Disposed

Temple Advisory Committee v. the Secretary

Kerala HC14 Aug 2017DBP/4/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court continued suo motu proceedings regarding trespass and compound wall construction at Ayankoickal Sree Dharmasastha Temple. It directed the Devaswom Commissioner to implement a suggestion to build a wall preventing terrace access by Soman. It also ordered the Chief Engineer to finalise a tender for a northern pathway within three months, closing the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Devaswom Commissioner to implement suggestion for compound wall construction; Chief Engineer to finalise pathway tender within three months.

Temple Advisory Committee Vs the Secretary — Kerala HC (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.

¶4

MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/23RD SRAVANA, 1939

¶5

DBP.No. 4 of 2017 () ---------------------

¶6

(IN THE MATTER OF TDB REPORT NO.4 OF 2017-CONSTRUCTION OF COMPOUND WALL – AYYANCOICKAL SREE DHARMASASTHA TEMPLE – PERINADU – SUO MOTU PROCEEDINGS INITIATED – REG. )

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, AYYANKOICKAL SREE DHARMASASTHA TEMPLE, KUREEPUZHA P.O. PERINADU, KOLLAM – 691 604 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

THE SECRETARY, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHENCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶11

SHRI R. SOMAN, S.N. NIVAS, AYYANKOICKAL, THEKKETHIL, KUREEPUZHA P.O., PERINADU, KOLLAM.

¶12

SHRI JOSE, AYYANKOICKAL THEKKETHIL, KUREEPUZHA P.O., PERINADU, KOLLAM.

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRI, SC, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD

¶14

BY ADV. SHRI P. RAMACHANDRAN AMICUS CURIAE FOR OMBUDSMAN

¶15

THIS DEVASWOM BOARD PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON & SHIRCY V, JJ.

¶17

DBP No.4 of 2017

¶18

Dated this the 14^th August , 2017

¶19

ORDER

¶20

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.

¶21

This is a continuation of the proceedings in connection with the issue projected in TDB Report No.52 of 2015 forming the subject matter of DBP No.48 of 2015 and the order passed by this Court on 01.06.2016 in DBP No.31 of 2016. We have gone through the contents of the proceedings including the report dated 18.01.2017 submitted by the learned Ombudsman.

¶22

Heard .

¶23

It is brought to the notice of this Court that, with regard

¶24

to the alleged trespass made by the person by name Soman, the matter has been considered and a suggestion has been putforth by the Devaswom Commissioner, as per his report dated 26.11.2016 (Annexure B) produced along with the proceedings of the learned Ombudsman in DBP Nos.48 of 2015 and 31 of 2016. The Commissioner has pointed out that, if the compound wall is constructed closing the door, the person by name Soman

¶25

¶26

DBP No.4 of 2017

¶27

will not be in a position to climb up the terrace portion and that a portion of the steps will come up within the boundary wall. No other way is there to reach the terrace portion. The Commissioner has suggested that if the wall is constructed leaving 60 cm, i.e. width of sunshade, the problem could be solved. It is observed that a portion of the building is constructed on the Devaswom land, but, considering the totality of the circumstances, it is seen that the suggestion made by the Commissioner is a more practical one. We find it appropriate to give effect to the same and it is ordered accordingly, directing the Devaswom Commissioner to implement the suggestion as put forth vide Annexure B report dated 26.11.2016.

¶28

It is recorded in the proceedings dated 18.01.2017 of the learned Ombudsman that the issue with regard to the other trespasser by name Jose has been amicably settled by constructing a compound wall and that it has been recorded in the proceedings dated 03.08.2016 of the learned Ombudsman, as borne by Annexure D. The position is recorded as above.

¶29

The remaining issue is with regard to construction of a 'pathway' through the northern side of the property. A copy of

¶30

¶31

DBP No.4 of 2017

¶32

the relevant proceedings dated 21.11.2016 has been produced as Annexure E. On going through the contents of Annexure E, it is seen that a tender was invited by the Execute Engineer (Estate) and that the matter is pending before the Chief Engineer (General). The said position was reported by the learned Ombudsman on 16.01.2017. If the said proceedings are still to be finalised, the Chief Engineer (General) shall immediately look into the same and cause it to be finalised in accordance with law, at the earliest, at any rate, within a further period of three months from today.

¶33

The DBP stands closed accordingly.

¶34

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶35

SHIRCY V, JUDGE

¶36

Temple Advisory Committee v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Temple Advisory Committee v. the Secretary

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

The Chairman and Managing Director Vs P.K Madhavan

The Ministry of Communications, Vs Shyamala M.L

P.R.Vijayakumar Vs State of Kerala

Sree Elamaarankulangara Bhagavathy Dev. Vs the Commissioner (Hr & Ce) Admn. Dept

The Secretary , Cochin Devaswom Board Vs the Deputy Director, Kerala State Audit Department

Travancore Devaswom Board Vs the Deputy Director,Ksad