Disposed

P.Anoop v. Travancore Devaswom Board

Kerala HC23 May 2023WP(C)/9391/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged appointment of another person as Shanthi in Dharma Shastha temple claiming hereditary right to perform poojas in both deities. Court held question of fact requires initial decision by Devaswom Board with opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to produce representations dated 02.05.2013 and 02.09.2016, Board directed to decide granting petitioner opportunity of hearing within three months.

P.Anoop Vs Travancore Devaswom Board — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2023)

¶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

TUESDAY, THE 23^RD DAY OF MAY 2023 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1945 WP(C) NO.9391 OF 2019

PETITIONER:

P.ANOOP

AGED 27 YEARS

S/O.PARAMESWARAN NAMBOOTHIRI, RESIDING AT CHERUTHALA MADAM, CHERUKOL, EZHAKADAVU P.O, CHENNITHALA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT

¶11

BY ADVS.

¶12

M.R.ARUNKUMAR SRI.P.SHAMMI NAVAS

¶13

RESPONDENT:

¶14

1 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003

¶15

2 THE COMMISSIONER TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003

¶16

3 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA - 690 101

¶17

4 THE SUB GROUP OFFICER CHERUKOL DHARMA SHASTHA SUBRAMANIA TEMPLE, CHERUKOL DEVASWOM, CHERUKOL, ALAPPUZHA - 690 104

¶18

¶19

W.P.(C) No.9391 of 2019

¶20

5 S. PRADEEP KUMAR SHANTHI, CHERUKOL DHARMA SHASTHA, SUBRAHMANIA TEMPLE, CHERUKOL DEVASWOM, CHERUKOL, ALAPPUZHA - 690 104

¶21

BY ADV. SRI.C.K.PAVITHRAN, SC, TDB

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

¶24

W.P.(C) No.9391 of 2019

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

P.G.Ajithkumar, J.

¶27

The Petitioner is the Karanma Shanthi in Cherukol Devaswom. He claims that he has the right to be the Melshanthi and perform poojas in Temples of both deities, Sree Subrahmanya Swami and Sree Dharma Shastha of Cherukol Devaswom. He alleges that respondent Nos.1 to 3 denied him his right to perform poojas before the deity Sree Dharma Shastha, and in negation of that right, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 appointed respondent No.5 as the Shanthi in the Sree Dharma Shastha temple. Therefore the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs.

¶28

i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 4 to allow the petitioner to perform the duty of the Karanma Shanthi of Cherukol Devaswom inclusive of to do Pooja to both the Deities Sree Subrahmania Swami and Dharma Shastha and other deities of the Temple. ii. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Exhibit P8 communication issued to the Sub Group Officer, Cherukol Devaswom from Kunnamangalam

¶29

¶30

W.P.(C) No.9391 of 2019

¶31

Devaswom dated 1.9.2016.

¶32

iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 3^rd and 4^th respondents to restrain the 5^th respondent to conduct the Poojas and rituals in the Temple. iv. Declared that the petitioner need not establish the right of Karanma Shanthi in Cherukol Devaswom to do Poojas and rituals in each deities of the Temple and further declare that only the petitioner's family can perform the Shanthi of Cherukol Devaswom inclusive of Deity of Sree Subrahmania Swami and Deity of Sree Dharma Shastha and other Sub Deities in the Temple on the basis of the Exhibit P2 and P3 Judgment and decree granted by the competent Civil Court.

¶33

v. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to ensure that no Shanthi will be appointed and conducted the Poojas to any of the Deities in the Cherukol Devaswom except the petitioner.

¶34

Learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board took notice for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Despite giving notice, respondent No.5 did not choose to appear before this Court. The 1^st respondent filed a counter affidavit wherein it is contended that the Karanma right of the

¶35

¶36

W.P.(C) No.9391 of 2019

¶37

petitioner is services as Shanthi of Cherukol Sree Subrahmanya Swami Temple and not in Sree Dharma Shastha Temple. There is a post of Shanthi in the Cherukol Devaswom and therefore respondent No.5 was appointed in that post. He is designated to perform poojas in Sree Dharma Sastha Temple. Thus the 1^st respondent took the view that the claim of the petitioner is untenable.

¶38

Petitioner filed a reply affidavit wherein he reiterated that he has the right to perform poojas in both Subrahmanya Swami Temple and Dharma Sastha Temple of Cherukol Devaswom. It is further contended that the competent civil court as per Ext.P21 judgment had declared the right of members of his illom to continue services as Santhikars in Cherukol Devaswom and the Travancore Devaswom Board and its officials cannot be allowed to interpret the judgment of the civil court. The contentions of the 1^st respondent that the Karanma right was confined to services in Sree Subrahmanya Temple alone is denied by the petitioner. He maintained that Cherukol Devaswom composes both the main deities of Sree Subrahmanyan and Sree

¶39

¶40

W.P.(C) No.9391 of 2019

¶41

Dharma Shastha, and also sub deities. The right of the members of his family has been in existence from time immemorial and the attempt of the 1^st respondent and its officials is to deny that right by misinterpreting the judgment of the civil court. Accordingly, the petitioner seeks to grant the relief as prayed in the writ petition.

¶42

The petitioner produced Ext.P21 along with I.A. No.1 of 2019, Exts. P22 to P26 along with the reply affidavit, Ext.P27 along with I.A.No.3 of 2019 and Exts.P28 along with I.A. No.1 of 2020. He also has produced Exts.P29, 30 and 31 along with I.A. Nos.1 of 2022, and 2 of 2022.

¶43

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶44

In 2005, the Karanma services of Melshanthi in Cherukol Devaswom by members of the petitioner's family were discontinued for want of any eligible member in the family. The petitioner is a member of Cheruthala Madam, and on his attaining majority, his Karanma right was restored. The claim in that regard was duly allowed by the 2^nd respondent as

¶45

¶46

W.P.(C) No.9391 of 2019

¶47

per Ext.P5 order dated 21.11.2012. It is contended that the petitioner was directed by the 3^rd respondent to perform poojas in the Subrahmanya Swamy Temple alone. Keezhshanthi was directed to perform the poojas in Dharma Shastha Temple. Aggrieved by the denial of his right to perform poojas in Dharma Shastha Temple, the senior most member of the family submitted a representation before the 2^nd respondent claiming to restore that right. Ext.P6 is a copy of the said representation. Later the petitioner also submitted a similar representation. However, no action was taken by the 2^nd respondent or the Travancore Devaswom Board and therefore the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.23985 of 2013. During The Pendency Of that writ petition respondent No.5 was appointed as a departmental Shanthi in Dharma Shastha Temple in Cherukol Devawom. In the wake of that development, the petitioner withdrew W.P.(C) No.23985 of 2013 and filed the present writ petition.

¶48

It is seen that the petitioner has filed O.S. No.66 of 2018 before the Munsiff's Court, Mavelikkara seeking a decree of declaration and prohibitory injunction challenging

¶49

¶50

W.P.(C) No.9391 of 2019

¶51

appointment of the 5^th respondent as a Shanthi in Dharma Shastha Temple. The said suit is appeared pending consideration of the Munsiff's Court. After the appointment of respondent No. 5 as a Shanthi in Sree Dharma Shastha Temple, the petitioner submitted a complaint before the 1^st respondent, a copy of which is Ext.P9. In that also he claims that he has the Karanma right for services as Shanthi in the Temples of both Sree Subrahmanyan and Sree Dharma Shastha in Cherukol devaswom and that right is indefeasible.

¶52

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that right of the members of the petitioners' family to render services as Shanthi0 in Cherukol Devaswom is now unquestionable in the light of Ext.P21 and P3. The learned counsel further would submit that when the petitioner is denied his hereditary right which includes right to service as Shanthi in Sree Dharma Shastha Temple also of Cherukol Devaswom, respondent Nos.1 to 4 could not deny that right except following the procedure prescribed in Section 28(2) of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950. Accordingly, the learned counsel would canvass for a direction

¶53

¶54

W.P.(C) No.9391 of 2019

¶55

to respondent No.1 to 4 to restore his Karanma right as a Shanthi in Sree Dharma Shastha Temple as well.

¶56

The learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board would submit that in Ext.P21, which stands affirmed by Ext.P2 judgment, what was declared is the Karanma right of the members of Cheruthala Madam in Cherukol Devaswom. It is submitted that Cherukol Devaswom originally has the deity Sree Subrahmanyan alone and Sree Dharma Shastha being a subsequent origin, and has separate existence, members of the petitioner's family cannot claim Karanma right in that temple. It was in the said circumstances, the Travancore Devaswom Board appointed a department Shanthi to perform poojas in Sree Dharma Shastha of Cherukol Devaswom.

¶57

In Ext.P21, the right declared is that the members of the illom of the petitioner have the right to continue services as santhikars in Cherukol Devaswom subject to certain conditions. Conditions are not relevant as of now. Although the Travancore Devaswom Board challenged the said judgment and decree, it was not successful. The appeal was

¶58

¶59

W.P.(C) No.9391 of 2019

¶60

dismissed as per Ext.P2 judgment by the District Court, Mavelikkara, thereby Ext.P21 was confirmed. Now the question is as to whether the petitioner has right to services as a Karanma Santhi before both deities, Sree Subrahmanya Swami and Sree Dharma Shastha.

¶61

Section 28(2) of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act envisages that in the event of alienation of a Karanma service, by its holder or any member of the family holding Karanma right, the Travancore Devaswom Board has the power to suspend, remove, determine, cancel or deal with in any other manner, the Karanma right of the family. The Board has to follow the procedure prescribed therein including hearing of the affected parties before taking such an action. The matter in dispute in this writ petition is not the one covered by Section 28(2) of the said Act. Karanma right of the petitioner to continue with services as Shanthi in Cherukol Devaswom is not in dispute after Ext.P5 order by which petitioner was allowed to continue the Karanma right. The question is whether such Karanma right relates to both deities; namely, Sree Subramanyan and

¶62

¶63

W.P.(C) No.9391 of 2019

¶64

Sree Dharma Shastha.

¶65

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that such a question cannot be relegated to Travancore Devaswom Board since it is a matter of interpretation of the decision of a competent civil court. As pointed out above, Ext.P21 as affirmed by Ext.P2 declared the Karanma right of the members of petitioners' family. From the pleadings as narrated in Ext.P21, or other parts of the judgment, it is not able to understand whether the plaintiffs therein asserted that Karanma right encompasses the right to service in temples of both the deities. It follows that the question whether the Karanma right of members of Cheruthala Madom is to perform poojas in both the temples or only in one of the temples was not a question in dispute in the said suit. Therefore there was no decision by the Court on that question also.

¶66

In such circumstances, it cannot be said that taking a decision on the question whether Karanma right of the members of Cheruthala Madam is right to perform poojas in temples of both the deities or only in the temple of Sree

¶67

¶68

W.P.(C) No.9391 of 2019

¶69

Subrahmanyan is not a matter of interpretation of Ext.P21 judgment. It is a question to be decided independently in the light of the rival contentions setforth by the parties herein.

¶70

It may be noted that the petitioner has submitted Ext.P7 representation on 02.05.2013 and P9 complaint on 02.09.2016. Both were to espouse his grievance that his Karanma right to service as Melsanthi in the temple of the deity, Sree Dharmashastha was illegally being denied. The respective respondents did not take any decision on the said representation and the complaint yet. It is for the Travancore Devaswom Board to take a decision on that claim in the light of the materials produced before it. It is especially so since the question is one of fact. In the said circumstances, we are of the view that the relief claimed by the petitioner in the nature of a writ of mandamus and ancillary directions is not liable to be granted. Instead, it is required only to direct the 1^st respondent to take a decision on Ext.P7 dated 02.05.2013 and P9 dated 02.09.2016 within a time frame.

¶71

This writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to take a decision on Ext.P7 dated 02.05.2013

¶72

¶73

W.P.(C) No.9391 of 2019

¶74

and P9 dated 02.09.2016 within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. The 1^st respondent shall take a decision after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to produce all the documents and materials he places reliance on and after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The question of law is however left open.

¶75

Sd/ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶76

Sd/P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶77

¶78

¶79

W.P.(C) No.9391 of 2019

¶80

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9391/2019

¶81

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶82

EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED ENTERED INTO BY THE ANCESTORS OF THE PETITIONER DATED 14/08/1957 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, MAVELIKKARA IN A.S. NO. 426 OF 1962 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE DECREE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, MAVELIKARA IN A.A. NO. 426 OF 1962 EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, MAVELIKARA ON 16/05/2005 EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 21/11/2012 WITH TYPED COPY EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE SENIOR MALE MEMBER OF THE PETITIONER'S ILLAM BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 02/05/2013 EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED TO THE SUB GROUP OFFICER, CHERUKOL DEVASWOM FROM KUNNAMANGALAM DEVASWOM DATED 01/09/2016 EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT 02/09/2016 EXHIBIT P10 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P(C) NO.23985 OF

¶83

¶84

W.P.(C) No.9391 of 2019

¶85

2013 DATED 20/03/2018 EXHIBIT P11 COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO. 66 OF 2018 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, MAVELIKARA EXHIBIT P12 COPY OF THE CONTINGENCY EMPLOYEES REGISTER SHOWING THE NAME AND POST AND OTHER DETAILS AS PER THE OLD PATHIVU RECORD EXHIBIT P13 COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF PATHIVU BOOK OF CHERUKOL DEVASWOM EXHIBIT P14 COPY OF THE CONTINGENCY EMPLOYEES REGISTER SHOWING THE NAME AND POST AND OTHER DETAILS AS PER THE NEW PATHIVU RECORD EXHIBIT P15 COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE NEW PATHIVU BOOK OF THE MAJOR CHERUKOL DEVASWOM EXHIBIT P16 COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 01/08/2012 EXHIBIT P17 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23/01/2019 ISSUED BY THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, MAVELIKARA IN O.S. NO. 66 OF 2018 EXHIBIT P18 COPY OF THE ATTENDANCE REGISTER OF THE CHERUKOL DEVASWOM TEMPLE EXHIBIT P19 COPY OF THE ACQUITTANCE ROLL OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE TEMPLE EXHIBIT P20 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HONOURABLE OMBUDSMAN FOR TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD DATED 29/10/2018

P.Anoop v. Travancore Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Anoop 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Sreedharan Nambisan Vs State of Kerala

Suo Motu Vs the State of Kerala

Kizhakkiniyakath Parameswaran Moosad Vs Principal Secretary to Government

Pramesh v., Vs State of Kerala

M/S Kangappadan Residency Vs State of Kerala

M/S Kangappadan Residency Vs State of Kerala