Dismissed

M.J.Sivakumar@Sivakumar Amruthakala v. Travancore Devaswom Board

Kerala HC3 Nov 2022WP(C)/40690/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an absolute ban on performing Ayyappa Sopaana Sangeetham with musical accompaniments at Kalamandapam, Sabarimala, alleging violation of fundamental rights. Court found that petitioner was permitted to perform at an alternate location for security reasons, rendering the petition infructuous.

What did the court decide?

None. Petition dismissed as infructuous due to alternative performance permission.

M.J.Sivakumar@Sivakumar Amruthakala Vs Travancore… — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 12TH
KARTHIKA, 1944

¶7

W.P.(C)NO.40690 OF 2018

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

M.J.SIVAKUMAR @ SIVAKUMAR AMRUTHAKALA,
S/O. SASHIDHARAN, MELETHIL HOUSE,
VALLAMKULAM, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA-
689541.

¶10

BY ADV S.SUBHASH CHAND

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, OFFICE OF THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM BUILDING, NANDHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶13

2 THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, OFFICE OF THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, DEVASWOM BUILDINGS, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003.

¶14

3 THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SABARIMALA DEVASWOM/SABARIMALA SREE DHARMASATHA TEMPLE, SABARIMALA, PATHANAMTHITTA-689645.

¶15

4 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695001.

¶16

5 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF DEVASWOM, GOVERNMENT

¶17

¶18

W.P.(C)No.40690 of 2018

¶19

SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶20

6 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001.

¶21

7 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF, OFFICE OF THE STATE POLICE CHIEF, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001.

¶22

8 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA- 689645.

¶23

BY ADV SRI. S. RAJMOHAN, SC, TDB

¶24

OTHER PRESENT:

¶25

SRI S. RAJMOHAN - SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER;
SRI G. BIJU - STANDING COUNSEL - TRAVANCORE
DEVASWOM BOARD

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

¶28

W.P.(C)No.40690 of 2018

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Anil K. Narendran, J.

¶31

The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article

¶32

226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit him to perform Ayyappa Sopaana Sangeetham (Chandana Charchitham) along with musical accompaniments (Pakka Melam) at the Kalamandapam, in front of Veliya Nadapanthal at Sabarimala

¶33

shrine, during the Mandalam-Makaravilakku season of 2018-19; a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to lift the absolute ban/prohibition of all artistic performances including Ayyappa Sopaana Sangeetham performance by the petitioner at the Kalamandapam of Sabarimala shrine, on such terms and conditions; and a declaration that the absolute ban/prohibition of all artistic performances including Ayyappa Sopaana Sangeetham by the petitioner at the Kalamandapam of Sabarimala shrine by the respondents is violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14, 19(1), 21 and 25 of the Constitution of India and the same is thus liable to be struck down.

¶34

On 20.12.2018, when this writ petition came up

¶35

¶36

W.P.(C)No.40690 of 2018

¶37

for consideration, this Court passed the following order;

¶38

“The learned Senior Government Pleader submits, on instructions, that the Special Officer at Sannidhanam is ready to consider the request made by the petitioner to enable him to perform his vow in ‘Ayyappa Sopana Sangeetham’ at the Kalamandapam at Sabarimala Sannidhanam, also taking note of the arrangements made with regard to the crowd management. It is also stated that the place in front of the stageKalamandapam has to be left as a sterile zone for security reasons and also as part of the crowd management, however adding that appropriate time to perform the event to the optimum extent will be let known to the petitioner, if the said officer is contacted. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to contact the said officer. It is for the Special Officer and authorities of the Travancore Devaswom Board to make appropriate arrangements in this regard.”

¶39

Today, when this matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner and also

¶40

the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board would submit that after the order of this Court dated 20.12.2018, the petitioner was permitted to perform Ayyappa Sopaana Sangeetham at a place other than Kalamandapam at Sabarimala Sannidhanam, for security reasons. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

¶41

¶42

W.P.(C)No.40690 of 2018

¶43

that the reliefs sought for in this writ petition have become infructuous.

¶44

In such circumstances, based on the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶49

MIN

¶50

¶51

W.P.(C)No.40690 of 2018

¶52

APPENDIX OF W.P.(C)No.40690/2018

¶53

PETITIONER EXHIBITS:

¶54

EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING PROGRAM OF THE
PETITIONER PERFORMED LAST YEAR AT
KALAMANDAPAM AT SABARIMALA.

¶55

EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING PROGRAM OF THE
PETITIONER PERFORMED LAST YEAR AT
KALAMANDAPAM AT SABARIMALA

¶56

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 07/12/2018 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER

¶57

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
27/11/2018 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE
COURT IN WP(C)NO.38128 OF 2018.

M.J.Sivakumar@Sivakumar Amruthakala v. Travancore Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.J.Sivakumar@Sivakumar Amruthakala v. Travancore Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parathodika Aboobacker Vs Koulath

Sapna.P.P Vs Hareesh Kumar.a

Anjana.M.a Vs Sreejith.S

Ganga Rajanan Vs K.P.Ranjanan

T.P. Vinod Vs P.S. Sindu

Janaki Amma Vs Santhamony