Kerala High Court
Sree Mattannur Mahadeva Kshetra ... vs The Malabar Devaswom Board on 7 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
THURSDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 17TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.20997 OF 2020(Y)
PETITIONER/S:
SREE MATTANNUR MAHADEVA KSHETRA SAMITHI
INDIRA NAGAR, MATTANNUR, THALASSERY TALUK,
KANNUR 670 702,REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT-
PAVITHRAN N, KOUSTHUBHAM, VAYANTHODE P.O, MATTANNUR,
KANNUR 670 702.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR
SMT.BINDU SREEDHAR
SHRI.ASIF N
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER, HR & CE DEPARTMENT,
KOZHIKODE 673 001.
2 THE COMMISSIONER,
HR & CE DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKODE 673 001.
3 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
HR & CE (LAW) DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKODE 673 001.
4 M.P BHASKARAN,
S/O. GOPALAN, KOLARI AMSAM. PORORA DESAM, TELLICHERY
TALUK, KANNUR 670 702
5 KAIPANCHERY CHANDRAN,
KOLARI AMSOM, PORORA DESOM, TELLICHERY TALUK, KANNUR
670 702
W.P(C).20997/2020 :2:
6 PARAMESWARAN NAMBOODIRI
SREEMANGALAM P.O, KOODALI, THALASSERY TALUK,
KANNUR 670 592
R1 BY SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM
BOARD
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12-10-2020, THE COURT ON 07-01-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(C).20997/2020 :3:
JUDGMENT
Haripal, J.
Petitioner, Mattannur Sree Mahadeva Kshethra Samithy represented
by its President, has moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India seeking the following reliefs:-
i. Call for the records leading to Exhibit P9 order passed by the 2 nd
respondent.
ii. Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order
quashing Exhibit P9 order passed by the 2 nd respondent
commissioner as it is in total violation of the directions contained
in Exhibit P5 judgment of Sub Court, Thalassery in O.S.No.418
of 2010 and O.S.No.114 of 2011.
iii. Declare that the Commissioner of HR&CE cannot exercise the
powers under section 19(1) on the basis of his personal
satisfaction and without conducting proper enquiry by giving
notice to all parties to proceedings.
2. Evidently, the tug of war between the parties had commenced in
2007, when the 4th respondent and others had moved a representation as
Ext.P1, before the Minister for Devaswom requesting to bring the
Mattannur Sree Mahadeva Temple under the Madras Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The
W.P(C).20997/2020 :4:
Minister had forwarded the same to the 2 nd respondent, who, in turn,
authorised the 3rd respondent to make enquiry in O.A. No.18/2007, which
stood transferred to the Assistant Commissioner for enquiry. The Assistant
Commissioner gave the Ext.P2 report recommending to initiate action for
declaring the temple as a Hindu Religious Institution. On that basis, the
Senior Superintendent in charge of the Deputy Commissioner passed the
Ext.P3 order declaring the Mattannur Sree Mahadeva Temple a religious
institution as defined under the Act. When the petitioner challenged that
order in appeal, through Ext.P4 order the 2 nd respondent confirmed the same
and dismissed the appeal. Against that finding, the petitioner instituted two
suits, O.S.Nos.418/2010 and 114/2011 before the Sub Court, Thalassery.
By common judgment dated 21.12.2013, the learned Sub Judge quashed the
Ext.P3 order and directed the Deputy Commissioner to consider
O.A.No.18/2007 afresh and to dispose of the same on merits after giving
opportunity to both sides to adduce fresh evidence. These are admitted
facts.
3. Now, the petitioner is aggrieved by the Ext.P9 order of the 2 nd
respondent, dated 21.01.2020, whereunder invoking powers under Section
W.P(C).20997/2020 :5:
19(1) of the Act, proceedings in O.A.No.18/2007 pending before the 3 rd
respondent has been withdrawn to his file and renumbered as
O.A.No.1/2020. According to the learned counsel, such an act on the part
of the 2nd respondent is arbitrary, illegal and in flagrant violation of the
Ext.P5 judgment of the Sub Court. He has a further complaint that
everything is being done behind his back; he got knowledge about these
matters through other sources; Ext.P8 notice was never served on him.
According to him, under the guise of Section 19, the 2 nd respondent cannot
override the decree of the civil court, which is binding on him also. If
there is a complaint that the 3 rd respondent is delaying the proceedings, he
should have issued a direction for the expeditious disposal of the
application, instead, on political considerations, the power is being usurped
by him ignoring the judgment of the civil court. According to the learned
counsel, if Ext.P9 is allowed to sustain, the petitioner will loose a valuable
forum also.
4. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the 1 st
respondent opposed the prayers. He has disputed the very maintainability
of the writ petition. According to him, the action of the 2 nd respondent is
W.P(C).20997/2020 :6:
well within his powers under Section 19(1)(a) of the Act. He has disputed
the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not
informed of the proceedings. On the other hand, he was represented by a
counsel, the demise of the then President of the petitioner Samithy was
taken note of, that the President and Secretary are represented by a counsel
of their choice. Power under Section 19 of the Act cannot be foreclosed
under the decree. The civil court had only directed to consider the O.A.
afresh and it cannot be construed as a direction that the Deputy
Commissioner himself should do the same. The 2 nd respondent had also
considered the delay and long lapse of time in keeping the matter pending,
after the decree. In other words, it is only expedient that the matter be
considered by the 2nd respondent. When a decision is taken by the 2 nd
respondent, the aggrieved has a remedy under Section 62 of the Act. The
learned counsel has filed a statement also.
5. After hearing counsel on both sides, in the nature of the order
proposed to be passed, we deem it not necessary to issue notice to the party
respondents.
6. We are at a loss to understand why the petitioner has rushed to this
W.P(C).20997/2020 :7:
Court invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution without raising these contentions before the 2 nd respondent. In
the nature of the order proposed to be passed by us, we refrain from making
any observation with regard to the correctness of the contentions raised by
both sides. Suffice it to say that it can be raised before the Commissioner
himself. But, we are constrained to note studied indifference on the part of
the petitioner in giving a finality to the proceedings. Everything had started
way back in 2007, when the Ext.P1 representation was given, followed by
proceedings under the Act. During the course, at least thrice the petitioner
had approached this Court raising one contention or the other. At times he
had moved the Government also and obtained stay of the proceedings. All
these would lead to an inference that the petitioner is trying to put spokes in
the free flow of the proceedings. Even though the Ext.P5 judgment was
delivered on 21.12.2013, proceedings before the 3 rd respondent did not
advance further. After a lapse of nearly seven years and remaining dormant
all the time, when the 2nd respondent took up the matter, the petitioner has
hurriedly approached this Court, happily enjoying the inaction on the part of
the 3rd respondent. Whatever it may be, now the learned standing counsel
W.P(C).20997/2020 :8:
has submitted that the proceedings before the 2 nd respondent stood posted to
28.10.2020. If it is not disposed of, that needs to be disposed at the earliest.
Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2 nd respondent to
consider and dispose of the objections of the petitioner, as expeditiously as
possible, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment, untrammelled by the observations made above.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
C.T. RAVIKUMAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
K.HARIPAL
JUDGE
okb/15/10/2020
//True copy// P.S. to Judge
W.P(C).20997/2020 :9:
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 27-04-
2007 FILED BY 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE
MINISTER FOR DEVASWOM
EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF REPORT OF THE ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER DT 17-07-2007
EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07-07-2010
PASSED BY THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT-IN-
CHARGE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DT 25-01-2011 IN AP
9 OF 2010 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
COMMISSIONER.
EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DT 21-12-
2013 IN OS NO 418 OF 2010 AND OS NO 114 OF
2011 SUB COURT, THALASSERY
EXHIBIT P6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DT 14-06-2019
PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT COMMISSIONER.
EXHIBIT P7 PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT DT 29-07-2019 IN
WP(C) 16838 OF 2019 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE
COURT.
EXHIBIT P8 PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DT 29-07-2020 IN
OA 1 OF 2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P9 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO J2/3299/2020 DT
21-01-2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
