Allowed

M. Lakshmana Kumar v. Malabar Devaswom Board

Kerala HC25 Feb 2020WP(C)/4878/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging composition of a 40-member temple festival committee due to exclusion of hereditary trustees and inclusion of non-participants. Court refrained from quashing reconstituted committee to avoid hampering festival starting March 2nd. Ordered committee revised to include original 12 members and exclude 12 undeclared names.

What did the court decide?

Committee for smooth conduct of festival to be constituted by excluding 12 persons whose names do not figure in minutes and including all members of the 12-member Committee constituted on 05.01.2020.

M. Lakshmana Kumar Vs Malabar Devaswom Board — Civil Procedure and Limitation | 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 N.NAGARESH

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1941

¶7

WP(C).No.4878 OF 2020(H)

¶8

PETITIONERS:

¶9

1 M.LAKSHMANA KUMAR,S/O.JANARDHANA NAIR, AGED 67,8/388,PARIJATHOM,RAIL NAGAR, OLAVAKKODE P.O.,PALAKKAD - 678 002.

¶10

2 M.SANKUNNI,S/O.P.R.K.NAIR,AGED 72, SARALAM,SASTHA NAGAR,T. COLONY, AKATHETHARA,PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.HARISH R. MENON SRI.K.T.SYAMKUMAR SRI.A.G.PRASANTH

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD,HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERANHIPALAM P.O.,KOZHIKODE – 673 006, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶14

2 THE COMMISSIONER,THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERANHIPALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE – 673 006.

¶15

3 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSEFED COMPLEX,ERANHIPALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE – 673 006.

¶16

4 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD,CIVIL STATION P.O., PALAKKAD - 678 001.

¶17

5 THE AREA COMMITTEE,MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, PALAKKAD DIVISION,CIVIL STATION P.O., PALAKKAD - 678 001., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶18

WP(C)No.4878/2020

¶19

¶20

6 SREE PARUKANCHERY BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE PALLATHERI POST, PALAKKAD - 678 001, REPRESENTED BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

¶21

7 MULLATH SEETHALAKSHMI MENON, (CHAIRPERSON,PARUKKANCHERY BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE),SITHARA HOUSE NO.61, ROAD NO.3 EAST,A.R. NAIR COLONY, KUNNATHURMEDU P. O.,PALAKKAD - 678 013.

¶22

8 K.P.KUNJIKRISHNA MENON, S/O. LATE M. KESAVAN NAIR, KESAVA NIVAS,PALLATHERI P.O., PALAKKAD - 678 007.

¶23

9 M. GOVINDANKUTTY, S/O. LATE M. LOKANATHAN NAIR, SARASWATHI NILAYAM,PALLATHERI POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT – 678 007.

¶24

10 VASU MUNDAKKAD,MUNDAKKAD HOUSE, PALLATHERI P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT – 678 007.

¶25

11 THANKAPPAN M.,S/O. MADHAVAN, T. A. NIVAS, PALLATHERI P. O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT – 678 007.

¶26

12 M.NANDA KUMAR,S/O. SULOCHANNA, MOOAYIL HOUSE,PALLATHERI P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT – 678 007.

¶27

13 P.K.SAKTHYDHARA PANICKER, S/O. KASU PANICKER, KALARIKKAL HOUSE, PALLATHERI P.O.,PALAKKAD DISTRICT – 678 007.

¶28

14 RAMADAS,DEVI KRIPA,PALLATHERI POST, NAIR THARA, PALLATHERI P. O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT – 678 007.

¶29

15 G. RAJASEKHARAN,S/O. LATE GOPALAKRISHNA NAIR, PAZHAYA MANNIL, PALLATHERI P. O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678007.

¶30

R12, R14 BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN

¶31

WP(C)No.4878/2020

¶32

¶33

R12, R14 BY ADV. SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA R12, R14 BY ADV. SMT.D.S.THUSHARA R12, R14 BY ADV. SRI.H.PRAVEEN (KOTTARAKARA) R12, R14 BY ADV. SRI.T.S.NEJIMUDDIN R12, R14 BY ADV. SMT.T.V.NEEMA

¶34

SRI.R. LAKSHMINARAYANAN,SC FOR THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD

¶35

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C)No.4878/2020

JUDGMENT

Ravikumar, J.

This writ petition is filed raising grievance against the constitution of the Committee to conduct festival in Sree Parukanchery Bhagavathy Temple for the year 2020. The case of the petitioner is that on 05.01.2020, a meeting was convened for the purpose of constituting a Committee for the aforesaid purpose and it was attended only by 18 persons, out of which 11 persons were belonging to hereditary trustees of the said Temple. From among the persons participated in the said meeting, a Committee with 12 members was constituted. The petitioners are among the 12 persons who constitute the Committee.

¶41

Immediately thereafter, on the the request of the Manager of the said Temple, the Assistant Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board issued Ext.P7 order. In terms of the directions issued thereunder, the Manager convened a meeting for constitution/re-constitution of the Temple Festival

¶42

WP(C)No.4878/2020

¶43

¶44

Committee on 25.01.2020. Ext.P8 is the notice issued therefor.

¶45

It is raising grievance against the reconstitution of the Committee, that WP(C) No. 2835/2020 was filed. Various allegations were raised in the said writ petition. Evidently, it was contended that there was no illegality in the constitution of Temple Festival Committee on 05.01.2020 and at any rate, there was no justification in excluding the members of the said Committee, which was constituted on 05.01.2020 and also in re-constituting a Committee excluding all but one, among the 12 member Committee constituted on 05.01.2020. That apart, it was contended that the newly constituted committee includes 12 persons who did not even participate in the meeting held on 25.01.2020. It was alleged in WP(C) No. 2835/2020 that the minutes of the meeting held on 25.01.2020 would reveal that page Nos. 4 and 5 therein were kept blank and names of twelve among the forty member committee were inserted only subsequently. Nonetheless,

¶46

¶47

WP(C)No.4878/2020

¶48

without making any observations as to the merits of such allegations and contentions this Court as per Ext.P13 judgment dated 31.01.2020 disposed of the said writ petition with direction to consider all such aspects.

¶49

In fact, as per Ext.P13, this Court directed the second respondent viz., Commissioner of Malabar Devaswom Board, to pass appropriate fresh orders on Ext.P12, referred as such in the said writ petition. It is to be noted that this Court also observed therein that while constituting the Committee for the Temple festival, it should be ensured that the persons included in the Festival Committee are devotees. Subsequent to Ext.P13 judgment, the Commissioner passed Ext.P14 order. It is challenging Ext.P14 order and seeking a declaration that the Committee constituted on 25.01.2020, headed by respondents 8 to 15 is a result of fraud and collusion and therefore illegal, that this writ petition is filed.

¶50

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for

¶51

¶52

WP(C)No.4878/2020

¶53

the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 9 to 15 and the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom board for respondents 1 to 5.

¶54

The 7^th respondent is the Chairperson of the said temple. Going by the materials on record she was not a member of the Committee constituted on 05.01.2020 as also of the Committee constituted pursuant to the meeting held on 25.01.2020. In respect of the 8^th respondent, it is evident that though he was originally included in the Committee constituted pursuant to the meeting held on 25.01.2020, as per Ext.P14 order, inclusion of his name by the Committee was not approved. It is to be noted that as per Ext.P14, it was also suggested that instead of the said person a suitable person may be selected by the Board from among the persons participated in the meeting held on 25.01.2020.

¶55

In the said circumstances and in view of the nature of the order which we are proposing to pass in this writ petition, on consent of the parties, we do not think it

¶56

WP(C)No.4878/2020

¶57

¶58

necessary to issue notice on respondents 7 and 8 in these proceedings. Obviously, that the parties have prayed for passing an order taking note of the fact that the festival is to be commenced from 02.03.2020 and that any further delay would hamper the smooth conduct of the festival commencing from 02.03.2020, in accordance with the rituals.

¶59

We have already noted that the case of the petitioners is that among the Committee with 40 persons constituted on 25.01.2020, 12 persons did not actually participate in the meeting. We do not think it proper to make any observation regarding the question whether they had actually participated or not. But at the same time, one fact is evident from Ext.P9, which is the minutes of the meeting held on 25.01.2020. Page Nos. 4 and 5 of the said minutes were blank and obviously the names of 12 persons who were subsequently included in the Committee are not seen in the other pages of the said minutes, viz., in Ext.P9.

¶60

As a matter of fact, it is taking note of the said

¶61

¶62

¶63

aspect that this Court directed the Commissioner under Ext.P13, to consider all the aspects and pass orders. Ext.P14 would reveal that the crucial question whether such persons had participated in the meeting was not considered by the Commissioner while passing Ext.P14 and at the same time Ext.P14 would reveal that such a contention pointedly raised by some of the parties who attended the hearing.

¶64

We are also taking note of the fact that except one among the 12 member committee constituted on 05.01.2020, no others were included in the Committee constituted pursuant to the meeting held on 25.01.2020. The materials on record including Ext.P14 would reveal that only 18 persons participated in the meeting held on 05.01.2020 and among them 11 were members of the families of hereditary trustees. It was taking note of the fact that there was no adequate public participation in the said meeting that a subsequent meeting was ordered to be convened and held, which culminated in constitution a 40 member committee, on

¶65

¶66

¶67

25.01.2020. We could not find any reason or justification for an en masse exclusion of the families of hereditary trustees from the Utsavagosha Committee. According to the petitioner the solitary person from the 12 member Committee constituted on 05.01.2020, who was included in the Committee constituted pursuant to the meeting held on 25.01.2020, is the one who resigned from the said 12 member Committee constituted on 05.01.2020. In other words, all the other 11 members were excluded when the committee was reconstituted.

¶68

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the main grievance of the petitioners is regarding the near total exclusion of members of the 12 member Committee constituted on 05.01.2020 and the inclusion of 12 persons in the 40 member Committee who did not participate in the meeting held on 25.01.2020. We have already observed that, we are not proposing to make any observation or entering into any final conclusion, as to

¶69

¶70

¶71

whether the 12 persons had actually participated or not in the said meeting. However, we took note of the fact that their names did not find a place in Ext.P9 proceedings produced in this writ petition and that pages 4 and 5 of Ext.P9 were kept blank. Though we have originally thought of setting aside Ext.P14 order and to issue a direction to the Commissioner to reconsider the entire issues based on the observations in Ext.P13 as also in this judgment. However, we refrain ourselves from doing so taking note of the fact adoption of such a course would, perhaps, make it impossible to reconstitute the festival Committee and in such eventuality a smooth conduct of the festival may become impossible. Any such situation will make the devotees and the deity to suffer.

¶72

The temple festival is to commence on 02.03.2020 and in such circumstances no time would be left for constitution of a new Committee or reconstitution of the 40 member Committee and even if any such Committee is constituted it would be left with no time to make adequate

¶73

¶74

¶75

preparations for the conduct of the festival. In short, taking into account the aforesaid circumstances, for the smooth conduct of the festival, which is to start from 02.03.2020, we are inclined to dispose of this writ petition reckoning the following submissions and suggestions:

¶76

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the 12 member committee was constituted on 05.01.2020 for the purpose of conducting temple festival and subsequent meeting was convened for the purpose of its reconstitution, on the ground that there was no public participation in the said meeting, it would only be proper to reconstitute the Festival Committee by adding members of public to the 12 member constituted on 05.01.2020. Obviously, pursuant to the meeting held on 25.01.2020, a 40 member committee was constituted. We have already taken note of the fact that out of the 40 persons, 12 persons did not figure in Ext.P9, produced as such in the writ petition. Consequently, we order that let there be a Committee for the

¶77

¶78

¶79

smooth conduct of the festival in Parakkancherry Bhagavathy Temple by excluding 12 persons whose names do not figure in Ext.P9 from the 40 member Committee and by including all the members of 12 member Committee constituted on 05.01.2020. Ordered accordingly. We hope and trust that the reconstituted Committee will be able to conduct the temple festival in a smooth and cordial manner.

¶80

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶81

C.T. RAVIKUMAR JUDGE

¶82

N. NAGARESH JUDGE

ncd

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶88

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.12.2018 IN OA NO.2/2016.
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE MANAGER OF THE TEMPLE.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19.12.2019.
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT HEREIN.
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE CHEQUE DATED 14.1.2020.
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE MANAGER OF THE DEVASWOM.
EXHIBIT P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 23.1.2020 (PUBLISHED ON 24.1.2020)
EXHIBIT P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 25.1.2020.
EXHIBIT P10	A TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF PERSONS SOUGHT TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE MINUTES.
EXHIBIT P11	A TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE ISSUED TO 8TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P12	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 29.01.2020.

¶89

¶90

¶91

EXHIBIT P13	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
	31.1.2020 PASSED IN WP(C) NO.2835/2020.
EXHIBIT P14	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
	15.2.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
	RESPONDENT HEREIN.

M. Lakshmana Kumar v. Malabar Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Lakshmana Kumar v. Malabar 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.Prasannan Vs the Secretary

Sree Narayana Samskarika Samithy Vs State of Kerala

Syama Sundaran Vs the State of Kerala

Suo Motu Vs the Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board

Suresh.P.G Vs the Secretary

Prathapachandran K.C., Vs Th District Collector