Dismissed

K.M. Narayanan v. the Deputy Commissioner

Kerala HC9 Oct 2013WP(C)/24645/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the writ petition challenging a show-cause notice issued to the petitioner regarding his appointment as a Non-Hereditary Trustee is too premature. The Court observed that the petitioner can file an explanation to the notice. The petition was dismissed as premature without expressing any opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of as premature; petitioner directed to file explanation to notice.

K.M. Narayanan Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Property and Title | 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/17TH ASWINA, 1935

¶7

WP(C).No. 24645 of 2013 (E)

¶8

PETITIONER(S):

¶9

¶10

K.M. NARAYANAN, AGED 70 YEARS, KOVAPRATH HOUSE, PONNIYAM P.O., THALASSERY CHAIRMAN, TRUSTEE BOARD, KEEZHATTIL SREE VYRIGHATHAKA TEMPLE, KAKKARA KADIRUR P.O., THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE-673001.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, THALASSERY-670103 KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶16

R BY SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No. 24645 of 2013 (E)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

¶22

EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.23-12-2009 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER.

¶23

EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.20-8-2010 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER.

¶24

EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT.27-3-2012 ISSUED BY THE EVEREST WOOD INDUSTRIES.

¶25

EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT.18-5-2012 BY THE PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT NO.2 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER.

¶26

EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT.22-6-2012 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TO THE PETITIONER.

¶27

EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.5-10-2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE.

¶28

EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.19-10-2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER.

¶29

EXHIBIT P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.9-11-2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER.

¶30

EXHIBIT P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT.21-11-2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER.

¶31

EXHIBIT P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.28-11-2012 ISSUED BY SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶32

EXHIBIT P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.5-3-2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE SECOND RESPONDENT.

¶33

EXHIBIT P12 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.25-3-2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOOTHUPARAMBA.

¶34

EXHIBIT P13 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.19-6-2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE SECOND RESPONDENT.

¶35

EXHIBIT P14 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.21-6-2013 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO SECOND RESPONDENT.

¶36

EXHIBIT P15 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.3-7-2013 ISSUED BY SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

¶37

EXHIBIT P16 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.29-8-2013 ISSUED BY FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶38

EXHIBIT P17 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.28-11-2012 SUBMITTED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶39

EXHIBIT P18 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DT.DT.12-9-2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETTIONER BEFORE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶40

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL -----------------------ms \True copy// P.A to Judge

¶41

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

¶42

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

¶43

W.P.(C).No.24645/2013

¶44

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 9^th day of October, 2013

¶45

J U D G M E N T

¶46

Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶47

The petitioner is aggrieved by a show cause notice issued as per

¶48

Ext.P16 by the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner. As per Ext.P1

¶49

order, the petitioner and certain others have been appointed as Non Hereditary Trustees.

¶50

We heard the learned counsel Shri M.Sasindran, who

¶51

submitted that the proceedings now initiated do not conform to the

¶52

mandatory provisions contained under Section 45 of the Hindu Religious

¶53

and Charitable Endowment Act (Madras). Learned Standing Counsel for

¶54

the Board submitted that the writ petition is too premature and it is upto the

¶55

petitioner and his colleagues to avail of the remedies by submitting explanation to Ext.P16 notice.

¶56

After hearing parties, we are of the view that the writ petition is

¶57

too premature for this Court to interfere in any manner as what is under

¶58

W.P.(C).No.24645/201 3

¶59

-:2:-

¶60

challenge is only a notice. The petitioner can file due explanation to the

¶61

same and if the petitioner or any of the other non hereditary trustees want

¶62

to be heard in person, the said facility will also be extended. With the

¶63

above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. It is made clear that we

¶64

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

¶65

Sd/-

¶66

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge)

¶67

Sd/-

¶68

(B.Kemal Pasha, Judge)

¶69

K.M. Narayanan v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.M. Narayanan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Ashraf Koya Thangal Vs Basheer, S/O.Usman

P.K.Koshy Vs Sam Mathew

N.Vishnu Narayanan Namboothiri Vs the Travancore Devaswom Board

M/S.Varkey'S Retain Ventures (P) Ltd. Vs Lissy Thomas

V.Vidyadharan Vs Beena Thomas Alexander

The Secretary, Major Sree Mahalakshi Sree Mahadevar Kshetra Upadesaka Samithi Vs the State of Kerala