Disposed

A.R.Ramanathan v. the Commissiioner

Kerala HC20 Oct 2022WP(C)/14885/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging the appointment of a non-hereditary trustee for a temple, Kerala High Court directed the Commissioner to consider the filed revision petition and pass appropriate orders within six weeks, giving notice to specific respondents.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st Respondent to consider the revision petition (Ext.P6) and pass orders within six weeks with notice to respondents 4 and 5.

A.R.Ramanathan Vs the Commissiioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 28TH ASWINA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO.14885 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONERS :-

¶7

1 A.R.RAMANATHAN, AGED 60 YEARS S/O.LATE RAMAKRISHNA IYER, 9/447, ALAMPALLAM P.O., CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT PRESENTLY RESIDING AT MAYOORA PRIYA, DOUBLE STREET, KODUVAYOOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 501.

¶8

2 RAMACHANDRAN S., AGED 61 YEARS S/O.SUBRAMANIAN, DOOR NO.IX/446, AALLAMPALLAM GRAMAM, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 101.

¶9

3 A.A.KRISHNAMOORTHY, AGED 60 YEARS S/O.ANANTHA NARAYANA IYER, DOOR NO.IX/24, AALLAMPALLAM GRAMAM CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 101. BY ADVS. K.MOHANAKANNAN A.R.PRAVITHA

¶10

RESPONDENTS :-

¶11

1 THE COMMISSIIONER MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERANJIPALAM, KOZHIKODE - 673 006.

¶12

2 MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERANJIPALAM, KOZHIKODE - 673 006.

¶13

3 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, PALAKKAD DIVISION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 001.

¶14

4 THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER SREE BHOOMIDEVI SAMEDA VARADARAJA, PERUMAL TEMPLE, AALAMPALLAM, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD - 678 006.

¶15

5 A.L.VARADARAJAN, AGED 50 YEARS S/O.LAKSHMANA IYER, CHAIRMAN, TRUSTEE BOARD OF BHOOMIDEVI SAMEDA VARADARAJA

¶16

WP(C) NO.14885 OF 2022

¶17

-: 2 :-

¶18

PERUMAL TEMPLE, AALAMPALLAM, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD RESIDING AT 9/3, AALAMPALLAM, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD - 678 006.

¶19

BY ADVS. MOHAN C.MENON V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) LAKSHMI NARAYANAN

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C) NO.14885 OF 2022

¶22

-: 3 :-

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Dated this the 20th day of October, 2022

¶25

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :-

¶26

“(i) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P5 in so far as it appoints the 5^th respondent as Non Hereditary Trustee of Bhoomidevi Sameda Varadaraja Perumal Temple, Aalampallam, Chittur Taluk, Palakkad and quash the same.

¶27

(ii) To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing 1^st respondent to consider Ext.P6 revision filed against Ext.P5 order and order that the 5^th respondent may not take any policy decisions involving financial commitments until orders are passed and communicated to the petitioners.”

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Malabar Devaswom Board as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5.

¶29

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the 5^th respondent who has been appointed as non-hereditary trustee in the 4^th respondent's temple is disqualified and that the petitioners have raised the issue appropriately before the respondents which has not been considered.

¶30

WP(C) NO.14885 OF 2022

¶31

-: 4 :-

¶32

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Board submits that since Ext.P6 revision has been submitted before the 1^st respondent, the same can be considered with notice to respondents 4 and 5 and any other parties likely to be affected.

¶33

The 5^th respondent has placed a counter affidavit on record.

¶34

Having considered the contentions advanced and in view of the fact that the petitioners claim to be devotees who are interested in the administration of the temple, there will be a direction to the 1^st respondent to take up Ext.P6 submitted by the petitioners and to consider and pass orders on the same, with notice to respondents 4 and 5. Appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. All the contentions raised by the 5^th respondent shall also be considered while passing orders as directed above.

¶35

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶36

Sd/ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

¶37

Jvt/20.10.2022

¶38

WP(C) NO.14885 OF 2022

¶39

-: 5 :-

¶40

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14885/2022

¶41

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶42

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT PETITION (C) 8316/2020 DATED 17/3/2020. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 24/2/2021 WITH NOTICE AND REPORT.

¶43

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT PETITION NO.9942/2021 DATED 16/4/2021. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.H5-2046/2021/MDB DATED 22/4/2021 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER.

¶44

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT NO.A1-2672/2020/MDB/K.DIS. DATED 13/4/2022.

¶45

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS AND OTHERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 21/4/2022.

A.R.Ramanathan v. the Commissiioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.R.Ramanathan v. the Commissiioner

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

Sujamol P. Vs the Secretary

Sreenarayana Gurukulam College of Engineering Represented by Its Secretary Vs Meera T M

Sreenarayana Gurukulam College of Engineering Represented by Its Secretary Vs Meera T M

P.N.Sarasan Vs Kerala Kerakarshaka Sahakarana Federation Ltd.(Kera Fed)

C.H. Pavithran, Vs Kamala Vardhana Rao

Akshay R.S., Vs State of Kerala