Disposed

Kishore Natarajan v. the Secretary

Kerala HC22 Aug 2023DBP/71/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review of a complaint regarding a date mistake in a padi pooja booking receipt at Sabarimala. The court affirmed that the devotee must wait for the seniority slot in 2033 and granted right to darshan without direction. The court directed the Special Commissioner to report on a request to modify an interim order restricting slot allotments.

What did the court decide?

Permit devotee to have darshan of padi pooja on 28.08.2023; direct Special Commissioner to submit report on modifying the slot allotment restriction.

Kishore Natarajan Vs the Secretary — Kerala HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN &

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 22^ND DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 31ST SRAVANA, 1945 D.B.P. NO. 71 OF 2023

¶4

IN THE MATTER OF TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD - TDB PROCEEDINGS INITIATED - REG.

¶5

TDB-REPORT NO.31/2023 IN COMPLAINT NO.106/2023 SABARIMALA DEVASWOM - BOOKING FOR PADIPOOJA

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

KISHORE NATARAJAN, C/O N.A.NATARAJAN,FLAT G,KRISHNA HOMES VRINDAVAN RESIDENCY,SINGLE STREET,NURANI VILLAGE,PALAKKAD-678004.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE SECRETARY, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHENCODE, KAWDIAR POST, THIRUVANNATHAPURAM695003.

¶11

2 THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE,KAWDIAR POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695003.

¶12

3 THE EXECTIVE OFFICER, SABARIMALA.

¶13

SRI G.BIJU - STANDING COUNSEL - TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI S.RAJMOHAN - SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶16

SRI P.RAMACHANDRAN- AMICUS CURIAE

¶17

¶18

D.B.P.No.71 of 2023

¶19

THIS DEVASWOM BOARD PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 22.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

D.B.P.No.71 of 2023

O R D E R

P.G. Ajithkumar, J.

This D.B.P. was initiated on the basis of Report No.31 of 2023 of the learned Ombudsman for the Travancore Devaswom Board. The complainant submitted Complaint No.106 of 2023 before the learned Ombudsman complaining that he booked padi pooja at Sabarimala Sree Dharmasastha Temple on 12.12.2019 by making payment of the requisite charges. Date for the padi pooja was given to him as 28.08.2023 (first day of Onam), but later he was informed that the date written was a mistake and the actual date is the first day of Onam, 2033.

¶25

The learned Ombudsman called for a report on a complaint from the Travancore Devaswom Board. The Executive Officer, Sabarimala submitted a report stating that those who had booked padi pooja in 2019 were given various dates in 2033 and the date noted in the receipt issued to the complainant apparently was a mistake. The Executive Officer submitted before the learned Ombudsman as a solace that in

¶26

¶27

D.B.P.No.71 of 2023

¶28

case of cancellation of padi pooja booked on any day before the due date in 2033, the complainant could be accommodated in that slot. It was further submitted before the learned Ombudsman that arrangements for Darshan of the padi pooja on 28.08.2023 to the complainant could also be facilitated. Recording those submissions, the learned Ombudsman referred the matter to this Court for further orders in the matter, if any.

¶29

Pursuant to notice, the complainant entered appearance through his learned counsel.

¶30

Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the

¶31

Travancore Devaswom Board and the learned counsel for the complainant.

¶32

A copy of the register of booking of padi pooja at Sabarimala Sree Dharmasastha Temple was produced before the learned Ombudsman, which is attached to the Report. It is averred that those who booked padi pooja in the year 2015 were allotted various dates in the year 2033. It is now an indisputable fact. The learned counsel appearing for the

¶33

¶34

D.B.P.No.71 of 2023

¶35

complainant also fairly conceded that fact. Therefore, the date written in the receipt issued to the complainant while being booked padi pooja on 12.12.2019 as the first day of Onam in 2023 is a mistake. In the light of the orders issued by this Court from time to time, dates of padi pooja can be allotted to the devotees strictly on seniority order of booking. For the reason that a mistake has occurred in the receipt issued to the complainant, there cannot be any change to the said direction. Therefore there cannot be any indulgence by this Court in that matter. The complainant can have padi pooja only on the day that falls due in the seniority order, which would occur only in 2033.

¶36

The learned counsel appearing for the complainant would submit that it was only a reasonable and justifiable expectation of the complainant to have the padi pooja booked by him performed on 28.08.2023. Since the said date was mistakenly allotted to him and he is not able to have padi pooja on that day, he may be allowed to have Darshan of the padi pooja on 28.08.2023. In order for the complainant to

¶37

¶38

D.B.P.No.71 of 2023

¶39

have Darshan of padi pooja on 28.08.2023, there need not be any permission or direction. It is the right of a devotee of Sabarimala Lord Ayyappa to witness padi pooja . Therefore, there is no order or direction is required in that matter.

¶40

The learned counsel appearing for the Travancore Devaswom Board brought to our notice during the course of arguments, the order dated 03.10.2017 in SSCR No.11 of 2017, which reads,-

¶41

“Considering the facts and circumstances as to the proceedings in which an order was already passed on 03.07.2017, this Court finds it appropriate to pass an interim order to the effect that no further allotment of 'padipooja' shall be effected by the Devaswom to anybody, if at all any slot becomes vacant in respect of the booking already effected, except to the devotee standing next in the queue from the next five persons who have effected booking already, without getting further orders from this Court.”

¶42

The learned Standing Counsel would submit that in

¶43

view of the restriction in the said order, one among the first

¶44

five persons in the queue alone can be allotted, if a date falls vacant. The possibility of someone from such a group coming

¶45

¶46

D.B.P.No.71 of 2023

¶47

forward in substitution is remote. The learned Standing Counsel therefore seeks a modification to that order. That is not a question involved in this matter and hence that matter has to be considered separately. We, therefore, direct the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala to submit a report in that matter, within a period of three weeks.

¶48

The D.B.P. is disposed of with the directions and

¶49

observations aforementioned.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-

¶52

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶53

dkr

Kishore Natarajan v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishore Natarajan v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kshetra Upadeshaka Samithi Kunnathuserry/Kootholikavu Sree Bhagavathy Kshetram Vs State of Kerala

Chandrasenan Vs the Devaswom Commissioner

Ashraf Vs Subaida

Nikitha Vs Sheeja

Suresh Babu Vs State of Kerala

Kunhipurayil Khalid Vs a.K.Ramachandran(Died)