section 28 of the Travancore - Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 regarding 'Karanma' right.
5. Sri.Mohanakannan pointed out that as per Rule 11 of Ext.P1 Rules, 'Karanma' rights should not be alienated or even partitioned among the members of the same family and therefore, that even if there is any such partition deed in WP(C).No.30015 OF 2019(B) 4 'Mullasseri Matam', the covenants therein will have to fail in view of the specific interdictions in Ext.P1 Rules. Sri.Mohanakannan, therefore, prays that Ext.P7 be set aside and the Travancore Devaswom Board be directed to set apart the vacancy in the Temple in question to be filled up by persons like him included in the Rank List.
6. In response, Sri.C.K.Pavithran, learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board, submitted that Ext.P7 has only recognized the pre-existing 'Karanma' right in favour of 'Mullasseri Matam' and that this has not been declared for the first time through the said order. He pointed out that a member of the 'Mullasseri Matam', Sri.M.G.Sankara Narayana Potti, was the Melsanthi of Vettikkavala Devaswom and that he retired on 31.05.2016 on attaining the age of 56, after putting in more than two decades of service. He added that Sri.M.G.Sankara Narayana Potti, thereafter, continued up to 05.01.2019 on the strength of an interim order of this Court and that he, thereafter, nominated his son - the 6 th respondent, enforcing the 'Karanma' right of his family. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that the 5 th respondent - Sri.M.G.Sankara Narayana Potti, himself was appointed only on WP(C).No.30015 OF 2019(B) 5 the strength of the 'Karanma' right and that no one had ever challenged this at any point of time, until the petitioner approached the Authorities for being appointed to the post in question.
7. Sri.Pavithran, then explained that, even the "M.N.Kesvan Nair Commission", which was constituted by the Board in the year 1982, had reported that the 'Melsanthi Lavanam" in Vettikkavala Devaswom of the Kottarakkara Group, is a 'Karanma' post and that 'Mullasseri Matam' enjoys such right. He concluded his submissions by saying that, in fact, a civil suit had been filed as early as in the year 1981, numbered as O.S.No.157/1981, before the Munsiff's Court, Kottarakara, wherein, the Secretary of the Board had filed an affidavit averring that 'Mullasseri Matam' enjoyed a 'Karanma' right in the Vettikkavala Devaswom. He submitted that therefore, merely because Ext.P7 refers to a partition deed, it would not be contrary to Ext.P1 Rules and that this document was only one of the relevant inputs noticed by the Board to reiterate that 'Mullasseri Matam' enjoyed 'Karanma' right, as well as the 'Santhi' of 'Vettikkavala Devaswom is concerned.
8. Sri.Arun Chandran, learned counsel appearing for WP(C).No.30015 OF 2019(B) 6 respondents 5 and 6, submitted that a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of his clients, wherein, it has been explained as to how 'Mullasseri Matam' had been enjoying the 'Karanma' right for generations past. He pointed out that, in the partition deed of the family dated 16.08.1969, the 'Karanma' right has not been partitioned, but that there is a covenant therein, that the family has the said right of 'Santhi' and that they have remitted Rs.250/- as security as early as in the year 1820. He contended that this does not mean that 'Karanma' right had been partitioned in any manner and thus asserted, that the allegations of the petitioner - that this covenant goes contrary to Ext.P1 Rules - has no legs to stand on.
9. Sri.Arun Chandran further submitted that the assertion of the petitioner, that the 'Pathivu' Register of the Temple does not show any 'Karanma' right in favour of 'Mullasseri Matam' is intended to obfuscate the truth, because the family has no 'enam' properties and only if they had such, would it have been entered in the 'Pathivu' Register. He then argued that the factum of the security amount of Rs.250/- having been deposited by the family as early as in the year 1820, clearly demonstrates that the 'Karanma' right travels WP(C).No.30015 OF 2019(B) 7 more than two centuries past and is not something that has been sought to be established in the present times. He also adopted the submissions of Sri.C.K.Pavithran, by saying that the 'M.N.Kesvan Nair Commission', appointed in the year 1982, has reported that the 'Melsanthi Lavanam' of the Vettikkavala Devaswom is a 'Karanma' post and that this client's family enjoys the same. He also, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.
10. I have examined the afore submissions very carefully and have also gone through the materials and documents available on record.
11. Even though the Board and respondents 5 and 6 have made the afore submissions, it is distressing that the competent Authority has not recorded any of them in Ext.P7 order, but has chosen to grant validity to the 'Karanma' right of 'Mullasseri Matam' merely based on a partition deed which is referred to therein.
12. It is now too well settled, to be restated, that a partition deed cannot conclusively create any right in favour of the family and that such rights will have to be established through cogent other methods.
WP(C).No.30015 OF 2019(B) 8
13. That said, the fact that 'Karanma' right has been mentioned in the partition deed certainly is one of the factors that could have been noticed by the Board in declaring the pre- existing 'Karanma' right, but it certainly had a duty to advert to all other aspects, including the recommendations of 'M.N.Kesvan Nair Commission', before it could have conclusively held in favour of respondents 5 and 6 in the manner, as has been done in Ext.P7.
14. I must however, also record that if the facts are as stated by respondents 5 and 6 and by the Board - that the security deposit for the "Karanma' right was deposited by the 'Mullasseri Matam' as early as in the year 1820 and that the 'M.N.Kesvan Nair Commission' recognizes this right in favour of the family as early as in the year 1982, they certainly compelling factors to establish the 'Karanma' right in favour of the family. However, I do not think it will proper or prudent for this Court to affirmatively state upon these aspects at this stage, since it is for the Board to first decide on this; but I am certainly of the opinion that Ext.P7 has failed in the imperative requirements that had to be put on record by the Board while completing such exercise.
WP(C).No.30015 OF 2019(B) 9
15. In the afore circumstances, it is without doubt that Ext.P7 cannot find favour in law and that the entire matter will have to be reconsidered by the Board, thus leading to an appropriate order, after affording necessary opportunities to the petitioners as well as to respondents 5 and 6.
In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and set aside Ext.P7; with a consequential direction to the Board to reconsider the matter and issue a fresh order, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and to respondents 5 and 6, thus culminating in an appropriate order thereon, as expeditiously as is possible but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Needless to say, until such time as the afore exercise is completed, status quo with respect to the post of 'Melsanthi' in the Temple will continue and if the 6 th respondent is working in such capacity, he will not be interdicted in any manner, but his continuance will depend upon the decision to be taken resultant to the afore directions.
I further make it clear that I have not, through my observations above, answered the dispute between the parties one way or the other, but have been recorded only for the WP(C).No.30015 OF 2019(B) 10 purpose of this Court to justify the directions as afore and it will be up to the Board to decide all aspects and take a dispassionate view.
SD/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
rp JUDGE
WP(C).No.30015 OF 2019(B)
11
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE KARANMA SERVICE RULES FRAMED BY
THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MASS PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE
DEVOTEES
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23-02-2019 ISSUED TO
THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 03-09-2019
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) No.1262 OF
2019.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION TOGETHER WITH THE
LIST OF REQUIRED DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COOMMISSIONER EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01-11-2019 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF PRESENTATION DATED 18.07.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT BOARD.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 14.8.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 7.12.2019 SUBMITTED BY HARIKUMAR G. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 18.12.2019 GIVEN FROM THE OFFICE OF 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE NO.ROC.12340/2014/S DATED 02.11.2019.