Petitioner sought quashing of the Temple Advisory Committee list for 2019, fresh elections, and coercive action for recovery. Court found reliefs infructuous and dismissed the petition.
Writ petition dismissed as infructuous.
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 ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
TUESDAY,THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022/24TH KARTHIKA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 10824 OF 2019
PETITIONER:
BAIJU.V.NAIR AGED 57 YEARS S/O. VELAYUDHAN NAIR, 8/1314, PALLIYARAKAVU, MATTANCHERY, COCHIN-682002.
BY ADVS.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR SRI.P.K.RAKESH KUMAR SRI.K.S.MIZVER SMT.S.JESSIN SMT.C.C.BINDHYA
RESPONDENTS:
1 COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, ROUND CLOCK ROAD, TRISSUR-680001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2 DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, COCHIN DEVASOM BOARD, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, ROUND CLOCK ROAD, TRISSUR-680001.
W.P.(C)No.10824 OF 2019
2
S/O. RAVUNNY, HOUSE NO.8/1310, PALLIYARAKKAVU ROAD, MATTANCHERRY P.O, KOCHI-PIN-682002.
6 SURENDRAN V.P, S/O.V.P. MENON, HOUSE NO.8/996F, CHITHIRA, KOOVAPADAM, MATTANCHERRY P.O, KOCHI-PIN-682002.
7 SITARAM, S/O. SUBBA RAO, HOUSE NO.8/1588-C, VAMAN MASTER LANE, ALATHUKUTTY ROAD(AK ROAD), MATTANCHERRY P.O, KOCHI-PIN-682002.
8 RAJEEV UTHRADAM, S/O. RAJU PANDIT, HOUSE NO.8/1849-D, VASANTHA INDUSTRIES LANE, OPP. YAKSHIKAVU TEMPLE, TOWN HALL ROAD, MATTANCHERRY P.O, KOCHI-PIN-682002.
9 KALAMANDALAM VIJAYAN, S/O. KUMARAN, KERALA KALATHIL CENTRE, NEAR SANTHA CRUZ BAZALICA, K.B. JACOB ROAD, FORT NAGAR, FORT KOCHI-PIN-682001.
BY ADV. SRI.M.MANOJKUMAR (CHELAKKADAN) R1 TO R3 BY SRI. AJITH KRISHNANSTANDING COUNSEL-COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.10824 OF 2019
3
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The petitioner, who is a devotee of Palliyarakkavu Bhagavathy has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P7 list of members of the Temple Advisory Committee of Palliyarakkavu Bhagavathy Temple, Mattancherry for the year 2019. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents 1 to 4 to conduct fresh election for forming new Advisory Committee of Palliyarakkavu Bhagavathy Temple, Mattancherry. The further relief sought for is a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to initiate coercive steps to recover Rs.6 lakhs from the respondents 5 to 8 and others, who were in the First Temple Advisory Committee and to initiate appropriate criminal action against them.
“The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that because of the various incriminating circumstances and the misdeeds committed by the respondents 5 to 9, they were ordered to
W.P.(C)No.10824 OF 2019
4
be removed from the erstwhile committee as per Ext.P2 report. Pursuant to this, Ext.P3 order was passed by the Devaswom Board, correctness of which has been upheld by this Court, as per Ext.P4 judgment, giving such other appropriate direction. Now steps have been pursued by the Devaswom Board to bring the very same tainted persons, in connection with which Ext.P5 notice was issued. Though Ext.P6 objection was preferred by the petitioner seeking to have the tainted persons kept outside the zone of consideration while forming the new committee, it was thrown to wind, and Ext.P7 proceedings have been issued identifying the advisory committee, which contained the very same persons, arrayed as respondents 5 to 9. Hence the writ petition.
List the matter for further consideration on 12.04.2019.”
opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition.
W.P.(C)No.10824 OF 2019
consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the reliefs sought for in the writ petition have become infructuous and therefore, the writ petition may be dismissed as infructuous.
Recording the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/- P.G. AJITHKUMAR JUDGE
DCS/21.11.2022
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition for quashing the Advisory Committee list and commanding fresh election and recovery of funds has become infructuous.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief against the reinstatement of excluded persons in the Advisory Committee.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Baiju.V.Nair
Cochin Devaswom Board
Devaswom Commissioner
Devaswom Assistant Commissioner
Devaswom Officer
Thrivikraman Nambisan
Anil K. Narendran
P.G. Ajithkumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
