The Review Petitioner challenged the High Court's order disposing of the original writ petition without receiving a report from the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner. The Court held the appellate appeal was pending and disposed of the review petition without finding grounds for review.
Review pettion dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 1ST MAGHA, 1943
RP NO. 8 OF 2022 IN WP(C)No.28510 OF 2021
REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.3:
K.KRISHNAN NAMBOOTHIRI,MELSANTHI, EVOOR DEVASWOM,
CHEPPAD P.O.,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT – 690507
BY ADVS.
S.KRISHNAMOORTHY
SNEHA ROSE
ARUNA P.S.
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS 2 & 3:
1VISHNU BATTATHIRI V
AGED 54 YEARS
VADAKKE MOODAPALI ILLOM, KARTHIKAPALLY ,
HARIPPAD,ALAPPUZHA - 690516.
2THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
O/O THE DEVASWOM COMMISIONER,
NANTHAN CODE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695003.
3THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
O/O THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ,
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, HARIPPAD,
ALLAPPUZHA - 690516
SC,SRI.C.K.PAVITHRAN
ADV.P.GOPAL FOR R1.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RP NO. 8 OF 2022
IN WP(C)No.28510 OF 2021
2
O R D E R
The writ petitioner had submitted Ext.P2 representation
with a request to post him as Melshanthi of Evoor Devaswom.
By Ext.P3 order of the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner rejecting his prayer, the third respondent was posted as Melshanthi. He preferred Ext.P5 appeal, before the first respondent, Devaswom Commissioner. The grievance raised in
the writ petition was that, Ext.P5 was not taken up for consideration and not disposed of. This court, after hearing the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the Devaswom, disposed of the writ petition at the threshold, without issuing notice to the third respondent, by directing the first respondent Devaswom Commissioner to pass appropriate orders on Ext.P5 appeal, in the light of Ext.P4 Circular and Ext.P6 order, within a stipulated time, after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the writ petitioner
and the third respondent.
RP NO. 8 OF 2022
IN WP(C)No.28510 OF 2021
3
present Review Petition contending that a report of the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner is essential and to the extent of disposing of the writ petition, without directing the first respondent to call for a report from the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, is bad and hence the judgment is liable to be reviewed.
contesting respondents.
RP NO. 8 OF 2022
IN WP(C)No.28510 OF 2021
4
report of the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner is required for a proper adjudication of the appeal by the Devaswom Commissioner. This is not supported by any Rule or regulation. I do not propose to burden the Devaswom Commissioner with any interdiction regarding the manner in which he should exercise his jurisdiction vested on him. It is also brought to my notice that hearing was completed and the matter now stands posted for orders. At this juncture, I find no ground warranting the review of the judgment. Review Petition fails and is dismissed.
sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE
R.AV
RP NO. 8 OF 2022
IN WP(C)No.28510 OF 2021
5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure1CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.
28510/21 DT 13.12.21
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the review petition challenging the disposal of the writ petition without reporting by the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner succeeds.
Whether the High Court erred in disposing of the writ petition without notice to the third respondent or a report from the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner.
Melsanthi
Evoor Devaswom
The Devaswom Commissioner Travancore Devaswom Board
The Assistant Commissioner
Sunil Thomas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court