Petitioners, appointed as non-hereditary trustees, sought direction to assume charge while a revision petition was pending. The court held they failed to establish incapacitation after the revision was rejected and dismissed the petition based on settled law.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 23RD KARTHIKA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 7281 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
1 T.M.MADHAVANKUTTY, AGED 55 YEARS S/O. SHANKARANARAYANAN, THEKKEKARA MARATH HOUSE, VAILATHUR, NJAMANENEGATTU P.O., THRISSUR 679 563.2 M.A. VASU, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O. APPU, MOOLAYIL HOUSE, VAILATHUR P.O., THRISSUR 679 562.BY ADVS.
M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.)
SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA
SRI.BONNY BENNY
RESPONDENTS:
1 MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, ERANJIPALAM, P.O. KOZHIKODE 673 006, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT2 COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD ERANHIPALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE 673 006.3 CHAIRMAN, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, MALAPPURAM DIVISION AREA COMMITTEE,TIRUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, 676 101.
4 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, MINI CIVIL STATION, TIRUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 101.5 THE INSPECTOR, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, GURUVAYOOR DIVISION, MAMMIYOOR, P.O. GURUVAYOOR 680 103.6 TH EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SREE THRIKKAMUKKU MAHADEVA TEMPLE, VAILATHUR , NJAMANENGATTU P.O. THRISSUR 679 563.7 ARAVINDAN P., AGED 73 YEARS, S/O. MADHAVAN NAIR, PUTHUKULANGARA, VAILATHUR, NJAMANENGATTU P.O. THRISSUR 67 563, RESIDING AT PUTHUKULANGARA, P.O. CHOONDAL, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 502.WPC 7281/21
2
BY ADV R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 14.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WPC 7281/21
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioners say that they were appointed as Non-hereditary
Trustees of the ‘Sree Thrikkanamukku Mahadeva Temple’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Temple’ for short), in the year 2010, which continued until 2014; and that they, thereafter applied to such post in the year 2018. They say that they were again appointed as per Ext.P1 order dated 19.06.2019, but were incapacitated from assuming charge because of Ext.P2 Revision having been filed by the 7 th respondent. They say that the said Revision is still pending and that they were unable to occupy the office; and thus pray that competent among respondents 1 to 5 be directed to allow them to do so, reckoning the period they have lost during the afore litigation.
2 . In response to the afore submissions made by Sri.Govind Menon – learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.R.Lakshmi Narayan – learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board, admitted that Ext.P2 Revision was filed by the 7 th respondent on 22.08.2019 and that an interim order had been granted by the
WPC 7281/21
4
Commissioner of the Devaswom, which was in effect for about a month thereafter. He submitted that, however, it was rejected on 18.09.2019; and that, therefore, the petitioners could have taken office any time thereafter, even assuming that they were incapacitated until then. He submitted that, however, they refused to do so and their term ended on 19.06.2021; and hence, that they are governed by the affirmative declarations of a learned Division Bench of this Court in Annexure R1(a) judgment. He thus prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed.
3 . I must say that there is great force in the afore submissions of Sri.R.Lakshmi Narayan because, law has been well settled by this Court through Annexure R1(a), that the question whether persons like the petitioners were in office actually during the period for which they were appointed, or whether they were incapacitated from holding it on account of the litigation, is not relevant and that they cannot seek any extension beyond the time originally granted.
4 . In the case at hand, the situation of the petitioners is far more worse because, apart from the assertion that they were not
WPC 7281/21
5
allowed to assume charge by respondents 4 and 5, they have not established any incapacitation, particularly after 18.09.2019 - when, admittedly, the order of the Commissioner, vacating the interim injunction granted in Ext.P2 Revision was issued. One cannot, therefore, fathom any reason for the petitioners to still plead that they be given charge by respondents 4 and 5, particularly when the learned Standing Counsel for the Devaswom Board affirms that other
persons have already been selected and have taken charge.
In the afore circumstances and being bound by the declarations in Annexure R1(a) judgment, I dismiss this Writ Petition without any further orders.
Needless to say, nothing contained in this judgment will have any reflection on the capacity and competence of the petitioners to participate in further processes of selection as Non-hereditary Trustees, subject to every other requirement in law being satisfied.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
RR
JUDGE
WPC 7281/21
6
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7281/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITSEXHIBIT P1 |
PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDERNO. A43814/2014 (MDB) ISSUED BY THE 4THRESPONDENT, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONERMALABAR, DEVASWOM BOARD DATED 19.06.2019. |
|---|---|
EXHIBIT P2 |
PHOTOSTAT COPY OF RP NO. 9/2019 DATED22.08.2019 ON THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONERMALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD FILED BY 7THRESPONDENT. |
EXHIBIT P3 |
PHOTOSTAT COPY OF I.A. NO. 29/2019 IN RP9/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER ,MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD DATED 22.08.2019FILED BY 7TH RESPONDENT. |
EXHIBIT P4 |
PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER OF THECOMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD IN IA29/2019 IN RP 9/2019 DATED 27.8.2019. |
EXHIBIT P5 |
PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENTFILED BY PETITIONERS IN RP 9/2019 ON17.09.2019. |
EXHIBIT P6 |
PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENTFILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN IA 29/2019 INRP 9/2019 DATED 17.09.20219. |
EXHIBIT P7 |
PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPORT OF THEASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOMBOARD, MALAPPURAM DIVISION DATED17.9.2019. |
EXHIBIT P8 |
PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.29/2019 IN RP 9/2019 ON THE FILE OF THECOMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD DATED18.09.2019. |
EXHIBIT P9 |
PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THISHONOURABLE COURT IN WPC 30515/2019 DATED18.11.2019. |
RESPONDENT’S EXTS: |
|
ANNEXURE R1(A) |
THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED13.04.2018 IN WPC 13582/2018 |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioners appointed as non-hereditary trustees can claim extension of tenure due to pending revision petition.
Whether petitioners were incapacitated from assuming charge after rejection of revision petition on 18.09.2019.
T.M.MADHAVANKUTTY
M.A. VASU
ARAVINDAN P.
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
CHAIRMAN, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court