← Library
High Court of KeralaWP(C)/16328/2015disposed of

Kamankulangara Sree Mahadeva Kshethra Samrakshana Samiti v. The Travancore Devaswom Board

2015-12-02Honourable Mrs. Justice Anu Sivaraman,Honourable Mr.Justice Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937 WP(C).No. 16328 of 2015 (M) -------------------------------- PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

---------------------------- KAMANKULANGARA SREE MAHADEVA KSHETHRA SAMRAKSHANA SAMITI, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,AGED 77 YEARS S.RAMKRISHNA PILLAI(S.R.K.PILLAI), SANKARAMANGALAM CHAVARA.P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR SRI.S.PRASANTH SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH SMT.P.M.MAZNA MANSOOR DR.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR (SR.) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

----------------------------------

1. THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEVASWOM BOARD OFFICE NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003.

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

3. THE DEPUTY DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, DEVASWOM OFFICE, HARIPAD-690514.

4. THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, DEVASWOM OFFICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY KOLLAM DISTRICT-690518.

R1-R4 BY ADV. SRI.D.SREEKUMAR, SC, TDB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-122015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 16328 of 2015 (M) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BYE-LAWS OF THE PETITIONERS SAMITHI EXT.P1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE REGISTRATION OF THE PETITIONER EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.06.2012 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE MANAGER,DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,KOLLAM EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE GROUP OFFICER,KAMANKULANGARA DESOM, EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF ONE SUH SEALED COUPON ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXT.P4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINTED NOTICE PUBLISHED FOR THE "SREEMAD BHAGAVATA SAPTAHA JHANA YAJNAM"

EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24.10.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE BYE LAWS OF THE STATUTORY TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2.2.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.4.2015 WRITTEN BY THE SECRETARY OF THE BOARD TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL ADVICE DATED 26.4.2013 FORWARDED TO THE BOARD BY THE LEGAL ADVISOR EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4.6.2014 EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.4.2015 EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATAED 09.05.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE HON'BLE OMBUDSMAN,THIRUVITHANCURE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL ----------------------------- TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & ANU SIVARAMAN, JJ.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.16328 of 2015 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2015

JUDGMENT

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

1.This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P11 order by which the Travancore Devaswom Board refused to recognise the petitioner Samithi as the Temple Advisory Committee for the Kamankulangara Temple.

2.Hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is noted that the petitioner has expressed its willingness to recast its bylaws in terms of the statutory requirements. It is further pointed out that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of pre-decisional hearing. Under such circumstances, the impugned Ext.P11 is quashed and it is directed that the competent authority in Travancore Devaswom Board will hear the petitioner and take a decision

W.P.(C).No.16328 of 2015 de novo in relation to the matter. The petitioner is directed to mark appearance in the office of the Commissioner of Travancore Devaswom Board on 08.02.2016, so that appropriate date can be fixed by that office to hear the petitioner.

The writ petition ordered accordingly without expressing anything on the merits of the claim of the writ petitioner as projected in the writ petition. All other issues are left open. sd/- Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge sd/- Anu Sivaraman, Judge sj2/12