Disposed

S.Sudheeshkumar v. Travancore Devaswom Board & Others

Kerala HC7 Oct 2013WP(C)/21648/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court heard two writ petitions concerning the Vellayani Devi Temple and the role of the Thantri. It declined to issue directions on disputed factual matters regarding temple rituals or the validity of the Thantri's appointment, as this requires evidence the Court would not determine in a writ proceeding. The petitions were disposed of without granting relief, expressly reserving judgment

What did the court decide?

No direction granted to restrain the Thantri or the conduct of Pariharakriyas as the objections relate to disputed facts or already executed rituals.

S.Sudheeshkumar Vs Travancore Devaswom Board & Others — Kerala HC (2013) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/15TH ASWINA, 1935 WP(C).No. 21648 of 2011 (E) ----------------------------

¶5

PETITIONER(S):

¶6

S.SUDHEESHKUMAR, S/O.SUKUMARAN ASARI, S.V.SADANAM, CHEMMANNIL, NARUVAMOODU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶7

BY ADVS.SRI.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER SMT.DAYA K. PANICKER RESPONDENT(S):

¶8

TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-01 2. THE COMMISSIONER,TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-01 3. THE DIETY OF MAJOR VALLAYANI DEVI TEMPLE REPRESENTED BY THE SUB GROUP OFFICER TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, VALLAYANI THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 020. 4. NARAYANA RAMARU, ATHIYARA MADOM, VANCHIYOOR SREE RANJINI, TC.NO.27/1120, AMBANAGAR VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035.

¶9

(*)ADDL.R5 SHRI SATHEESAN, S/O.PONNAPPAN ACHARI MOOTHAVATHI, MAJOR VELLAYANI DEVI TEMPLE, VELLAYANI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 020.

¶10

(*)ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT NO.5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 20/06/2012.

¶11

R,R1-3 BY ADV. SRI.G.BIJU R,R4 BY ADV. SRI.J.S.AJITHKUMAR RADDL.R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVEENDRAN PILLAI RADDL.R5 BY ADV. SMT.INDIRA RAVEENDRAN RADDL.R5 BY ADV. SMT.R.DEVI SHRI R1 & 2 BY ADV. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU, SC, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD R1-R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRI, SC, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD R BY SRI.G.BIJU,SC,TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-10-2013, ALONG WITH WPC. 27719/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

WPC 21648/2011

¶13

APPENDIX

¶14

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS

¶15

EXT.P1	TRUE COPY OF SAMACHAYAM. D	THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THANTHRA ATED NIL.
EXT.P2:	TRUE COPY OF	THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 14.3.2001
EXT.P3	TRUE COPY OF	THE RESOLUTION DATED 10.6.2006
EXT.P4	TRUE COPY OF	THE REPRESENTATION DATED 6.6.2006
EXT.P5:	TRUE COPY OF	THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28/07/2011
EXTS.PRODU	CED ALONG WITH	REPLY AFFIDAVIT
EXT.P5	TRUE COPY OF	LETTER DT.31/3/1851
EXT.P6	TRUE COPY OF	LETTER DT.18/3/1853
EXT.P7	TRUE COPY OF	APPLICATION DT.30/06/2011
EXT.P7(a)	TRUE COPY OF	LETTER NO.ROC.9810/11/PIO DT.13/7/2011
EXT.P8	TRUE COPY OF	CERTIFICATE DT.12/11/2004
EXT.P9	TRUE COPY OF	PURASKARAM DT.1/8/2006
EXT.P10	TRUE COPY OF	CERTIFICATE OF HONOUR DT.25/8/2006
EXT.P11	TRUE COPY OF	PROCEEDINGS DT.6/7/2010
EXT.P12	TRUE COPY OF	ROC NO.5144/90/N.S DT.20/2/2002
EXT.P13	TRUE COPY OF	NOTICE DT.25/1/2011
EXT.P14	COMPLAINT OF	THE TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE DT.30/3/2008
EXT.P15 OFFICER	TRUE COPY OF	ORDER NO.53 DT.30/3/2008 OF THE SUB GROUP

¶16

EXT.P16 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.ROC 6636/12/PR/PIO DT.21/7/2010 ALONG WITH LETTER DT.23/7/2012 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, TDB.

¶17

EXT.P16(a) TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DT.28/06/2012 SUBMITTED BY THE SUDEVAN K.BEFORE THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, TDB.

¶18

EXT.P17 TRUE COPY OF EXTRACT OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE ALLEGED PADITHARAM DT.10/12/2012

¶19

TRUE COPY OF FIXED DEPOSIT RECEIPT DT.19/12/2012 PRODUCED ALONG WITH MEMO DT.7/1/2013.

¶20

RESPONDENTS' EXTS:

¶21

EXT.R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THIRUVAI PRASNAM CONDUCTED DURING JANUARY 2011.

¶22

EXT.R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE DEVOTEES

¶23

WPC 21648/2011

¶24

EXT.R4(a) TRUE COPY OF EXTRACT OF STANDARD PADITHARAM OF TDB EXT.R4(b) TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DT.15/12/89 EXT.R4(c) TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DT.16/3/10 EXT.R4(d) TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DT.7/7/2006 IN WPC 17199/2006 OF THIS COURT.

¶25

¶26

\True copy// P.A to Judge

¶27

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & B.KEMAL PASHA, JJ. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

¶28

W.P.(C).Nos.21648/2011 & 27719/2012 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 7^th day of October, 2013

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶31

Both these writ petitions are filed by the respective petitioners raising various complaints in connection with certain affairs of the Vellayani Devi Temple which is a major Temple under the Travancore Devaswom Board.

¶32

W.P.(C).No.21648/2011 is filed seeking for a main relief to quash the appointment of the fourth respondent as Thantri . The petitioner is also seeking for a declaration that in view of the rites, rituals, customs and usage practiced from time immemorial the concept of Thantric pooja and Thantri is quite alien to the said Temple. Similar prayers have been made as reliefs (c) to (e).

¶33

As far as W.P.(C).No.27719/2012 is concerned, the same is filed by a sub priest, namely, Ilayavathi of the very same Temple and his main objection is with regard to the conduct of Pariharakriyas as per Ext.P5 Astamangala Devaprasna Charth and he is seeking for a direction commanding the respondents to refrain from enforcing the

¶34

W.P.(C).Nos.21648/2011 & 27719/2012

¶35

-:2:-

¶36

recommendations in the Devaprasna Charth without considering the objections to the same as contained in Ext.P4 representation of the petitioner.

¶37

We heard learned counsel on both sides.

¶38

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C). No.21648/2011, the Temple was established by an ascetic person by name Shri Kelan Kulasekhara Vathi from the Blacksmith caste of Vellayani Taluk. The hyms, rites and rituals of the Devi Temple are distinct and different from those which are followed in other parts of the State. It is contended that the senior priest- Moothavathi and junior priest- Ilayavathi alone are entitled to conduct poojas in the Temple and therefore, the fourth respondent, Thantri has no right to conduct poojas in the Temple. The petitioner also relies upon the averments in the counter affidavit of the Travancore Devaswom Board as well as the report of the learned Ombudsman to contend that the Thantri has nothing to do with the affairs of the Temple. In the counter affidavit filed by the Thantri , these contentions have been opposed. It is submitted that as per the 'Standard Paditharam' the Thantri has got some rights which are being adhered to by them.

¶39

W.P.(C).Nos.21648/2011 & 27719/2012

¶40

-:3:-

¶41

Learned counsel Shri K.Karthikeya Panicker appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.21648/2011 further submitted that in the light of the stand taken by the Board and the learned Ombudsman, this Court may direct the Thantri not to perform any rites in the temple. We are of the view that unless it is established that the custom and usage followed in the Temple cannot admit the poojas of the Thantri , this Court may not be justified in issuing any such direction. What is projected by the Travancore Devaswom Board is that the Thantri is not an appointee under the Board and the learned Ombudsman has only gone to that extent, going by the report. Therefore, in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court will not be justified in going into the disputed questions of facts as far as the right to conduct poojas and rites by the Thantri or exclusively by the Moothavathi and Ilayavathi . Therefore, we refrain from issuing any directions as sought for and the petitioner will have to resort to other remedies.

¶42

As far as W.P.(C).No.27719/2012 is concerned, we have already noticed that the petitioner's objections are with regard to the conduct of Astamangala Devaprasna-Pariharakriyas . It is submitted by the learned

¶43

W.P.(C).Nos.21648/2011 & 27719/2012

¶44

-:4:-

¶45

counsel for the Thantri that already Astamangala DevaprasnaPariharakriyas have been conducted which the learned Standing Counsel for the Board also confirm. Therefore, no direction can be granted as sought for.

¶46

The writ petitions are disposed of as above. It is made clear that we

¶47

have not expressed anything on the merits of the matter. No costs.

¶48

Sd/- (B.Kemal Pasha, Judge)

¶49

S.Sudheeshkumar v. Travancore Devaswom Board & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Sudheeshkumar v. Travancore Devaswom Board & Others

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

Koya, S/O.Aboobaker Vs Thachoth Ayamma, W/O.Mohamed

Rajappan Asari.G. Vs State of Kerala

Travancore Devaswom Board Vs the Deputy Director

Sri.R.S.Anoop Chandran Vs Tdb, Rep.by Its Secretary

Sri.T.K.Ramachandran Vs Cochin Devaswom Board

Balakrishnan Vs C.Muhammedali