Remanded

P.Sarathkumar v. the Tdb

Kerala HC29 Nov 2016WP(C)/18881/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order cancelling the petitioner's hereditary right to conduct Pachavadyam Lavanam. The court held the Board failed to consider prior reports of the family's objection and ordered a fresh hearing within three months.

What did the court decide?

Exhibit P12 set aside; claims of petitioner, 5th respondent, and Kudumba Mooppan to be heard; fresh order to be passed within 3 months.

P.Sarathkumar Vs the Tdb — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 18881 of 2013 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

P.SARATHKUMAR, RESIDING AT KRISHNA NIVAS, ANIYOOR, CHEMPAZHANTHI.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI SMT.SABINA JAYAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEVASWOM BOARD BUILDING, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.

¶11

2. THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,

¶12

DEVASWOM BOARD BUILDING, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

3. THE ASST. DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, ULLOOR GROUP, ULLOOR, TRIVANDRUM.

¶14

4. THE SUB GROUP OFFICER, MAHADEVA DEVASWOM, KAZHAKOOTTAM, TRIVANDRUM.

¶15

5. K.SURESHKUMAR, PANCHAVADYAM, MAHADEVA DEVASWOM KAZHAKOOTTAM, RESIDING AT CHARUVILA PUTHENVEEDU, KAZHAKOTTAM, PIN - 695 532.

¶16

R1 TO R4 BY SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU, SC R5 BY ADVS.SRI.G.BIJU

¶17

SRI.S.JAYAPRAKASH (MADAVOOR)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

mbr/

¶20

WP(C).No. 18881 of 2013 (I)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITION --------	ER(S)' EXHIBITS: ---------------
P1.	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29-4-2010 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
P2.	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE SENIOR MOST MEMBER OF THE FAMILY BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
P3.	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
P4.	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31-7-2009 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
P5.	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 30-8-2006 OF THE TAHASILDAR, TRIVANDRUM.
P6.	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 1-8-2012 SUBMITTED BY THE SENIOR MOST MEMBER OF THE FAMILY BEFORE THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
P7.	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 10-9-2010 ISSUED BY SREE DURGA PANCHAVVADYA SAMITHI.
P8.	TRUE COPY FO THE CERTIFICATE DATED 15-2-2011 EVIDENCING THE PRESENT OCCUPATION OF THE PETITIONER.
P9.	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED NIL FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
P10.	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5-11-20122 IN WPC NO. 25969/2012 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
P11.	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5-7-2013 FROM THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, TDB TO THE PETITIONER.
P11A.	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3-7-2013 FROM THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
P12.	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. R.O.C. 6981/04/MIS.3 DATED 16-3-2013 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDE --------	NT(S)' EXHIBITS: ---------------

¶23

EXT.R5A: TRUE COPY OF CONSENT ISSUED BY THE KUDUMBA MOOPPAN OF ANIYOOR KEEZHE KAITHARA FAMILY.

¶24

--2--

¶25

--2--

¶26

WP(C).No. 18881 of 2013 (I)

¶27

EXT.R5B: TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN KERALA GAZETTE DATED 17.11.2009.

¶28

EXT.R5C: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 19.7.2012 APPOINTING 5TH RESPONDENT.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶33

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.18881 of 2013

¶34

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29^th day of November, 2016

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

1.This writ petition is filed challenging Exhibit P12 order of the Devaswom Board rejecting the petitioner's request for appointment in Pachavadyam Lavanam in Kazhakoottam Devaswom. It is submitted by the petitioner that he is a member of the family having Karanma right of Pachavadyam Lavanam in the Kazhakoottam Devaswom. By Exhibit P1, the 5^th respondent has been appointed cancelling the Karanma right of the family on the assumption that there is no one interested to continue the said lavanam in the family. The petitioner contends that Exhibit P4 had been submitted by the Sub Group Officer to the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner as early as on 31.07.2009 pointing out that the eldest member of the family had objected to the cancellation of the Karanma right and that the Commissioner had also been informed by the Assistant Commissioner by Exhibit P9 communication that a request had been made by the Kudumba Mooppan, one Sri.Krishnan Nair, seeking the appointment of the petitioner as Pachavadyam Lavanam.

¶37

W.P.(C).No.18881/13

¶38

¶39

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board as well the learned counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent.

¶40

3.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the question of eligibility of the petitioner to continue the Karanma right in the Pachavadyam Lavanam had been raised by the Kudumba Mooppan before the Board and the said fact has been reported by the Sub Group Officer by Exhibit P4. The Assistant Commissioner had also taken up the matter and forwarded a report to the Commissioner in pursuance to Exhibit P4. Further, the claim raised by the Kudumba Mooppan had been directed to be considered by this Court by Exhibit P10 judgment. It is submitted that Exhibit P12 order issued without considering these aspects and without hearing the eldest member of the family is illegal and arbitrary.

¶41

4.The the learned counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent would, on the other hand, contend that Exhibit R5(b)

¶42

W.P.(C).No.18881/13

¶43

¶44

notification was issued by the Board specifically calling for objections from any member of the family as against the cancellation of the hereditary right. Exhibit R5(b) is dated 17.11.2009. It is only thereafter on 29.04.2010 that Exhibit P1 order has been issued. It is further contended that the Kudumba Mooppan, who was the senior most member of the family, had not approached this Court even after Exhibit P1 order. It is further submitted that it was on the basis of a consent executed by the eldest member of the family that the 5^th respondent was appointed. This fact is disputed by the petitioner.

¶45

5.I have considered the contentions advanced. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that the availability of the petitioner as a member of the family had been reported by the Kudumba Mooppan to the Devaswom authorities as early as in 2009. Exhibit P4 report of the Sub Group Officer is dated 31.07.2009. Pursuant to Exhibit P4, it is submitted that the Assistant Commissioner had also reported to the

¶46

W.P.(C).No.18881/13

¶47

¶48

Commissioner as to the existence of a claim raised by the petitioner by Exhibit P9 communication. It is only thereafter that Exhibit R5(b) has been issued by the Board. This is evidently done without considering the reports forwarded by the Sub Group Officer and the Assistant Commissioner. Since the reports have been forwarded on the basis of a complaint raised by the Kudumba Mooppan as against the nomination of the 5^th respondent to continue the Pachavadyam Lavanam, as also against the cancelling of the Karanma right of the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the claim raised by the family ought to have been considered in its proper perspective before a decision to cancel the right was taken by the Board. Though it is true that Exhibit R5(b) had called for objections regarding cancellation of Karanma right, in view of the pendency of Exhibits P4 and P9 reports before the competent authorities, I am of the opinion that non-consideration of the claim raised by the petitioner vitiated the proceedings leading to Exhibit P1 order of appointment. It is pertinent to note that Exhibit P1 order of appointment is also made subject to the

¶49

W.P.(C).No.18881/13

¶50

¶51

existence of any claims being raised by the members of the family. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that respondent-Board has to consider the claim raised by the petitioner herein as well as the request made by the Kudumba Mooppan for appointment of the petitioner in the Karanma right of Pachavadyam Lavanam.

¶52

In the result, Exhibit P12 is set aside. All claims of the parties to the dispute are to be considered by the Board and a fresh decision is to be taken as to the continuance or otherwise of the Karanma right to conduct Pachavadyam Lavanam in the Kazhakoottam Devaswom. The petitioner, the 5^th respondent as well as the Kudumba Mooppan shall be heard by the Board and orders in this regard shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶53

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶54

sd/- Anu Sivaraman, Judge

¶55

P.Sarathkumar v. the Tdb

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Sarathkumar v. the Tdb

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

C.H.Pravin Kumar & Others Vs the Cmid, Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd.

Swapna Jacob Vs Management St.Mary'S High School & Other

Shaji.B Vs the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd., Rep.by Its Managing Director

Smt. Valsa Thattil Vs the Manager

T.Ayissu Vs the State of Kerala

M.Padmanabhan Namboothiri Vs State of Kerala