Dismissed

K.C.Anil Kumar Alias Thamban Swamy, v. Tranvancore Devaswom Board

Kerala HC9 Nov 2022WP(C)/5529/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ to direct Travancore Devaswom Board to construct religious facilities at a private temple. Court rejected petition, noting absence of statutory duty and petitioner's lack of legal right for a private property.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's request to direct the Board to pass orders or examine feasibility for developing an Edathavalam at the private temple is dismissed.

K.C.Anil Kumar Alias Thamban Swamy, Vs Tranvancore… — Property and Title | 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶7

WP(C) NO.5529 OF 2019

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

K.C.ANIL KUMAR ALIAS THAMBAN SWAMY, AGED 56 YEARS S/O.K.K.CHANDRADAS, KALATHICHIRA HOUSE, KAVUNKAL, MANNANCHERRY P.O., ALAPPUZHA.

¶10

BY ADVS. S.SHYAM SRI.M.M.HARRIS SRI.S.SHARATH

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 TRANVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, KAWDIAR POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695003, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (DEVASWOM) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶13

BY ADVS. SRI.S.RAJMOHAN, SC, TDB SHRI.G.BIJU,SC,TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD

¶14

SRI S.RAJMOHAN- SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 09.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

W.P.(C) No.5529 of 2019

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

Anil K. Narendran, J.

¶20

The petitioner, who is a 'Santhi' in a Temple under Vettathu Swaroopam in Neezhoor Village in Vaikom Taluk, who is a devotee of Lord Ayyappa at Sabarimala Temple, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P1 and P3 representations, and examine the feasibility of the proposal mooted therein. The proposal of the petitioner in Ext.P1 and P3 is to the Travancore Devaswom Board to develop a proper Edathavalam in Neezhoor Village, Vaikom Taluk known as Vettath Swaroopam, after reconstructing the dilapidated temples and ponds.

¶21

On 01.03.2019, when this matter was came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. Sri.S.Rajmohan, the learned Standing Counsel took notice for the 1^st respondent.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶23

¶24

W.P.(C) No.5529 of 2019

¶25

The temple referred to in Ext.P1 representation is not under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board. It is a private temple. For providing facilities for Sabarimala pilgrims, during Mandala Makaravilaku festival season of the current year, i.e., 1198 ME (2022-23), this Court has already passed orders in SSCR No.20 of 2022. There are 52 Edathavalams in the temples under the management of Travancore Devaswom Board and 2 Edathavalams in the temples under the management of the Cochin Devaswom Board. The petitioner has no legal right to insist that the Travancore Devaswom Board has to develop Edathavalams for Sabarimala pilgrims at Vettath Swaroopam.

¶26

In State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [(1996) 9

¶27

SCC 309] the Apex Court held that under the Constitution a mandamus can be issued by the Court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to performance of legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and said right was subsisting on the date of the petition. The duty that may be enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution or a Statute or by Rules or orders having the

¶28

¶29

W.P.(C) No.5529 of 2019

¶30

force of law. But no mandamus can be issued to direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of law or to do something which is contrary to law.

¶31

In Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh [(1977) 4 SCC 145] a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions with in the limit of their jurisdiction.

¶32

In Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain [(2008) 2 SCC 280] the Apex Court held that, in order that a writ of mandamus may be issued, there must be a legal right with the party asking for the writ to compel the performance of some statutory duty cast upon the

¶33

¶34

W.P.(C) No.5529 of 2019

¶35

authorities. In the said decision, the Apex Court noticed the principles on which a writ of mandamus can be issued have been stated as under in 'The Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies' by F. G. Ferris and F. G. Ferris, Jr. that, mandamus is, subject to the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, the appropriate remedy to enforce a plain, positive, specific and ministerial duty presently existing and imposed by law upon officers and others who refuse or neglect to perform such duty, when there is no other adequate and specific legal remedy and without which there would be a failure of justice.

¶36

In such circumstances, the petitioner is not legally entitled for the relief sought for in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

P.G. AJITHKUMAR JUDGE

¶41

¶42

¶43

W.P.(C) No.5529 of 2019

¶44

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5529/2019

¶45

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶46

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 1/11/2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT

¶47

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 17/1/2019 FROM THE MINISTER FOR DEVASWOM AFFAIRS TO SHRI UMMEN CHANDY, MLA WHICH WAS FORWARDED TO THE PETITIONER.

¶48

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 5/2/2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

K.C.Anil Kumar Alias Thamban Swamy, v. Tranvancore Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.C.Anil Kumar Alias Thamban Swamy, v. Tranvancore 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajikumar.S Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

N.Thankappan Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

Minu E. Mathew Vs Rakesh Jose

Muhammed Faisal Vs Union of India

Vazhavalappil Bindhu Vs Puthanpurayil Chithran

Devasia @ Kunjettan Vs Thomas Mathew @ Sibi