Disposed

C.P.Govindankutty v. Malabar Devaswom Board

Kerala HC1 Oct 2013WP(C)/23118/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the formation of a Pallikkunnu Sree Mookambika Temple Welfare Committee, alleging violation of court directions and insufficient notice. The Court held disputed facts regarding the meeting's validity required alternative forum resolution and disposed of the writ petition by granting leave to report to the Commissioner for festival supervision.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of upon observing that disputed factual queries regarding the committee's formation must be resolved by the appropriate authority.

C.P.Govindankutty Vs Malabar Devaswom Board — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/9TH ASWINA, 1935

¶7

WP(C).No. 23118 of 2013 (L)

¶8

PETITIONERS :

¶9

C.P.GOVINDANKUTTY, AGED 66 YEARS S/O. GOVINDA KURUP, 'JANAKI', MAKKUNI ROAD PALLIKKUNNU, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 004.

¶10

SUNIL MANOHAR, AGED 38 YEARS S/O. EMM NAIR, 'SREE SAKTHI', AMBIKA ROAD PALLIKKUNNU, KANNUR-670 004.

¶11

PRASAD K., AGED 37 YEARS S/O. P.V.PRABHAKARAN, 'PRASANTHI', AMBIKA ROAD PALLIKKUNNU, KANNUR-670 004.

¶12

VINOD KUMAR, AGED 44 YEARS S/O. NARAYANAN K., NIDIYATH HOUSE, P.O.PALLIKKUNNU, KANNUR-674 004.

¶13

BY ADVS.SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA

¶14

RESPONDENTS :

¶15

MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD KOZHIKODE-676 553, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER

¶17

MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE-676 553.

¶18

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER PALLIKKUNNU SREE MOOKAMBIKA TEMPLE, PALLIKKUNNU, KANNUR-670 004.

¶19

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD THALASSERY-670 101.

¶20

ADDL.R5 PALLIKKUNNU SREE MOOKAMBIKA TEMPLE WELFARE COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT M.KRISHNANKUTTY, DEVASWOM BUILDING, PALLIKKUNNU, KANNUR-670 004.

¶21

(IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R5 AS PER ORDER DT.01.10.2013 IN IA.NO.12915/2013)

¶22

R3 BY ADV. SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN R5 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH R5 BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI THOMAS R5 BY ADV. SRI.BINU PAUL R5 BY ADV. SRI.T.V.VINU R5 BY ADV. SRI.SHINE MATHEWS(VADAKKEKARA) R5 BY ADV. SRI.ARUN CHANDY R1, R2, & R4 BY SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

WP(C).No. 23118 of 2013 (L)

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

¶26

P1 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY SRI.P.V.SOORAJ AND OTHERS BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶27

P2 : COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DTD.8.8.2012 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN IA NO.10074/12 IN WPC NO.5124/2012.

¶28

P3 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD.1.7.2013 PASSED BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.5124/2012.

¶29

P4 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.3.9.2013 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶30

P5 : COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHESD IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DTD.23.8.2013.

¶31

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶32

R3(A) COPY OF THE ORDER DT 14.8.2013 OF R1.

¶33

R3(B) COPY OF THE LETTER DT 15.8.2013.

¶34

R3(C) COPY OF THE LIST OF MEMBERS OF THE WELFARE COMMITTEE.

¶35

R3(D) COPY OF THE NOTICE DT 15.8.2013.

¶36

R3(E) COPY OF THE NOTICE DT 15.8.2013.

¶37

R3(F) COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DT 25.8.2013.

¶38

R3(G) COPY OF THE MINUTES BOOK OF THE MEETING HELD ON 25.8.2013.

¶39

R3(H) COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE ISSUED BY THE NEW COMMITTEE.

¶40

R3(I) COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICES ISSUED BY THE NEW COMMITTEE.

¶41

R3(J) COPY OF THE COUNTERFOILS OF THE MEMBERSHIP FEE RECEIPT BOOK.

¶42

// True Copy //

¶43

PA to Judge

¶44

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶45

¶46

B.KEMAL PASHA, JJ.

¶47

¶48

W.P.(C) No.23118 of 2013 L

¶49

Dated this the 1^st day of October, 2013

¶50

J U D G M E N T

¶51

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶52

Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶53

Petitioners are devotees of Pallikkunnu Sree

¶54

Mookambika Temple, Kannur and members of a Welfare Committee. Their main grievance is the alleged non convening of a meeting of devotees to form a Welfare Committee inspite of

¶55

the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P2 judgment and forming a Committee in violation of the directions. According to the petitioners, Ext.P5 alone is the intimation, which was published in a news paper, and that too, only two days before the proposed meeting of devotees to form the Committee.

¶56

The 3^rd respondent Executive Officer has filed a

¶57

counter affidavit, wherein the stand taken is that the Committee, which was formed after the judgment of this Court, has been

¶58

WPC.23118/2013

¶59

: 2 :

¶60

selected by the devotees in a meeting. It is the stand of the Executive Officer that proper notices have been given for the convening of the meeting including to the members of the earlier Welfare Committee. Various documents have been produced in support of the above argument.

¶61

We heard Sri.K.C.Santhoshkumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.N.Nagaresh appearing for the impleading petitioner, Sri.Mahesh V. Ramakrishnan appearing for the 3^rd respondent and Sri.V.Krishna Menon appearing for the Malabar Devaswom Board.

¶62

It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the directions issued in Ext.P2 judgment have been grossly violated in regard to the various steps taken for forming a Committee. Learned counsel for the petitioners, referring to various documents, submits that proper notices have not been given to the devotees and the 3^rd respondent has taken initiative for including interested parties for forming the new Welfare Committee. These arguments are supported by Sri.N.Nagaresh. These are denied by Sri.Mahesh V.

¶63

WPC.23118/2013

¶64

: 3 :

¶65

Ramakrishnan, who submitted that the Executive Officer, being an officer of the Board, there was no interest for him with regard

¶66

to the personalities, who have been elected to the Welfare Committee and he has only convened a proper meeting of the devotees who have selected the Committee.

¶67

We are of the view that, in the light of the fact that there are various disputed questions of fact, namely, whether notice has been properly given and whether the meeting itself has been held properly, it is a matter for the petitioners, if they are so advised, to move the appropriate authority. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Commissioner was not right in delegating the responsibility to convene the meeting to the Executive Officer. We are not commending anything on the said submission. It is up to the petitioners to approach the appropriate authority for redressal of their grievances.

¶68

Lastly, it is submitted that, as has been done in the

¶69

previous years as per the orders of this Court, there may be a direction to any of the officers to have a proper supervision of

¶70

WPC.23118/2013

¶71

: 4 :

¶72

the conduct of the affairs of the Navarathri festival or even for a Committee as ordered in Ext.P2 interim order.

¶73

As far as special supervision for the Navarathri festival is concerned, it is up to the Commissioner to make appropriate arrangements for supervision of the conduct of the festival, if he deems fit. He will also see that the amounts collected and the expenditures involved are properly accounted for by the Committee and appropriate directions will be issued from time to time for the same.

¶74

With the above observations, this writ petition is

¶75

disposed of.

¶76

Sd/- (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)

¶77

Sd/- (B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE)

¶78

aks/30/09

¶79

// True Copy //

¶80

PA to Judge

C.P.Govindankutty v. Malabar Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.P.Govindankutty v. Malabar Devaswom Board

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

Sri.Sureshkumar, Mavelikkara Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

The Secretary, Cdb, Thrissur Vs the Deputy Director of Local Fund Audit

The Travancore Devasom Board Vs the Deputy Director

N.Pchampakavalli @ Susila & Another Vs S.Suraj

Kdasseri Biju Vs Sajivan Mundiadi

Travancore Devaswom Board Vs the Deputy Director