Dismissed

Kaliyanthil Babu v. the Malabar Devaswom Board Represented by Its Secretary

Kerala HC9 Nov 2021WP(C)/17930/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This was a Writ Petition (C) filed by a temple trustee seeking mandamus for speedy disposal of a complaint against another trustee and an order excluding said trustee from board meetings. The Court recorded the petitioner's submission that the writ was now moot due to the listing of the underlying complaint before the Commissioner and dismissed the writ as withdrawn.

What the court decided

AI extract

Kaliyanthil Babu Vs the Malabar Devaswom Board Represented… — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 18TH KARTHIKA,

¶7

1943

¶8

WP(C) NO. 17930 OF 2021

¶9

PETITIONER:

¶10

KALIYANTHIL BABU, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. LATE T.C.KRISHNA PODUVAL, 'KARALA' TRUSTEE OF PAYYANUR SREE SUBRAMANYA SWAMI TEMPLE, RESIDING AT KALIYANTHIL HOUSE, MAHADEVAGRAMA, PAYYANUR.P.O. KANNUR-670 307

¶11

BY ADV MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, P.O.ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE-673 006

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

4 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KASARAGOD DIVISION, P.O.NILESWARAM, KASARAGOD-671 314

¶17

5 THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PAYYANNUR SREE SUBRAHMANIA SWAMI TEMPLE, PAYYANUR P.O., KANNUR-670 307

¶18

6 K.M.VASUDEVAN THIRUMUNP, AGED 43 YEARS S/O. SREEKUMARAN THIRUMUNP, KOKKUNNATH MANA, RESIDING AT OLAVARA MADHOM, PAYYANUR.P.O., KANNUR-670 307 BY ADVS. C.MURALIKRISHNAN (PAYYANUR) ABRAHAM GEORGE JACOB AKSHAY R

¶19

SRI R. LAKSHMINARAYAN - STANDING COUNSEL , MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE

¶21

FOLLOWING:

¶22

W.P.(C)No.17930 of 2021

¶23

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Anil K. Narendran, J.

¶26

The petitioner, who is one among the hereditary Trustees of Payyannur Sree Subrahmanya Swami Temple, Payyannur, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2^nd respondent Commissioner of Malabar Devaswom Board to pass final orders on Ext.P2 complaint dated 28.11.2019 in M.P.No.1 of 2021 in view of Ext.P5 report submitted by the 4^th respondent and other supporting records, expeditiously, within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court and after affording an opportunity of being heard to both parties. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 2^nd respondent not to permit the 6^th respondent to attend the meeting of the Board of Trustees of the temple until final disposal of Ext.P2 complaint. The grievance of the petitioner, which is highlighted in this writ petition, is an inordinate delay in disposal of Ext.P2 complaint, which is now pending consideration before the 2^nd respondent.

¶27

On 07.09.2021, when this writ petition came up for

¶28

W.P.(C)No.17930 of 2021

¶29

¶30

admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board took notice on admission for respondents 1 to 4. Urgent notice on admission by speed post was ordered to respondents 5 and 6, returnable within three weeks. The learned Standing Counsel was directed to get instructions.

¶31

The 6^th respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 04.10.2021, raising various legal and factual contentions including maintainability of Ext.P2 petition made by the petitioner before the 2^nd respondent Commissioner and also raising the question of locus standi .

¶32

Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since Ext.P2 petition is now listed for consideration before the 2^nd respondent on 17.11.2021, the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this writ petition, leaving open the legal and factual contentions, without prejudice to his right to prosecute Ext.P2 petition before the 2^nd respondent.

¶33

The learned counsel for the 6^th respondent would submit that the 6^th respondent may be permitted to raise the legal and factual contentions raised in the counter affidavit filed on 05.10.2021, before the 2^nd respondent, at appropriate

¶34

W.P.(C)No.17930 of 2021

¶35

¶36

stages.

¶37

The learned Standing Counsel for Malabar

¶38

Devaswom Board would submit that the 2^nd respondent, while considering Ext.P2 petition, will certainly deal with the legal and factual contentions raised by both sides and also the jurisdictional issue.

¶39

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, based on the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner; leaving open the legal and factual contentions by both sides, including the jurisdictional issue.

¶40

Sd/- ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

P.G. AJITHKUMAR JUDGE

¶43

Kaliyanthil Babu v. the Malabar Devaswom Board Represented by Its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Kaliyanthil Babu v. the Malabar Devaswom Board Represented by Its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Cochin Devaswom Board Vs Deputy Director

Manayoli Velayudhan Vs Poyilthodi Imbichibeevi

Suo Motu Vs the Travancore Devaswom Board

A.Sunil Vs Philip Sebastian

Government of India Vs a.Mammikutty

The Travancore Devaswom Board Vs Deputy Examiner for Local Fund Audit