Dismissed

The Temple Advisory Committee of Thevalakkara Devaswom v. Travancore Devaswom Board

Kerala HC22 Mar 2018WP(C)/8628/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought police protection for an annual temple festival, citing threats from respondents and claims of exclusive road possession. The Court dismissed the petition, finding the petitioner did not approach with clean hands due to suppression of an interim injunction in a related civil suit regarding the disputed road. Police aid was deemed inappropriate.

What did the court decide?

The Writ petition is dismissed. No positive directions to Police authorities.

The Temple Advisory Committee of Thevalakkara Devaswom… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 8628 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER(S)

¶7

THE TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THEVALAKKARA DEVASWOM THEVALAKKARA SUB GROUP, KARUNAGAPPALLY GROUP, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY J. RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI, S/O. JANARDHANA KURUP, AGED 63, THEKKEDATH THAPSYA, NADUVILAKKARA, THEVALAKKARA P.O., KOLLAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN SMT.R.RANJINI SRI.M.ASHOK KINI

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD

¶11

OFFICE OF THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANDANKODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY - 695 001.

¶12

2. THE SUB GROUP OFFICER, THEVALAKKARA DEVASWOM, THEVALAKKARA SUB GROUP, KARUNAGAPPALLY GROUP, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD - 690 518.

¶13

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KARUNAGAPALLY - 690 518.

¶14

4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHAVARA - 691 583.

¶15

5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHAVARA THEKKUMBHAGAM POLICE STATION - 691 583.

¶16

6. MAYA UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 43, W/O. UNNIKRISHNA PILLA, DWARAKA, THEVALAKKARA P.O., NADUVILAKKARA MURI, THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK - 690 524.

¶17

7. P.R. GOPAKUMAR, AGED 46, S/O. RADHAKRISHNA PILLA, MAYASADANAM, THEVALAKKARA P.O., NADUVILAKKARA MURI, THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK - 690 524.

¶18

8. P.R. NANDAKUMAR, AGED 42, S/O. RADHAKRISHNA PILLA, MAYASADANAM, THEVALAKKARA P.O., NADUVILAKKARA MURI, THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK - 690 524.

¶19

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, SC, TDB R6 TO R8 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE JACOB (JOSE) R3 TO R5 BY SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C).No. 8628 of 2018 (C)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶24

EXHIBIT P1	THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 13.01.2016 APPROVING THE TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
EXHIBIT P2	THE PHOTOCOPY OF PROCEEDING DATED 11.10.2017 ISSUED BY DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER.
EXHIBIT P3	THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 25.04.2017, SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4	THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 25.04.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5	THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 09.05.2017, SUBMITTED KARUNAGAPPALLY GROUP ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER.
EXHIBIT P6	THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT DATED 09.01.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE TAHSILDAR, KARUNAGAPPALLY.
EXHIBIT P7	THE PHOTOCOPY OF FIR NO. 42/2018.
EXHIBIT P8	THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.01.2018 IN BA NO.490/2018.
EXHIBIT P9	THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 09.03.2018, SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10	THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT RECEIVED FROM THE THEKKUMBHAGAM POLICE STATION DATED 09.03.2018.

¶25

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

¶26

EXHIBIT R6-A : COPY OF THE ORDER OF INTERIM INJUNCTION DATED 22.5.2017 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY IN OS NO.201/2017.

¶27

EXHIBIT R6-B : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED NIL PUBLISHED BY THE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY OF THE PETITIONER MALIGNING THE 7TH RESPONDENT.

¶28

EXHIBIT R6-C : COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 24.1.2018 SUBMITTED BY 7TH RESPONDENT TO THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOLLAM CITY.

¶29

EXHIBIT R6-D : COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 24.1.2018 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOLLAM CITY TO 7TH RESPONDENT.

¶30

EXHIBIT R6-E : COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 18.12.2017 EVIDENCING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE SETTLEMENT BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND 7TH RESPONDENT AND HUSBAND OF THE PETITIONER.

¶31

EXHIBIT R6-F : COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 18.7.2002 OF THE SUB COURT, KOLLAM IN OS NO.740/1993 FILED BY TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD.

//TRUE COPY//

PS TO JUDGE.

jg-28/3

K.VINOD CHANDRAN & ASHOK MENON, JJ.

¶36

WP(C) No.8628 of 2018

¶37

------------------------------------------Dated this the 22^nd day of March, 2018

¶38

J U D G M E N T

¶39

Ashok Menon, J.

¶40

The Temple Advisory Committee of Thevalakkara Devaswom coming under the first respondent Devaswom Board is before us seeking police protection for the smooth conduct of the annual temple festival of Thevalakkara Devi Temple and Angadi Ganapathy Temple scheduled to be held from 21^st to 30^th March, 2018. The petitioner claims right to administer the temple by virtue of Exhibit P1 approval issued by the first respondent Board. It is claimed that the road in front of the Temple belongs to the Devaswom and is in its exclusive possession. On 11.10.2017, the first respondent granted permission as per Exhibit P2 to construct panthal (canopy) outside the Gopuram of Angadi Ganapathy Temple in connection with the temple festival. Party respondents 6 to 8 are residing near the Angadi Ganapathy Temple. They had attempted to encroach into the property belonging to the Devaswom. Exhibits P3 to P5 complaints were filed against them.

¶41

WPC 8628/18

¶42

-2-

¶43

In retaliation, they filed a suit as O.S. 201 of 2017 before the Munsiff's court, Karunagappally against the members of the Temple Advisory Committee contending that the road in front of the Angadi Ganapathy Temple is a puramboke land and that the Committee has encroached upon that land for construction. The petitioner is contesting that suit. It is stated that the petitioner is not causing any obstruction to the road access of respondents 6 to 8. On the basis of Exhibit P6 report filed by the Tahsildar, Exhibit P7 FIR has been registered against the President and the Secretary of the Committee. The persons named in the FIR obtained bail from this Court as per Exhibit P8 order. The petitioner apprehends mischief on the part of respondents 6 to 8 during the conduct of the festival. Hence, they filed complaint before the Police authorities, as is evidenced by Exhibits P9 and P10. No action has been taken by them. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking police protection for the smooth conduct of the festival without any let or hindrance from respondents 6 to 8.

¶44

Respondents 6 to 8 appear and a counter

¶45

WPC 8628/18

¶46

-3-

¶47

affidavit has been filed on behalf of them by the sixth respondent. It is contended that the petitioner is guilty of suppression of facts as nothing is mentioned in the Writ Petition about the temporary injunction obtained by the party respondents in the civil suit they had filed before the Munsiff's Court, Karunagappally as per Exhibit R6-A. It is also stated that the term of the Temple Advisory Committee has expired on 11^th January, 2018. It is also contended that the road in front of the Temple does not belong to Devaswom. It is a Panchayat puramboke and the petitioner Committee is not entitled to construct any structure on that road. It is also stated that, as early as, in 2002, Sub Court, Kollam in OS No.740 of 1993 vide Exhibit R6-F judgment had held that the disputed road is maintained by the Panchayat and is being used by the general public, and the claim of the Devaswom that the road belongs exclusively to them has been rejected.

¶48

A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner stating that the injunction order obtained by respondents 6 to 7 has no direct bearing on the

¶49

WPC 8628/18

¶50

-4-

¶51

issue involved in this Writ Petition and hence the petitioner did not mention about such an order in the Writ Petition. It is also stated that the petitioner is not a party to OS 740 of 1993 before Sub Court, Kollam and hence they are not aware of the judgment produced as Exhibit R6-F.

¶52

After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the party respondents as well as the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 3 to 5, we are convinced that the threat apprehended by the petitioner is not well founded. The petitioner did not approach this Court with clean hands as the fact regarding the order of injunction preventing them from causing any obstruction to the disputed road has been suppressed in the Writ Petition. From Exhibit R6-A it is clear that there is a dispute regarding the road in front of the Temple and is a subject matter of litigation between the petitioner and respondents 6 to 8. Exhibit P6 indicates that the Tahsildar has made a complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police for action against the Temple authorities for having encroached upon the public road and made construction of permanent

¶53

WPC 8628/18

¶54

-5-

¶55

nature. Exhibit R6-F indicates that there was a suit filed by The Travancore Devaswom Board against the Thevalakkara Panchayat claiming exclusive right over the disputed road and the Court decided in favour of the Panchayat. Under the circumstances, it would be most inappropriate to involve the Police authorities to render assistance to the petitioners for conducting the temple festival. We are, therefore, not inclined to give any positive directions to the Police authorities. The Writ petition is dismissed.

¶56

Though we find that this is a fit case, which could be imposed with cost, only because of the fair submission of the learned counsel for the respondents, no costs is imposed.

¶57

Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE

¶58

Sd/ASHOK MENON JUDGE

¶59

The Temple Advisory Committee of Thevalakkara Devaswom v. Travancore Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Temple Advisory Committee of Thevalakkara Devaswom v. Travancore Devaswom Board

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

M/S. Hamara Hotels (P) Ltd., Vs the Intelligence Officer

M/S. Evm Passenger Cars India Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Kerala

P.C.Ramakrishnan Vs Circle Inspector of Police

Kannankutty Vs District Superintendant of Police

Arpookkara Grama Panchayat Vs Superintendent of Police

Catholic Syrian Bank Vs T.N. Ramasubrahmanian