T.V.Chandran vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 1580 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

     FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 25TH POUSHA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.22000 OF 2020(Y)


PETITIONER/S:

      1         T.V.CHANDRAN,
                AGED 66 YEARS,
                S/O KORAN,
                THACHARATH VALAPPIL, MADAPPURA HOUSE,
                MOTTAMMEL P.O,
                KANNUR -670331.

      2         T.V ASHOKAN,
                AGED 64 YEARS,
                S/O KORAN,
                THACHARATH VALAPPIL, MADAPPURA HOUSE,
                MOTTAMMEL P.O,
                KANNUR -670331.

                BY ADVS.
                SRI.N.RATHEESH
                SMT.SUMA RATHEESH
RESPONDENT/S:

      1         THE STATE OF KERALA
                REP BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
                DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.

      2         THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
                KANNUR, PIN-670301.

      3         THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
                KANNAPURAM POLICE STATION,
                KANNUR, PIN-670301.

*     4         UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED ABOUT 53,
                S/O GANGADHARAN,
                EDAKKAPURAM, KANNAPURAM,
                CHERUKUNNU P.O,
                KANNUR, PIN-670301.(CORRECTED)

*               (THE ADDRESS OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT IS CORRECTED AS
                'UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED ABOUT 53, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
                TO THE PETITIONERS, HOUSE NO.415, KOKKADAN HOUSE,
                EDAKKAPURAM, KANNAPURAM, CHERUKUNNU P.O,
 WP(C).No.22000 OF 2020(Y)        2

             KANNUR, PIN-670301' AS PER ORDER DATED 15.01.2021
             IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2021)


      5      K. VENUGOPALAN,
             AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, (FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
             TO THE PETITIONERS),
             DOCUMENT WRITER, FAHAD COMPLEX,
             CHERUKUNNU P.O,
             KANNUR, PIN-670301.

      6      BALAN ALIAS VASU,
             AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
             S/O CHEERUKANDAN, KURUVAD EEZHAM, KANNUR, PIN-
             670334.

**    7      VALSAN K,
             AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, (FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
             TO THE PETITIONERS),
             KOTTIYAL HOUSE, EDAKKAPPURAM, KANNAPURAM,
             CHERUKUNNU P.O,
             KANNUR, PIN-670301.(CORRECTED).

**
             (THE ADDRESS OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT IS CORRECTED AS
             'VALSAN, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O.RAMUNNI, HOUSE
             NO.50, APPICHIRA VALAPPIL,EDAKKAPPURAM, KANNAPURAM,
             CHERUKUNNU P.O, KANNUR, PIN-670301' AS PER ORDER
             DATED 15.01.2021 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2021).


#     8      A BALAKRISHNAN,
             AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
             S/O KANNAN,
             AIKOTH HOUSE, NEAR, C.R.C IRINAVU P.O,
             KANNUR PIN-670301.(CORRECTED).
#            (THE ADDRESS OF THE 8 TH RESPONDENT IS CORRECTED AS
             'A BALAKRISHNAN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O KANNAN,
             AIKOTH HOUSE, NEAR C.R.C, IRINAVU P.O,
             KANNUR PIN-670301' AS PER ORDER DATED 15.01.2021 IN
             I.A.NO.1 OF 2021)


             R5 BY ADV. SRI.I.V.PRAMOD

             SRI P P THAJUDEEN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.22000 OF 2020(Y)                     3




                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioners herein are brothers. The 1st petitioner claims that he is

the Madayan (Poojari) of Kannapuram Sree Muthappan Madappura Temple,

which is the family temple of the petitioners. The temple is situated in the

property which was originally owned by late Smt. Madhavi, the mother of the

petitioners. Initially, Madhavi managed the temple and used to conduct all

rituals. After the passing away of their mother, the responsibility has now

passed on to the 1st petitioner.

2. It is stated that when devotees started to throng the Madappura, a

Trust was recently formed in the name as Kannapuram Sree Muthappan Trust.

The petitioners state that the party respondents are nearby residents and they

owe their allegiance to certain political outfits. They are now intruding into the

affairs of the temple. Under the pretext of protecting the temple, they have

brought out certain publications casting aspersions on the petitioners and

other family members. On 27.9.2020, the party respondents along with their

followers came to the temple property and made attempts to measure out the

same. When their illegal attempts were thwarted, threats of physical harm

were made. According to the petitioners, as the party respondents have

organised political party to support their illegal acts, the petitioners may not

be able to resist their advances. In the said circumstances, the petitioners

have lodged separate complaints before the police. However, no action was

taken. It is in the above backdrop that they have approached this Court

seeking a direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to render adequate protection

to the life and property of the petitioners and the other devotees to worship

the family deity of Kannapuram Sree Muthappan Madappura and to carry out

maintenance work in the temple property.

3. Notice to respondent No.7 has been returned with the endorsement

'not known'. Though notice to respondents 5, 6 and 8 have been served, there

is no appearance.

4. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that a

Trust was recently formed by certain members of the family and the public for

the proper upkeep and management of the Sree Kannapuram Muthappan

Madappura. Certain members of the Thacharath Tharavad have claimed that

they have been sidelined by the petitioners. This has resulted in a dispute.

According to the learned Government Pleader, the dispute is purely civil in

nature and it is for the petitioners to approach the Civil Court and get

appropriate relief as civil rights are involved. According to him, it will not be

advisable for the police to interfere in such disputes. However, it is submitted

that if any situation which may lead to breach of peace occurs and if the same

is brought to the notice of the police, appropriate steps shall be taken.

5. I have considered the submissions advanced. From the submissions

advanced, it appears that the dispute revolved around the management of a

temple. A Trust has been formed recently and there appears to be some

dispute between family members and other local residents. Ext.P3 notice

reveals that certain groups have asserted their rights over the management of

the temple. If there are disputes among trust members or if the petitioners

claim absolute right to manage the temple, they may have to approach the

jurisdictional Civil Court and get their claims adjudicated in a manner known

to law. It would not be proper for this Court to venture into those aspects in a

writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. However, it is made clear that if the petitioners lodge a complaint

alleging breach of peace or violation of law and order, the 3rd respondent

shall ascertain the genuineness of the complaint and take appropriate action

in accordance with law.

This writ petition is disposed of.

SD/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

JUDGE

DSV

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1585/1971 DATED 15.11.1971 OF SRO KALLIASSERY.

EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOGRAPHS 5 IN NUMBER SHOWING THE TEMPLE AND RELATED STRUCTURES.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 12.09.2020 IN THE NAME OF A TRUST WHICH WAS CIRCULATED WITH THE NEWS PAPER.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 30.09.2020 LODGED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 30.09.2020 LODGED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:    NIL



                                      //TRUE COPY//   P.A.TO JUDGE