Dismissed

Balan Nair E.C. and Others v. the Commissioner and Another

Kerala HC2 Dec 2008WP(C)/33941/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners admitted in ground that the temple is a public temple managed by devotees. Court held petitioner was not aggrieved by notice for enquiry and no grievance needed redressal. Petition dismissed for lack of cause.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed as it does not survive for consideration following the admission that the temple is a public temple.

Balan Nair E.C. and Others Vs the Commissioner and Another — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2008 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1930

¶6

WP(C).No. 33941 OF 2007(N)

PETITIONERS:

BALAN NAIR.E.C., S/O.KUTTIKUNJU AMMA, EDAMANA CHAKKANATH, EDAPPAL AMSOM, PUROOKKARA DESOM, P.O.EDAPPAL-679 576, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

P.BALAN NAIR, S/O.LATE MADHAVI AMMA, BALAKRISHNA HOUSE, (PUTHUVIRUTHI), EDAPPAL P.O., 679 576, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

M.P.HARIDAS, S/O.LATE KARUNAKARA MENON, MATHILAKETH PAYYANGATTIL HOUSE, P.O.EDAPPAL-679 576, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶13

SANKARANARAYANAN, S/O.LATE GOPALAN NAIR, MAZHAVANCHERY, MANINILAYAM SUKAPURAM, SUKAPURAM-679 576, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶14

U.VISWANATHAN, S/O.LATE KUNJAPPA, ULIYATH HOUSE, SUKAPURAM P.O.-679 576, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.GOVIND K.BHARATHAN (SR.) SRI.C.P.KUNJHIKANNAN MADHU S.K.

¶16

RESPONDENTS:

¶17

¶18

THE COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS (ADMN) DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE.

¶19

WP(C) 33941/2007

¶20

¶21

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ADDITIONAL CHARGE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER), HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS

¶22

(ADMN) DEPARTMENT, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶23

GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

WP(C) 33941/2007

¶26

¶27

APPENDIX

¶28

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶29

EXT.P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE STATEMENT ISSUED BY THE THANTHRI OF THE TEMPLE.

¶30

EXT.P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LATEST AUDIT REPORT.

¶31

EXT.P3. PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE NO. A1.622/07 (O.A. 16/07) DATED 15.11.2007)

¶32

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

NIL.

// TRUE COPY //

P.S. TO JUDGE.

KNC/-

P.R. RAMAN & T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ.

¶38

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶39

W.P.(C) NO. 33941 OF 2007

¶40

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶41

DATED THIS, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008.

¶42

J U D G M E N T

¶43

Raman, J.

¶44

In Ground No.'A (g)' of the Writ Petition petitioner admits as follows:

¶45

xxxxxx It is submitted that there is no dispute whether the temple is a private or a public temple since from its very inception, it has been managed by the devotees of the area who constitute the denomination of the temple. The entire denomination has a right to worship as a temple as of right and to receive presents therefrom. It is submitted that the Dy. Commissioner has no power under the Act to issue Ext.P3 notice against the office bearers of the temple."

¶46

2. In view of the above admission, the temple is a public temple

¶47

cannot be disputed at least by the petitioner. By Ext.P3 notice, the Deputy Commissioner has only proposed to conduct an enquiry as to whether the temple is a public temple. As such, petitioner is not a person aggrieved by Ext.P3.

¶48

Petitioner is probably under a misconception that Ext.P3 is issued

¶49

to take over the temple. We do not find anything in the notice as a step to

¶50

WP(C) 33941/2007 :2:

¶51

take over the temple. Even if it is a public temple, that empowers the authority only to supervise the affairs from being mismanaged by those in administration. The position being thus stated, no grievance to be redressed. Further, the matter is only in the enquiry stage. The writ petition does not survive for consideration further.

¶52

Closed.

¶53

P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE)

¶54

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE)

¶55

knc/-

Balan Nair E.C. and Others v. the Commissioner and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balan Nair E.C. and Others v. the Commissioner and Another

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

Narayani Vs K. Alikoya

Mohammed Abdul Khader Vs Abusali

Berny @ M.X.Paul Vs District Collector

Joseph (Joy) Vs Esther (Shirly)

George Vs K.B.Abdul Rahimankutty

Ibrahim.K.T Vs Maimoonath.v and Another