Disposed

Pichakathil Sreedharan Nair v. the Deputy Commissioner

Kerala HC6 Aug 2008RP/841/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a review petition filed to reappraise W.P.C. No. 11848 of 2005 concerning a health-related dispute over temple entry. The Court allowed the second respondent access despite a Filaria claim, directed the hereditary trustee to ensure hygiene, and ordered the Commissioner to decide the pending representation within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction for the Deputy Commissioner to decide the pending representation within two months and for the trustee to ensure hygiene; no order for medical examination.

Pichakathil Sreedharan Nair Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2008 / 15TH SRAVANA 1930

¶5

RP.No. 841 of 2008() -------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.11848/2005 Dated 24/06/2008 ....................

¶6

REV. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

¶7

¶8

PICHAKATHIL SREEDHARAN NAIR S/O.NARAYANI @ KUTTIMALU AMMA RESIDING AT PICHAKATHIL HOUSE POST THRIPANKODE, MALAPPURAM

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

¶12

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT CIVIL STATION, CALICUT

¶13

PICHAKATHIL SANKUNNI NAIR, S/O.PARVATHI

¶14

@ CHINNAMMA AMMA, R/AT.PICHAKATHIL HOUSE POST THRIPANKODE MALAPPURAM

¶15

THRIPANKODE DEVASWOM REP. BY ITS TRUSTEE, ZZMORIAN RAJA POST CHALAPPURAM , CALICUT.

¶16

R1 BY G.P. SMT.SMITHA SUKUMARAN

¶17

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ.

¶19

R.P. No.841 of 2008 in W.P.(C) No.11848 of 2005

¶20

.................................................................... Dated this the 6th day of August, 2008.

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶23

Review Petition is filed on the ground that the second respondent has oozing Filaria and therefore, if he is permitted in the temple, it will cause discomfort to devotees and others. We are sure the hereditary trustee managing the temple will take into account this contention of the petitioner while considering the claim of the second respondent. The hereditary trustee will ensure that employees of the temple maintain hygiene in the temple and if they have any problem which causes discomfort to devotees or affects the hygiene of the temple, such employee should be kept out of duty during such period. We do not find any ground to order medical examination of the second respondent because second respondent is admittedly a Filaria patient. So far as Ext.P1(produced in the W.P.(C)) representation filed by the petitioner which is pending before the first respondent is concerned, there will be direction to the first respondent to hear the petitioner and second respondent and pass orders within two

¶24

¶25

months from date of production of copy of this judgment. The Review

¶26

Petition is disposed of as above.

¶27

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge

¶28

V.K.MOHANAN Judge

¶29

pms

Pichakathil Sreedharan Nair v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pichakathil Sreedharan Nair v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Purushothaman Vs O.C.Joseph

Ravi Vs Suprabha Mohan

Joseph Vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd,Thalassery

M.K.Kumaran Nair Vs Dy.Thasildar(Rr) Kfc

Mary Philip Vs Sabu Jacob

Sarala Vs Hamza