Disposed

P.M.Balakrishnan v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Oct 2020WP(C)/19584/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the Commissioner of Malabar Devaswom Board's failure to number his applications and decide the maintainability of a revision petition as a preliminary point under the Madras Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. The Court held that no statutory right to mandatory mandamus exists on the facts but directed the authority to number pending applications and decide the rev

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to number the petitioner's applications Exts. P2 and P3 if not already numbered and to decide Ex. P1 revision petition and contentions therein expeditiously, without affect

P.M.Balakrishnan Vs the State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL

¶6

MONDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 13TH ASWINA, 1942

¶7

WP(C).No.19584 OF 2020(W)

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

P.M.BALAKRISHNAN,AGED 85 YEARS S/O.LATE P.M.KALYANI AMMA, TRUSTEE AND GENERAL MANAGER,PRASSINI MADAPPURA SREE MUTHAPPAN TEMPLE, PARASSINIKADAVU P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT670563.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEVASWOM DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695001.

¶13

2 THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSE FED COMPLEX, MINI BYPASS, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE-673006.

¶14

3 P.M.VIJAYAN,AGED 84 YEARS S/O.NARAYANI P.M., PRASSINI MADAPPURA SREE MUTHAPPAN TEMPLE, PARASSINIKADAVU P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT-670563.

¶15

4 P.SATHEESAN,AGED 83 YEARS S/O.MADHAVI P.M.,POOCHALI HOUSE, PARAPPANMOTTA, KAKKAD P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT-670505.

¶16

W.P.(C)No.19584 of 2020

¶17

¶18

5 P.SURESHAN,AGED 81 YEARS S/O.MADHAVI P.M., POOCHALI HOUSE, PARAPPANMOTTA, KAKKAD P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT-670505.

¶19

6 M.P.SUGUNAN,AGED 77 YEARS S/O.P.M.KAUSALYA, AKSHAYA, CHALILMOTTA, VARAM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT-670594.

¶20

7 M.P.JANARDHANAN,AGED 76 YEARS S/O.P.M.THAMBAYI, PRASSINI MADAPPURA SREE MUTHAPPAN TEMPLE, PARASSINIKADAVU P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT-670563.

¶21

8 P.P.MADHAVAN,AGED 78 YEARS S/O.P.M.ANATHAN MADAYAN, PUTHIYAPURAYIL HOUSE, PARASSINIKADAVU P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT-670563.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

W.P.(C)No.19584 of 2020

JUDGMENT

Ravikumar, J.

The first respondent in R.P.No.2 of 2020 which is a proceeding pending before the Commissioner of Malabar Devaswom Board, the 2^nd respondent herein, under Section 18(1) of the Madras Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act'), filed this writ petition seeking the following relief:-

¶28

“issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 2^nd respondent to take up Exts-P2 and P3, and in terms of the Law to consider the maintainability of Ext-P1, and to decide the same as a preliminary point, and only thereafter any further proceedings is had, in the interest of justice.”

¶29

The said prayer itself would reveal that the petitioner is aggrieved by the non-numbering of the applications filed by him as Exts.P2 and P3 before the 2^nd respondent and also non-consideration of the question of maintainability of Ext.P1 which is the revision petition, raised in Exts.P2 and P3 as a preliminary point, and therefore, he seeks a further direction virtually to restrain the authority to proceed with consideration of the revision petition before deciding the question of maintainability as preliminary point. To buttress his claim and contention therefor,

¶30

W.P.(C)No.19584 of 2020

¶31

¶32

learned counsel relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Smt.Ujjam Bai v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 1962 SC 1621.

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Malabar Devaswom Board and also the learned Government Pleader.

¶34

The learned Government Pleader would submit that a careful scanning of the pleadings in the writ petition would reveal that there is absolutely no necessity to array the State as a party to this writ petition. No action on the part of the State is under challenge. So also, no relief is sought against the State. We find merit in the said submission. Since we are only proposing to pass an order which, in our view in no way adversely affect or cause prejudice to the 3^rd respondent, we are inclined to consider the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition. In such circumstances, issuance of notice to respondent Nos.3 to 8 is dispensed with.

¶35

To our pointed question as to whether the provisions under the Code of Civil Procedure proprio vigore apply to the proceedings before the Commissioner, under Section 18 of the Act the

¶36

W.P.(C)No.19584 of 2020

¶37

¶38

learned counsel for the petitioner replied it in the negative. In such circumstances, as a matter of right, the petitioner cannot seek for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the Commissioner to decide maintainability as preliminary point as he got no such right and therefore, the said authority got no corresponding duty to consider it in the manner sought for, by the petitioner. Of course, the petitioner got a grievance that he has filed Exts.P2 and P3 in R.P.No.2 of 2020 and those applications are yet to be numbered. As a matter of fact his apprehension is that, in such circumstances, the 2^nd respondent would not consider his contentions raised in Exts.P2 and P3. It is the precise contention of the petitioner that as per Ext.P2 he raised a contention regarding the maintainability of the revision petition in the light of the provisions under Section 18 of the Act. His contention is that the proceedings in respect of which the 3^rd respondent preferred the revision petition is one, in respect of which, a suit or appeal to a court is provided under the Act and therefore, in terms of the provisions under Section 18 of the Act Ext.P1 revision petition will not lie. The applications marked as Exts.P2 and P3 in this writ petition, which admittedly carry such contentions, are filed in R.P.No.2 of 2020. There is no case for the petitioner that ignoring Exts.P2 and P3 and without numbering it the Commissioner has proceeded with consideration of

¶39

W.P.(C)No.19584 of 2020

¶40

¶41

Ext.P1 and passed orders thereon. The learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent would submit that the appeal is still pending before the Commissioner. Despite the persuasive arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, taking note of the pendency of the revision petition, we are of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of with directions to the 2^nd respondent to number Exts.P2 and P3 applications, if not already numbered, and decide Ext.P1 revision petition and the contentions raised by the petitioner in Exts.P2 and P3 in accordance with law expeditiously. We make it clear that we have not made any observation touching the merits of the contentions raised in Exts.P1, P2 & P3.

¶42

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶43

Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge

Sd/-

K.HARIPAL Judge

TKS

W.P.(C)No.19584 of 2020

¶48

¶49

APPENDIX

¶50

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶51

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 3 TO 7 AND NUMBERED AS R.P.NO.2 OF 2020 DATED 18.06.2020.

¶52

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN DATED 16.7.2020. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN DATED 17.07.2020. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORTED JUDGMENT IN 2018 VOL 18 SCC PAGE 560 DATED 27.09.2020.

¶53

TKS

P.M.Balakrishnan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.M.Balakrishnan v. the State of Kerala

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

H.G.Yuhanon Mar Policarpos Metropolitan Vs Anil Kumar M.T.

K.C.Velayudhan Nair, Vs Sree Thricherumanna Alias Kottiyoor Devaswom

Thittayil Balan Nair Vs Board of Trustees

Suresh P.B. Vs the State of Kerala

The Travancore Devaswom Board Vs the Deputy Director

Binoy B.R Vs Soumya V.S