Allowed

V.v.Mani Warrier v. Commissioner Hrn & Ce

Kerala HC6 Oct 2015WP(C)/8448/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition regarding the petitioner's claim to hereditary Kazhakam rights in a temple. Directing respondents to implement the Commissioner's order affirming the claim within two months, the court allowed the petitioner remedies for wage claims.

What did the court decide?

Respondents obligated to implement the Commissioner's order affirming hereditary rights within two months; petitioner's remedies for wage claims kept open.

V.v.Mani Warrier Vs Commissioner Hrn & Ce — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/14TH ASWINA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 8448 of 2006 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

V.V.MANI WARRIER, S/O.KUNJIRAMA WARRIER, AGED 41 YEARS, KAZHAKAM, SREE MANIYOOR SUBRAMANYA SWAMY TEMPLE, MANIYOOR, RESIDING AT VADAKKAY VEEDU, MANIYOOR, CHEKKIKULAM P.O. THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN SRI.RAJU SEBASTIAN VADAKKEKKARA SRI.BABY MATHEW

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOVEMENT OFFICE, KOZHIKODE.

¶11

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOVEMENT OFFICE KANJANGAD, KASARKODE DISTRICT.

¶12

3. THE CHAIRMAN, MANIYOOR SUBRAMANYA SWAMY TEMPLE, MANIYOOR DEVASWAM, CHEKKIKULAM P.O. PIN - 670 592.

¶13

R,R3 BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH R,R1 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.J. RAJASREE R1,R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-10-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 8448 of 2006 (E)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

¶18

EXT.P1	COPY OF THE GENERAL POWR OF ATTORNEY DTD.30.10.04
EXT.P2	COPY OF THE G.O(MS) 415/96/RO DTD 6.8.96
EXT.P3	COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.31.7.02 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶19

EXT.P4 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.8.05 EXT.P5 COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.7.11.01 IN O.A NO.19/2000 EXT.P6 COPY OF THE SALARY SCHEDULE WITH EFFECT FROM 1.1.95 EXT.P7 COPY OF THE SALARY SCHEDULE WITH EFFECT FROM 1.7.03 EXT.P8 COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.13.8.02 EXT.P9 COPY FO THE LETTER DATED 21.1.04 EXT.P10 COPY OF THE ORDER IN AP 7/2013/DTD.3/12/14

¶20

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

// TRUE COPY //

P.A TO JUDGE

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶25

=====================

¶26

W.P.(C) No.8448 of 2006 - E

¶27

======================

¶28

Dated this the 6^th day of October, 2015

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

The dispute raised in the above writ petition is with respect to the Kazhakam rights of the Sri Maniyoor Subrahmania Swamy Temple, which the petitioner asserts on the family of the petitioner. The petitioner claims that from 1986-1990 the petitioner's father had carried out the Kazhakam and from 19901995, his mother and then his brother from 1995 to 2004. The petitioner had been functioning as the Kazhakam in 2004.

¶31

The petitioner's allegation is that no salary has

¶32

been paid to the petitioner or his predecessors-in-interest. The petitioner's mother had been before the Commissioner, asserting her hereditary rights to carry on the Kazhakam in the Sri Maniyoor Subrahmania Swamy Temple. The same was allowed by Ext.P5, but however, an ex-parte order. The Chairman, the 3^rd respondent herein is said to have filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner to set aside the order at Ext.P5 and also

¶33

¶34

W.P.(C) No.8448 of 2006 - E

¶35

review the same. The delay was almost of an extent of 5 years.

¶36

The Deputy Commissioner is said to have reversed the orders after setting aside the ex-parte order. However, the petitioner filed an application before the Commissioner, the Malabar Devaswom Board, who set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner and passed Ext.P10, which affirmed the claim of hereditary right on the petitioner's family.

¶37

The respondents 1 and 2 shall see that the Chairman shall implement the order at Ext.P10 within a period of two months. The petitioner shall be left the remedies open in accordance with law to prove the service rendered and claim wages.

¶38

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶41

SB/07/10/2015

¶42

// true copy //

¶43

P.A to Judge.

V.v.Mani Warrier v. Commissioner Hrn & Ce

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.v.Mani Warrier v. Commissioner Hrn & Ce

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

Nini Joseph Vs Director of Higher Secondary Education

M.Mohammed Moulavi Vs State of Kerala

Malabar Distillery Employees Association Vs State of Kerala

Prabodh.S.S Vs State of Kerala

Rebeccamma Vs the District Superintend of Police

Haleema Nawrin Vs Union of India