Dismissed

Kenath Kesava Menon (Kenath Achan) v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Dec 2013WP(C)/29318/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the membership of the Vela Festival Committee citing pending audits. Court held disqualification unproven. Petition dismissed; audit directed to be completed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed with a direction to the Local Fund Audit to complete the audit for the respective years expeditiously.

Kenath Kesava Menon (Kenath Achan) Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2013)

¶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 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935 WP(C).No. 29318 of 2013 (L) ----------------------------

¶5

PETITIONER(S):

¶6

KENATH KESAVA MENON (KENATH ACHAN) S/O.E.K.MANNADIAR, SANTHI NIKETHAN, NEAR FIRE STATION PALAKKAD-1, HEREDITARY TRUSTEE SREE MANAPPULLYKAVU BHAGAVATHI TEMPLE PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA SMT.D.S.THUSHARA SRI.H.PRAVEEN (KOTTARAKARA)

¶7

RESPONDENT(S):

¶8

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE AND DEVASWOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERANHIPALAM KOZHIKODE-673006.

¶9

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, PALAKKAD DIVISION CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-678001.

¶10

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SREE MANAPPULLYKAVU BHAGAVATHI DEVASWOM KIZHAKKE YAKKARA, PALAKKAD-678001.

¶11

MANAPPULLYKAVU VELA FESTIVAL COMMITTEE-2014, KIZHAKKE YAKKARA, PALAKKAD-678001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT C.RAMANUNNI. 6. K.SIVARAMAN, MEMBER, MANAPPULLYKAVU VELA FESTIVAL COMMITTEE-2104 KIZHAKKE YAKKARA, PALAKKAD-678001. 7. V.MOHANAN, MEMBER, MANAPPULLYKAVU VELA FESTIVAL COMMITTEE-2104 KIZHAKKE YAKKARA, PALAKKAD-678001.

¶12

C.RAMANUNNI, PRESIDENT MANAPPULLYKAVU VELA FESTIVAL COMMITTEE-2104 KIZHAKKE YAKKARA, PALAKKAD-678001.

¶13

ADDL.R9 - SREEVALSAN, S/O. GOVINDAN NAIR, AGED 59 YEARS, 2/50, SILVER LINE, KUNNUMPURAM, KALPATHY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶14

(ADDL. R9 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN 16377/2013 DT.16.12.2013) ADDL.9 BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY R4 BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.A.HARISH

¶15

R5-R8 BY SR.ADV. SHRI M.C.SEN, ADV. SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN R5-R8 BY ADV. SMT.M.H.BINDU

¶16

R2,R3 BY ADV. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD

¶17

R1 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.S. MANILAL

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-12-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No. 29318 of 2013 (L) ----------------------------

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

P1: COPY OF THE SCHEME FRAMED DATED 25.10.1983. P2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.3376/2003/REVENUE DATED 30.10.2003. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2012 BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATGED 30.10.2013. P5: COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 12/3/2013. P6: COPY OF THE NEW ITEMS PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED 16/11/2011. P7: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16/2/2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P8: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY TWO DEVOTEES. P9: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE LOCAL FUND AUDIT DEPARTMENT.

¶23

EXT.P10-TRUE COPY OF NEWS ITEMS PUBLISHED IN DESABHIMANI DAILY DT. 25/10/2013

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ---------------------------------------

¶25

EXT.R4(A)-TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT.6.11.2013

¶26

EXT.R4(B)-- DO DATED 10.10.2013 EXT.R4(C)- DO. DATED 10.10.2013

¶27

EXT.R5(A)-TRUE COPY OF ADVERTISEMENT DATED 10.10.2013

¶28

EXT.R5(B)-TRUE COPY OF DO. DT.10.10.2013

¶29

EXT.R5(C)-TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE KERALA GOVERNMENT

¶30

// TRUE COPY //

¶31

P.S. TO JUDGE

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.(C)No. 29318 of 2013

¶35

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

¶36

DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2013

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶39

This writ petition is filed by the seniormost member of Kenath family claiming that he is the Hereditary Trustee of Sree Manappullykavu Bhagavathi Temple, Yakkara in Palakkad District. The main relief sought for in the writ petition is to dissolve the Vela Festival Committee formed as evident from Ext.P6 and to conduct a proper selection within the time frame to be fixed by this Court. Consequential directions have also been sought including one to appoint an Advocate of this Court as Observer, to conduct a proper election.

¶40

Heard Shri K. Mohanakannan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri M.C. Sen, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 5 to 8, Shri P.A. Harish, learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent, Shri C.S. Manilal, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Shri V. Krishna Menon, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3.

¶41

Wpc 29318/2013

¶42

-2-

¶43

At the outset, it is submitted by Shri Mohanakannan, learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon Exts.P1 and P2 that persons who are former committee members and who have not submitted the accounts, cannot figure in the new committee. It is submitted that respondents 6 to 8 are thus disqualified to be members of the Committee, but still they have been shown as elected, as seen from Ext.P6. It is submitted by the learned counsel that so many irregularities with regard to the conduct of the meetings, have also been pointed out before the second respondent by Ext.P4, but no enquiry has been conducted and in the meanwhile the Vela Festival Committee is allowed to function also. Our attention was invited to Exts.P8 and P9 which according to the learned counsel, show that surcharge proceedings are pending against them.

¶44

Learned Senior Counsel Shri M.C. Sen appearing for respondents 5 to 8 submitted that accounts have been submitted properly and the audit is still pending and respondents 6 to 8 have submitted replies to the audit enquiries. It is therefore submitted that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not correct.

¶45

Shri P.A. Harish, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submitted that proper notices have been issued for the conduct

¶46

Wpc 29318/2013

¶47

-3-

¶48

of the meeting, as evident from Exts.R4(b) and R4(c) notices published in two leading Dailies. It is submitted that almost 200 persons participated in the meeting and a fifty member committee headed by the 8^th respondent was elected. The list of elected members was sent to the Malabar Devaswom Board which was approved by the Board and accordingly the Committee has started functioning. They have passed a budget for the Vela and started preliminary works of contacting various persons for the success of the Vela.

¶49

Shri Rajesh Sivaramankutty, learned counsel appearing for the impleading petitioner submitted that his client was a member of a former committee and actually there was no proper meeting and that he is also a signatory to Ext.P8.

¶50

Learned Standing Counsel for the Board submitted that the list has already been approved by the second respondent and the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondents 6 to 8 are disqualified, is not correct.

¶51

What we find from the pleadings is that the audit is still pending finalisation. It is evident from Ext.P9 that certain objections have been forwarded and therefore it is not a case where as the petitioner puts it that

¶52

Wpc 29318/2013

¶53

-4-

¶54

no accounts have been submitted and respondents 6 to 8 are disqualified in terms of Clause 15 of Ext.P2. Unless and until surcharge proceedings are issued on finalisation of the audit, it cannot be said legally that respondents 6 to 8 have been surcharged and therefore there is disqualification.

¶55

But Shri Mohanakannan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accounts of the years 1995 to 2008 have not been submitted which is disputed by learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 6 to 8 by pointing out that it is not a case where the accounts have not been submitted, but the audit is pending which is clear from Ext.R5(c) letter also. What we find from Ext.P9 also is that on verification of the accounts, certain objections have been forwarded which definitely will show that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that accounts have not been submitted at all, cannot be accepted.

¶56

Therefore, as of now it cannot be that respondents 6 to 8 are disqualified to be members of Vela Committee. The further question is whether a proper meeting was held. This Court will not be justified in going into the various aspects of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as normally disputed questions of facts cannot be gone into in a writ petition. Apart from that, a fifty member Committee has

¶57

Wpc 29318/2013

¶58

-5-

¶59

been elected and all the members are not parties to the writ petition. True that the Committee is impleaded as a respondent, but unless the other members are there, this Court cannot properly adjudicate the matter and issue a direction to convene a fresh meeting for conduct of election.

¶60

Since it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the Board that the second respondent has approved the list of elected members, we direct the second respondent to communicate the decision to the petitioner, if not already done.

¶61

The writ petition is therefore dismissed subject to the above observations. In the light of the fact that the finalisation of the audit is still pending, we direct the competent authority among the Local Fund Audit to complete the audit for the respective years, expeditiously. No costs.

¶62

(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)

¶63

(B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE)

¶64

kav/

Kenath Kesava Menon (Kenath Achan) v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kenath Kesava Menon (Kenath Achan) v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joint Director of Local Fund Audit Vs Secretary

Cochin Devaswom Board Vs Deputy Secretary, Local Fund Audit

Thanthri v. Vishnu Bhattathiri Vs the Devaswom Commissioner

Cochin Devaswom Board Vs Deputy Director, Lfa, Thrissur

Ummer Vs Mohammed

Ayisu Vs Nabeesa