Kerala High Court
C.Krishnan vs Malabar Devaswom Board on 17 August, 2021
OP(C) NO. 1367 OF 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 26TH SRAVANA, 1943
OP(C) NO. 1367 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 51/2021 OF SUB COURT,
OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD
PETITIONER/S:
C.KRISHNAN, S/O.CHINNASWAMI MUTHALI, AGED 71
YEARS, THORAPURAM ROAD, PATHUKUDY, MANNARKKAD
TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT
BY ADVS.
K.MOHANAKANNAN
H.PRAVEEN (KOTTARAKARA)
RESPONDENT/S:
1. MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT -673 006, REPRESENTED BY ITS
COMMISSIONER
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD,
CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, 673 006
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM
BOARD, PALAKKAD DIVISION, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD
678001
4. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, APATHUKATHA GANAPATHI
DEVASWOM, PATHUKUDY, ARAKURISSI, MANNARKKAD PO,
PALAKKAD 678 595
5. N.SHANMUGHAM, AGED 72 YEARS, S/O.NAGAPPAN,
PATHUKUDY HOUSE, MANNARKKAD PO, PALAKKAD DISTRICT
678 582
6. V.KRISHNAPPAN, AGED 74 YEARS,
S/O.VELLAMUTHALI, PATHUKUDY HOUSE, 'SREEGOVIND',
OP(C) NO. 1367 OF 2021
2
MANNARKKAR PO, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 582
7. N.PRAKASAN, AGED 74 YEARS, S/O.NANCHAPPAN,
THORAPURAM PRASADAM HOUSE, MANNARKKAD PO,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 582
8. R.RAVEENDRAN, AGED 54 YEARS, VISHNUVIHAR,
THENKARA PO, ARAYANKODE, MANNARKKAD TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 582
9. A.RAJAGOPALAN, AGED 78 YEARS, S/O.ANNAMALA
MUTHALIYAR PATHUKUDY HOUSE, THORAPURAM ROAD,
MANNARKKAD PO, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 582
10. NATARAJAN, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.PERUMAL,
KUTTAMBADAM, MANNARKKAD PO,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 582
11. SIVAPRASAD, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.THAMBI,
PATHUKUDY HOUSE, MANNARKKAD PO, PALAKKAD DISTRICT
678 582
12. K.MANI, S/O.KRISHNA MUTHALI, AGED 70 YEARS,
KOSATHARA HOUSE, MANNARKKAD PO, PALAKKAD DISTRICT
678 582
13.C.RAMASWMY MUTHALI, AGED 74 YEARS,
S/O.CHINNASWAMI, PATHUKUDY HOUSE, MANNARKKAD PO,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 582
BY ADVS.
ADV.R.LAKSHMI NARAYANAN
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
OP(C) NO. 1367 OF 2021
3
JUDGMENT
This Original Petition has been filed praying
for a direction to the Sub Court, Ottappalam to
consider and pass orders on I.A.No.3/2021 in
O.S.No.51/2021 within a time frame and to stay the
operation of Exts.P5 and P6 notices calling for the
meeting of the hereditary trustees of 'Sree
Apathukaatha Mahaganapathi Temple', Mannarkkad till
orders are passed on the aforesaid interlocutory
application.
2. I heard Adv.K.Mohanakannan, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Adv.R.Laxmi
Narayanan, learned counsel appearing for
respondents 1 to 3.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred
to Ext.P7 judgment of a Division Bench of this
Court to contend that while no stay of proceedings
of the Commissioner under the provisions of the HR
& CE Act can be granted in a suit filed under
OP(C) NO. 1367 OF 2021
Section 62 of that Act, taking note of the
principles governing the grant of interim
injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, in appropriate cases, the court
considering the suit is competent to grant
temporary injunction orders. It is therefore
submitted that the prayer in I.A.No.3/2021 is
perfectly maintainable and should be considered on
its merits by the Sub Court, Ottappalam.
4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for
respondents 1 to 3 would however point out that the
proceedings (Ext.P2) which was challenged in the
suit (O.S.No.51/2021) was issued in terms of the
directions issued by this Court in WP(C)
No.32924/2019 and R.P.No.127/2020. He submits that
the proceeding does not suffer from any legal
defect and the suit itself may not be maintainable
in the light of the provisions contained in Section
47 of the HR & CE Act.
5. Considering the contentions raised by either
OP(C) NO. 1367 OF 2021
side, I am of the opinion that this Original
Petition can be disposed of, directing the Sub
Court, Ottappalam before which I.A.No.3/2021 in
O.S.No.51/2021 is pending, to consider and pass
orders on that interlocutory application with
notice to all concerned within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. I am not inclined to stay the operation
of Exts.P5 and P6 pending consideration of the
matter by the Sub Court, Ottappalam. However, it is
made clear that while the newly constituted trustee
board may convene for the purpose of managing the
day-to-day affairs of the Temple, they shall not
take any policy decision in regard to the
administration of the Temple. I make it clear that
the aforesaid arrangement shall be subject to the
orders to be passed by the Sub Court on
I.A.No.3/2021 in O.S. No.51/2021. It is also
clarified that I have not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the contentions raised by either side
and it will be open to the Sub Court, Ottappalam to
OP(C) NO. 1367 OF 2021
consider the contentions raised untrammeled by any
observation contained in this judgment.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
rkc
OP(C) NO. 1367 OF 2021
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE OA 1/2015 DT.9.4.15 OF THE COMMISSIONER
EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER DT.8.1.21
IN OA 2/2020
EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS 51/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB
COURT, OTTAPPALAM
EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION FILED IN SUPPORT OF
IA 3/2021 IN IA 830/2021 IN OS 51/2021
EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DT.
NIL TO RESPONDENTS 5 TO 13
EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DT.
NIL RESPONDENTS 5 TO 13
EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2008 (1) KLT 595 (WPC
21987 & 29881 OF 2007)
