Disposed

Nandakumar v. @ Kumar, v the State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Apr 2022WP(C)/3473/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed writ petition requesting police protection and orders against respondents interfering with his temple administration. Court noted pending civil suit and directed police to provide protection and maintain law and order without adjudicating temple rights.

What did the court decide?

Direction to police to provide protection to petitioner, maintain law and order, and refrain from adjudicating civil disputes regarding temple administration.

Nandakumar v. @ Kumar, Vs the State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 3473 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

NANDAKUMAR V. @ KUMAR, AGED 43 YEARS S/O.R.VISWANATHAN, PLAYATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, ZILLA COURT WARD, THATHAMPALLY P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688 013. BY ADVS. B.PRAMOD BIJU VIGNESWAR

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA, EKRALA-688 001. 3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA NORTH POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688 001. 4 MOHANAN.N., AGED 65 YEARS S/O.NATESAN, SREYAS PLAYATHUPARAMBU, SANATHANAM WARD, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688 001.

¶10

5 RAMESAN.N., AGED 58 YEARS S/O.NATESAN, YAKSHIAMBALAMVELI, KOTTANKULANGARA, AVALOOKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688 006.

¶11

BY ADVS. P.S.NANDANAN SANTHOSH PETER (MAMALAYIL) P.N.ANOOP K.C.SALMAN SMITHA PILLAI

¶12

WP(C) NO. 3473 OF 2022

¶13

¶14

M.S.SANDEEP SUDHAKARAN

¶15

T.K.SHAJAHAN-SR.GP

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C) NO. 3473 OF 2022

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶21

“i. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to provide effective and adequate police protection to the petitioner to attend the day to day activities in and administration of Sree Ujjainy Mahakali Amman Kovil without any obstruction from the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and men under them;

¶22

ii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writ direction or orders commanding the 3^rd respondent not to harass the petitioner or to interfere with his rights to attend the day to day activities in and administration of Sree Ujjainy Mahakali Amman Kovil, Alappuzha.”

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶24

Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5.

¶25

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a Treasurer of the Managing Committee of a private Temple which belongs to his family. It is submitted that respondents 4 and 5 had formed a Trust and had also filed O.S No.21 of 2021 before the Munsiff Court, Alappuzha seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction.

¶26

WP(C) NO. 3473 OF 2022

¶27

¶28

In the I.A filed in the said suit, an order of ex parte ad-interim injunction had been issued against the petitioner which was later vacated by Ext.P1 order dated 08.10.2021 after considering all the contentions. It is submitted that no appeal had been preferred against Ext.P1 by respondents 4 and 5 and resultantly Ext.P1 is in force. It is submitted that even thereafter, the petitioner is being prevented by respondents 4 and 5 for entering the Temple and carrying out the worship and that on 27.10.2021, respondents 4 and 5 had manhandled the petitioner as a result of which he suffered injuries as evidenced by Ext.P2 wound certificate and an FIR had also been registered on the basis of the complaint submitted by the petitioner. It is further submitted that respondents 2 and 3 are also not permitting the petitioner to enter into the Temple or take part in the day to day administration of the Temple.

¶29

A counter affidavit has been placed on record by respondents 4 and 5 wherein it is contended that though the petitioner belongs to the family which owns the Temple, he is not the Treasurer of the Managing Committee of the Temple. It is further submitted that the respondents 4 and 5 had not manhandled the petitioner and that the FIR was registered on the basis of the private complaint made by the petitioner only to harass

¶30

WP(C) NO. 3473 OF 2022

¶31

¶32

respondents 4 and 5. It is contended that the petitioner was never prevented from worshiping the deity and respondents 4 and 5 have not caused any threat to his life. They had only interfered with the troublesome behaviour of the petitioner after consuming intoxicating liquor since he prevented the devotees from peaceful worship of the deity. It is submitted that without any authority entrusted by the Managing Committee of the Trust, the petitioner had been taking underhand action to interfere in the administration of the Temple.

¶33

The learned Government Pleader submits, on instructions, that there is a civil dispute with regard to the conduct of the administration of the Temple between the petitioner and the respondents 4 and 5 and that the police are in no way interfering with the civil dispute. It is contended that there is no attempt to prevent the petitioner from entering the Temple or from conducting the affairs of the same.

¶34

Having considered the contentions advanced, I notice that the petitioner contends to be a member of the family which owns the Temple and the Treasurer of the Managing Committee. Respondents have admittedly filed a suit against the petitioner seeking permanent

¶35

WP(C) NO. 3473 OF 2022

¶36

¶37

prohibitory injunction against the petitioner from conducting the affairs of the Temple. It is in the said suit that Ext.P1 order has been passed by the learned Munsiff vacating the ex parte ad interim order of injunction which had been granted earlier. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents also there is no whisper as to any appeal preferred as against Ext.P1 or any interdictory orders on the same.

¶38

In the above factual situation, I am of the opinion that the question with regard to the rights to conduct the affairs of the Temple is to be decided in the suit already filed or in appropriate proceedings and that the police or respondents 4 and 5 cannot seek to take a decision with regard to the right of the petitioner to conduct the affairs of the Temple. There will, accordingly, be a direction that in case the petitioner faces any threat or obstruction from respondents 4 and 5, the petitioner shall inform the Station House Officer who shall afford adequate protection to the life of the petitioner and permit him to enter the Temple. The respondents 2 and 3 shall also not involve themselves in the disputes between the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5. Law and order shall also be maintained in the vicinity of the Temple. All other questions are left open to be decided in the suit pending between the parties or in other

¶39

WP(C) NO. 3473 OF 2022

¶40

¶41

appropriate proceedings.

¶42

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN

JUDGE

SVP

WP(C) NO. 3473 OF 2022

¶48

¶49

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3473/2022

¶50

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶51

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO.01/2021 IN THE COURT OF THE ALAPPUZHA.	ORDER DATED 08.10.2021 IN OS NO.21 OF 2021 PASSED BY PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT,
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE 27.10.2021 ISSUED ALAPPUZHA.	WOUND CERTIFICATE DATED BY THE GENERAL HOSPITAL,
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE PREFERRED BY THE RESPONDENT.	COMPLAINT DATED 28.10.2021 PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE PREFERRED BY THE RESPONDENT.	COMPLAINT DATED 28.10.2021 PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE PREFERRED BY THE OF 2021 BEFORE TH	PETITION DATED 20.11.2021 PETITIONER AS CMP NO.2890 E JFFM 1 ALAPPUZHA.
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE CR.NO.895/2021 OF	FIR DATED 22.11.2021 IN NORTH POLICE STATION.

Nandakumar v. @ Kumar, v the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nandakumar v. @ Kumar, v the State of Kerala

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

Peter C.Thomas Vs Jomily Jose

Abdul Hakeem Vs State of Kerala

Mony Mathew Vs Circle Inspector of Police

Rukhiya Ashraf, Vs Ani P.N.

Jacob Sebastian Vs the District Collector

Dr.Kurian Joseph Vs the Station House Officer