Disposed

K.v.Kunhirama Marar v. the Commissioner

Kerala HC8 Oct 2009WP(C)/19877/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged orders regarding his entitlement as hereditary Vadyakazhakam and suspension due to age. Court directed Deputy Commissioner to decide pending appeals on stay and service termination within three months without reviewing the underlying appeal order.

What did the court decide?

Directs Deputy Commissioner to dispose of O.A.20/06 and O.A.7/09 after hearing parties within three months.

K.v.Kunhirama Marar Vs the Commissioner — Kerala HC (2009) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2009 / 16TH ASWINA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 19877 of 2009(D)

¶6

--------------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

-------------------

¶9

K.V.KUNHIRAMA MARAR S/O.V.V.KRISHNA MARAR, AGED 65 YEARS RESIDING AT KIZHAKKE VEEDU, CHERUVATHUR PO, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS. MR.V.V.SURENDRAN, MR.P.A.HARISH.

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

------------------------

¶13

1. THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE.

¶14

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE.

¶15

3. SREE VEERABHADRA TEMPLE, CHERUVATHUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CHERUVATHUR P.O, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶16

4. RAJAN MARAR

¶17

S/O.KRISHNAN MARAR,RESIDING AT VARIKKARA VEEDU, CHERUVATHUR P.O, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶18

R1 & R2 BY MR.K.MOHANAKANNAN, S.C, R4 BY ADVS. MR.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR, SMT.P.K.PRIYA.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/10/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

W.P.(C). NO.19877/2009-D:

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶23

EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE R.2. DTD. 22/11/2006.

¶24

EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE R.1 DTD. 13/06/2006.

¶25

EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 29/05/2009.

¶26

EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE R.3. DTD. 02/06/09.

¶27

EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.2. DTD. 09/06/09.

¶28

EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE R.2. DTD. 24/06/09.

¶29

EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE R.1. DTD. 12/06/09.

¶30

EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE R.1. DTD. 29/06/09.

¶31

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

V.GIRI, J

W.P.(C).19877/2009

Dated this the 8^th day of October, 2009

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

Heard learned counsel on both sides.

¶40

Petitioner had challenged Ext.P6 order passed by the 2^nd respondent, the Deputy Commissioner, declining to extend the order of stay which he had originally passed in Ext.P5 application. The issue relates to the right of the petitioner to be treated as hereditary Vadyakazhakam. By Ext.P1 order dated 22.11.2006, the Deputy Commissioner had declared that the petitioner is entitled to be treated as hereditary Vadyakazhakam of the Temple from Kizhakke Veedu Marathu family and that his entry in service was in 1961. It seems that Ext.P1 order was challenged in an appeal by the 4^th respondent as A.P.29/06. There was an order of stay in A.P.29/06 and ultimately as is evidenced by Ext.R1(a) order, the said Appeal has been allowed by way of remand and the matter has been relegated to the original authority namely the Deputy Commissioner. Deputy Commissioner is to pass fresh orders in O.A.20/2006. In the meanwhile, Executive Officer had issued Ext.P4 order holding that the petitioner had ceased to be in

¶41

W.P.(C).19877/09

¶42

¶43

service on completion of 65 years of age on 15.6.2009. Petitioner preferred O.A.7/09 before the Deputy Commissioner challenging Ext.P4 and by Ext.P6, the order of stay was extended till 30.6.2009.

¶44

The order of stay has not been directed to be continued as such either by the authority or by this Court, at the time of entertaining the writ petition.

¶45

In these circumstances, it is only appropriate that the Deputy Commissioner considers both O.A.20/06 and O.A.7/09 in an expeditious manner. Deputy Commissioner, the 2^nd respondent, shall pass orders on O.A.20/06 and 7/09 after hearing the parties, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I have not considered the correctness of Ext.R1(a) order in these proceedings and the contentions of the parties in relation thereto are left open.

¶46

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶47

V.GIRI, Judge

¶48

mrcs

K.v.Kunhirama Marar v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.v.Kunhirama Marar v. the 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

V.K.Kunjumon Vs J.Ansar

State of Kerala & Another Vs R.Babu & Others

K.C. Shajan Vs State of Kerala and Others

C.M.Latheef Vs Kseb

V.Manikuttan Vs Asst.Devaswom Commissioner

Chacko Vs State of Kerala