Allowed

Eranjimannam Desam Sri Purattil Bhagawathi Kshethra Committeed v. District Collector,Palakkad

Kerala HC26 Nov 2019WP(C)/5520/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought approval for temple renovation. The District Collector refused concurrence pending disposition of civil suits regarding temple management. The Court held the Collector was bound by the Manual of Guidelines and the Fr.Geevarghese judgment to decide based on communal harmony inputs only, not pending management suits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed. Ext.P14 set aside. District Collector directed to consider application under the Manual and issue order within one month.

Eranjimannam Desam Sri Purattil Bhagawathi Kshethra… — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.5520 OF 2018(L)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ERANJIMANNAM DESOM SRI PURATTIL BHAGAWATHI KSHETHRA COMMITTEE, KOLLENGODE NO.2 VILLAGE, ERANJIMANNAM, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 506, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, SHRI.RAVUNYARATH SURENDRA MENON, AGED 65, S/O.(LATE)K.NARAYANAN NAIR, RESIDING AT CHIRANIYIL, 'KN NAIR KALAM', KOLLENGODE, PALAKKAD-678 506.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN SRI.S.NITHIN (ANCHAL) SRI.SABU GEORGE SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-678 001. 2 KOLLENGODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOLLENGODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 506.

¶11

3 SREEDHARA MENON S/O.AMMUKKUTTY AMMA, AGED 66, RESIDING AT PUTHANVEETTIL, ERANJIMANNAM, THOROTTIL, KOLLENGODE II VILLAGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 506.

¶12

WP(C).No.5520 OF 2018(L)

¶13

¶14

[CORRECTED] [MR.SREEDHARA MENON, C/O N.PANKAJAKSHY AMMA (NURSING ASST.RETD), KUZHIVELIL VEEDU, NADUKUNNU, VETTIKAVLA POST, KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM-691538.] ADDRESS OF RESPONDENT 3 IS CORRECTED AS PER ORDER DATED 27/02/2018 IN IA.3186/2018.

¶15

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PRASANTH

¶16

GP RAJI T.BHASKAR

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No.5520 OF 2018(L)

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The petitioner is stated to be the Committee in charge of the “Eranjimannan Desom Sri.Purattil Bhagawathi Temple” at Chittoor Taluk Palakkad. They say that this is a Temple, which has been in existence for more than a century and a half and that it has now become imperative for certain essential renovative and maintenance work to be done on it. They say that, they, therefore, preferred an application before the 2^nd respondentKollengode Grama Panchayat for such purpose, which was then referred by the said Panchayat to the 1^st respondent-District Collector under the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, which mandate that the prior approval of the District Collector is required under to the “Manual of Guidelines to Prevent and Control Communal Disturbances and to Promote Communal Harmony, 2005” (hereinafter referred to as Manual for short).

¶22

According to the petitioner, their application had been referred to the District Collector by the Panchayat after granting an in-principle sanction for the construction, as is evident from Ext.P3 resolution; and that the District Collector, thereafter, obtained a report from the District Police Chief, Palakkad, wherein

¶23

WP(C).No.5520 OF 2018(L)

¶24

¶25

it has been clearly stated that there are no law and order issues anticipated in granting permission for the construction of the Temple, but has fleetingly referred to certain suits filed by the 3^rd respondent-Sri.Sreedhara Menon, with respect to the Management and such other aspects of the Temple. The petitioner says that, the said report of the District Police Chief unequivocally indicates that there is no objection in granting permission, subject to the disposal of the afore mentioned suits, by the concerned Authorities. The petitioner asserts that, obviously, therefore, the District Collector was obligated to grant permission, particularly, in view of the judgment of this Court in Fr.Geevarghese v. District Collector [2014(4)KLT 553].

¶26

The petitioner alleges that, however, the District Collector has now issued Ext.P14, refusing to grant concurrence for construction solely saying that unless the suits filed by the 3^rd respondent are disposed of by the competent Civil Court, no concurrence can be given by him. The petitioner asserts that, this stand of the District Collector is untenable and therefore, prays that this Court set aside the same and direct the District Collector to issue appropriate orders in terms of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules and the afore mentioned Manual at the earliest.

¶27

WP(C).No.5520 OF 2018(L)

¶28

¶29

The learned Government Pleader-Smt.Raji.T.Bhaskar appearing on behalf of the 1^st respondent, submits that, as is evident from Ext.P14, the District Collector has not refused to grant concurrence to the construction as applied for by the petitioner, but has only chosen to wait until the civil suits filed the by the 3^rd respondent are finally disposed of. She says that Ext.P14 is, therefore, irreproachable and prays that this writ petition be dismissed.

¶30

I have considered the afore submissions and have also assessed and evaluated the materials on record.

¶31

As rightly pointed out by Sri.P.B.Krishnan-learned counsel for the petitioner, the most vital input that should have guided the District Collector, namely Ext.P7 report of the District Police Chief, unequivocally states that there are no law and order problems anticipated if the proposed construction of the petitioner are allowed to be taken forward. The District Collector was, therefore, indubitably bound to consider the matter under the provisions of the afore Manual and decide whether the construction now proposed would cause any problem from the angle of communal disturbance or harmony. In fact, as also rightly contended by Sri.P.B.Krishnan, this Court had already

¶32

WP(C).No.5520 OF 2018(L)

¶33

¶34

declared Fr.Geevarghese (supra), that the District Collector is only enjoined to consider the matter from the angle of the manual and no other; and therefore, the pendency of the Civil Suits at the instance of the 3^rd respondent would normally have been of no consequence as far as he is concerned, particularly, because the said Suits relate to issues touching upon the Management and religious requirements of the Temple, in which the District Collector has no role to play. I am, therefore, certain that the said Authority was obligated to consider the application of the petitioner, referred to him by the Panchayat, under the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules de hors the civil suits filed by the 3^rd respondent and based on the other relevant inputs including Ext.P7.

¶35

In the afore perspective, I set aside Ext.P14 and direct the District Collector to immediately consider the application of the petitioner in terms of the “Manual of Guidelines to Prevent and Control Communal Disturbances and to Promote Communal Harmony, 2005,” adverting to all relevant and germane inputs, including Ext.P7; and then issue an appropriate order thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I leave liberty to

¶36

WP(C).No.5520 OF 2018(L)

¶37

¶38

the District Collector also to obtain any other inputs that may be found necessary to complete the afore process, and to issue the final order within the time frame granted herein.

¶39

Needless to say, once the District Collector issues his final order and communicates the same to the Panchayat, its Secretary will be obligated to consider the application of the petitioner for the Building Permit, however, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the 3^rd respondent also.

¶40

This writ petition is thus ordered.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶43

JUDGE

¶44

nak

¶45

WP(C).No.5520 OF 2018(L)

¶46

¶47

APPENDIX

¶48

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶49

EXHIBIT P1	DATED 12/05/2016- A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR PERMIT FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE ERANJIMANNAM SRI.PURATTIL BHAGAWATHI TEMPLE.
EXHIBIT P2	DATED 10/06/2016.- A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KOLLENGODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT.
EXHIBIT P3	DATED 20/06/2016-C A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.5(4) PASSED BY THE KOLLENGODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT FOR THE GRANT OF PERMISSION TO PETITIONER'S APPLICATION.
EXHIBIT P4	DATED 27/06/2016 -A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM RESPONDENT NO.2 REF.NO.B4- 4820/2016 ADDRESSED TO RESPONDENT NO.1.
EXHIBIT P5	DATED 04/07/2016- A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM RESPONDENT NO.1 REF.NO.D.1.2016/45825/9.
EXHIBIT P6	DATED 20/07/2016- A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.4(6) OF RESPONDENT NO.2,
EXHIBIT P7	DATED 28/10/2016-A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF PALAKKAD, NO.G1(A)-72525/2016/PTO R1.
EXHIBIT P8	DATED 22/01/2016-COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS.NO.33 OF 2016, ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHITTOOR
EXHIBIT P9	COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN OS.NO.33 OF 2016, MC, CHITTOOR, DATED -/08/2016
EXHIBIT P10	COPY OF THE ADDL.WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN OS.NO.33 OF 2016, MC, CHITTOOR, DATED 24/11/2017

¶50

WP(C).No.5520 OF 2018(L)

¶51

¶52

EXHIBIT P11	COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL NO.715/2016, DATED 01/12/2017
EXHIBIT P12	COPY OF THE LETTER B1-9131/16 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2, DATED 30/09/2016
EXHIBIT P13	COPY OF THE LETTER B1-938/16 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2, DATED 06/02/2016.
EXHIBIT P14	DATED 11.05.2017 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR TO THE SECRETARY, KOLLENGODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT BEARING NO.D1 2016/45825/9
EXHIBIT P15	DATED 17.12.2008- A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE PETITIONER COMMITTEE REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1860.
EXHIBIT P16	DATED 17.12.2008- A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF THE PETITIONER COMMITTEE.
EXHIBIT P-17(A)	DATED 26.04.2016- A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE PETITIONER COMMITTEE BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOLLENGODE-II VILLAGE BEARING NO.633/2016 IN RESPECT OF 6.40 ARES OF LAND IN SY.NO.167/1.
EXHIBIT P-17(B)	DATED 27.05.2016 0- A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED OT THE OFFICE BEARERS OF THE PETITIONER COMMITTEE BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOLLENGODE-II VILLAGE BEARING NO.931/2016 IN RESPECT OF 2.40 ARES OF LAND IN SY.NO.167/9.
EXHIBIT P-18	DATED 19.06.2017 - A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE OFFICE BEARERS OF THE PETITIONER COMMITTEE IN RESPECT OF 6.40 ARES AND 2.40 ARES OF PROPERTIES.
EXHIBIT P-19	DATED 08.08.2018 - A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.250 OF 2018, ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHITTUR.

¶53

WP(C).No.5520 OF 2018(L)

¶54

¶55

EXHIBIT -P20 DATED 08.08.2018 - A TRUE CP[U PF I.A.NO.1134 OF 2018 IN O.S.NO.250 OF 2018. EXHIBIT P-21 DATED 08.08.2018 - A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO. 1134 OF 2018 IN O.S.NO. 250 OF 2018, PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF OF CHITTUR. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R3(A) TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DT.01.01.2018 SENT BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, PALAKKAD TO THE SECRETARY OF THE KOLLENGODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXHIBIT R3(B) TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DT.11.05.2017 SENT BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD TO THE SECRETARY, KOLLENGODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXHIBIT R3(C) TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS DT.24.10.2002 PUBLISHED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE CELEBRATION COMMITTEE OF PURATTIL BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE. EXHIBIT R3(D) TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DT. 04.05.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. EXHIBIT R3(E) TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO.BI-3064/19 DT.10.05.2019 SENT BY THE SECRETARY OF THE KOLLENGODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXHIBIT R3(F) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DT.17.6.2010 SUBMITTED BY ONE K.DAMODRAN. EXHIBIT R3(G) TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT DT.29.4.2017 SUBMITTED BY R1 AND R1 IN APPEAL NO.715 OF 2016 ON THE FILE OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXHIBIT R3(H) TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION DT.14.09.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN I.A.NO.1134 OF 2018 IN O.S. NO. 250 OF 2018 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFFS COURT, CHITTUR.

¶56

WP(C).No.5520 OF 2018(L)

¶57

¶58

SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN I.A.NO.1503 OF 2018 IN O.S.NO.250 OF 2018 ON THE FILED OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHITTUR.

¶59

EXHIBIT R3(J) TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION DT.30.10.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN I.A.NO.1504 OF 2018 IN O.S.NO.250 OF 2018 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHITTUR.

¶60

EXHIBIT R3(K) TRUE COPY OF COMMON LAWYER'S NOTICE DT.06.10.2018 SENT ON BEHALF OF R3 AND OTHERS. EXHIBIT R3(L) TRUE COPY OF REPLY NOTICE DT.15.10.2018 SENT ON BEHALF OF ONE SINDHU ALONG WITH A REPLY OF ONE GIRIJA.

¶61

EXHIBIT R3(M) TRUE COPY OF REPLY NOTICE DT.15.10.2018 SENT ON BEHALF OF ONE KANNAN @ NARAYANANKUTTY.

¶62

//TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE

Eranjimannam Desam Sri Purattil Bhagawathi Kshethra Committeed v. District Collector,Palakkad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Eranjimannam Desam Sri Purattil Bhagawathi Kshethra Committeed v. District Collector,Palakkad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sree Menothukavu Bhagavathi Temple Managing Committee Vs the State of Kerala

Mustaffa Thattancherry, Vs the Director of Panchayat

Sakeer Hussain, Vs State of Kerala

K.Ramanathan Vs the District Collector, Kasaragod

M.B Sathi Vs the District Collector

Manappuram Finance Limited, Vs the Secretary, Valappad Grama Panchayath