Allowed

Mamanikkunnu Sree Mahadevi Temple v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Aug 2022WP(C)/21426/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by a temple challenging an order refusing a slaughterhouse licence application. The High Court quashed the impugned order and granted liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh application to the Village Panchayat for reconsideration within one month of receipt of the judgment.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of Exhibit P4 order; liberty granted to submit fresh application; direction to Panchayat to consider application within one month of judgment receipt.

Mamanikkunnu Sree Mahadevi Temple Vs State of Kerala — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(C) No.21426 of 2016

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 28TH SRAVANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 21426 OF 2016

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

MAMANIKKUNNU SREE MAHADEVI TEMPLE MAMANAM, P.O. IRIKKUR, KANNUR DISTRICT,REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER,P. MURALEEDHARAN, AGED 46 YEARS,S/O. KANNAN NAIR. BY ADVS. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.) SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH SRI.JOHN THITHEEMOS

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TOLOCAL ADMINISTRATION (B) DEPARTMENT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶11

2 SECRETARY

¶12

IRIKKUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,IRIKKUR, KANNUR - 670593.

¶13

3 MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITSPRESIDENT, PIN- 673001.

¶14

ADDL.4 IRIKKUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT,KANNUR ADDL.R4 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADE AS PER ORDER DATED 19.8.2022

¶15

BY ADVS.

¶16

SRI.JOBY JOSEPH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 SMT.R.RAJINI, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R3 SMT.P.SHEEBA, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R2

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.P.(C) No.21426 of 2016

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Dated this the 19^th day of August, 2022

¶22

This writ petition is filed by a temple, represented by its Executive Officer, seeking to quash Exhibit P4 order issued by the Secretary, Irikkur Grama Panchayat dated 29.6.2016, whereby the licence sought for by the petitioner for a slaughter house was declined, stating that the application submitted by the petitioner will not come within the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat since, an issue with respect to section 28 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 is to be considered by the authority under the said act .

¶23

In fact, the writ petition was filed basically seeking direction to the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat to consider Exhibit P2 licence application and Exhibit P3 representation. However, later Exhibit P4 order was passed by the Secretary and accordingly the writ petition was amended to challenge the said order also . Basic material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows;

¶24

The writ petitioner temple is governed by the provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1950 and is administered by the Malabar Devaswom Board – the 3^rd respondent. According to the petitioner, the temple is one of the most famous temples in North Malabar and people from far

¶25

W.P.(C) No.21426 of 2016

¶26

¶27

and near places come to the temple to offer their prayers. It is also submitted that the 'annadanam' conducted in the temple is for more than Rs.2 Crores. It is also stated that among the rituals conducted in various temples, in this temple, it is kaula marga pooja. The said pooja is done in a very few temples, and in Sakhteya Devi Temple, and among these temples, the petitioner temple has a pride of place. It is further submitted that these poojas to be conducted for the temple to appease the goddess and as per the custom prevalent in the temple, it is necessary that the cooked meat of chicken and goat are also offered as 'nivedyam'.

¶28

According to the petitioner, presently the above meat products are purchased from the market and slaughterhouse, which are situated very far away from the temple. It is further submitted that in the 'Deva Prasnam' conducted in the temple, it was found that the offering of 'nivedyam' in the temple are not pure and it was also found in 'Devaprasnam' that the said offering is not pure and therefore, it is necessary to use pure 'nivedyam' to appease the goddess. According to the petitioner, as per the order of the Malabar Devaswom Board dated 10.5.2011 bearing No.J7-1163/2011(kdb), the Board has also given permission for conducting the said nivedyam and this is a practice which has been prevalent in the temple for more than a century.

¶29

It is also the case of the petitioner that the temple has large properties and therefore, it was decided that the temple should have a slaughter house for the sole purpose of offering nivedyam to the deity as per the custom. It is the

¶30

W.P.(C) No.21426 of 2016

¶31

¶32

submission that the slaughter house can be located in a very hygienic place and it would not interfere either with the temple or would not create any nuisance to the public or to the devotees or to the neighbours. It is the wish of the devotees also that the custom of offering cooked meat as nivedyam to the Almighty be done in a proper manner, and there should not be any impurity in the articles which are offered as Nivedyam. It is with that objective that the application was submitted for granting licence to conduct a slaughter house for the purpose of the temple and in order to conduct nivedyam in the temple with pure meat. However, the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat without understanding the true implications of the purpose of securing a licence, has rejected the licence application stating that for securing any relief under section 28 of the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, petitioner has to approach elsewhere. It is thus challenging the illegality and correctness of the said order, this writ petition is filed.

¶33

In fact, section 230 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 deals with licence for slaughter houses. Sub-section (1) there to specifies that owner of any place within the Village Panchayat area which is used as a slaughter house for the slaughtering of animals or for the skinning or cutting up of any carcasses, shall in the first month of every year or in the case of a place to be newly opened one month before the opening of the same, apply to the Village Panchayat for a licence. Sub-section (2) specifies that the Village Panchayat may, by an order and subject to such restrictions and regulations as to supervision and

¶34

W.P.(C) No.21426 of 2016

¶35

¶36

inspection as he thinks fit, grant or refuse to grant such licence. Sub-section (3) makes it clear that nothing contained in section 230 shall apply to the slaughter of animals in any concealed place without causing hardship to the public in the Village Panchayat area on occasions of festivals, marriage ceremonies, etc.

¶37

Section 230A specifies that slaughter houses are to be maintained properly. Other provisions are also contained in the Act 1994 in order to ensure that slaughter is conducted in slaughterhouses in an hygienic manner, by virtue of the powers conferred under section 230 of Act 1994 . The Kerala Panchayat Rat (SlaughterHouses and Meat Stalls) Rules, 1996 was introduced by the State Government to implement the provisions of the act , which clearly specifies the manner in which the licensing is to be done and the manner in which the waste is to be disposed of etc.

¶38

I have heard, learned senior counsel for the petitioner Sri.M.Ramesh Chander, learned Senior Government Pleader Sri.Joby Joseph, learned Standing Counsel Smt.R.Rajini for the Malabar Devaswom Board, learned Standing Counsel Smt.P. Sheeba for the Secretary of Irikkur Grama Panchayat and perused the pleadings and materials on record.

¶39

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner Sri.M.Ramesh Chander submitted that Exhibit P4 order suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and illegality since the reason assigned is that the Secretary has no power to grant any permission under section 28 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, whereas the licensing

¶40

W.P.(C) No.21426 of 2016

¶41

¶42

application has to be considered in terms of the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and the allied Rules. Therefore it is submitted that the power was exercised by the Secretary erroneously thinking that in order to grant a slaughter house license, one has to resort to the provisions of Act 1960 . Contentions are raised by the standing counsel for the grama panchayat supporting the impugned order .

¶43

After having appreciated the rival contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel, and the counsel for the panchayat, I am of the considered opinion that the reason assigned by the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat in Exhibit P4 can never be sustained under law for the very basic reason that the issue with respect to the licensing of a slaughter house is guided clearly by the above discussed provisions and Rules under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.

¶44

In that view of the matter, I think it is only appropriate that Exhibit P4 order issued by the Secretary is set aside. However, it is clear from section 230 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 that an application for licence to open a slaughter house is to be submitted to the Village Panchayat and therefore, there is no point in directing the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat to re-consider Exhibit P2 application and Ext.P3 representation also for the reason that now six years have elapsed after the submission of the application. For the purpose of issuing the above direction, the Irikkur Grama Panchayat, Kannur District is suo motu impleaded as the additional 4^th respondent in the writ petition.

¶45

W.P.(C) No.21426 of 2016

¶46

¶47

Therefore, the writ petition is allowed, Exhibit P4 is quashed and consequentially, petitioner is granted liberty to submit a suitable application before the Village Panchayat, at the earliest and if any such application is submitted, the Irikkur Grama Panchayat is directed to consider the same in accordance with law, at the earliest, and at any rate, within a month from the the date of receipt of a

¶48

copy of the judgment, taking note of the deliberations contained above .

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

smv

W.P.(C) No.21426 of 2016

¶54

¶55

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21426/2016

¶56

PETITIONER	EXHIBITS
P1	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28/12/2015
P2	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT`
P3	TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 30/05/2016
P4	TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF TEH 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29.06.2015
RESPONDENTS'	ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE R1	(a) COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT REF.NO.1993/16 TO THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE PETITIONER TEMPLE.

Mamanikkunnu Sree Mahadevi Temple v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamanikkunnu Sree Mahadevi Temple v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajan P. Paulraj, Vs Rajendra Nath

T.S.Rameshkumar Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Idukki

Shajimon C.G. Vs Chirakkadavu Grama Panchayat

Sukumarapilla Vs State of Kerala

Radhakrishnapillai Vs Tahsildar

Asif Vs the State of Kerala & Others