Kerala High Court
Thiru Ayani Siva Kshethram ... vs Cochin Devaswom Board on 14 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 14020 OF 2021
PETITIONER :
THIRU AYANI SIVA KSHETHRAM UPADESAKA SAMITHY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, T.L.MANIKANDAN,
AGED 40 YEARS,S/O.T.H.LAKSHMANAN,
THEKKEDATH HOUSE, AYANI NADA,
MARADU,ERNAKULAM-682304.
BY ADVS.SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT
& SRI.K.N.ABHILASH.
RESPONDENTS :
1 COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEVASWOM BOARD HEAD QUARTERS,
SWARAJ ROUND NORTH,
THRISSUR-680001,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY.
2 MARADU MUNICIPALITY, MARADU.P.O, MARADU,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682304,REPRESENTED
BY ITS SECRETARY.
3 THE SECRETARY, MARADU MUNICIPALITY,
MARADU PO, MARADU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 304.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.P.SUDHEER, SC FOR R1.
SRI.T.R.RAJAN,SC ,MARADU MUNICIPALITY (R2 & R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 14.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P(C) No.14020 of 2021 2
ALEXANDER THOMAS & A.BADHARUDEEN, J J.
------------------------------------------------
W.P(C) No.14020 of 2021
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of July, 2021
JUDGMENT
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
The case set up in the above captioned W.P(C) is broadly
as follows :
That the petitioner temple advisory committee is aggrieved by the
preparations of the 2nd respondent Municipality to put up a road
through the temple property for making easier access to Anganavady
and a Homoeo Dispensary. The Chairman of the Municipality and the
local MLA have submitted representations before the Ist respondent
Board, who is about to grant permission to construct the road through
the temple property. Though the aforesaid institutions are situated
abutting the temple property, the 2nd respondent Municipality is trying
to facilitate nearby residents to put up a road without acquiring the
property of the petitioner temple by legal ways. Since the Ist
respondent Board is proceeding with granting permission for the
construction of road without hearing the part of the petitioner, it is
necessary to pass orders only after proper hearing.
2. It is in the light of the above aspects, that the petitioner has
filed the above Writ Petition (Civil) with the following prayers {See page
No.5 of the paper book of the W.P(C)} :
"i. Issue appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the I st
respondent to consider the representations for construction of road
through the temple property as per Exhibit P1 to P3 only after
hearing the petitioner.
ii. Grant such other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court would
deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. Heard Sri.Sunil Nair Palakkat, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, Sri.K.P.Sudheer, the learned Standing Counsel for
Cochin Devaswom Board appearing for the first respondent and
Sri.T.R.Rajan, learned Standing Counsel for the Maradu Municipality
appearing for respondents 2 and 3.
4. Sri.T.R.Rajan, learned Standing Counsel for Maradu
Municipality appearing for respondents 2 and 3 would submit on the
basis of instructions that permission has been sought for by the
respondent Maradu Municipality from the respondent Cochin
Devaswom Board for constructing a walk way through the
respondent's Devaswom Board property, so as to connect it to the
Municipal Homoeo Clinic and an Anganvady and the said request is
contained in Ext.P1 representation dated 9-6-2021 submitted by the
2nd respondent Maradu Municipality, which has been recommended
by the local M.L.A by Ext.P2 and by the Hon'ble Minister for
Devaswom, as per Ext.P3, etc. The main prayer in the writ petition is
only for an order so as to direct the first respondent Cochin Devaswom
Board that the petitioner herein should also be heard before the first
respondent takes decision on the matters referred to in Exts. P1 to P3
5. Accordingly, without getting into the merits of the
controversy in any manner, it is ordered that the competent authority
of the first respondent Cochin Devaswom Board, may take up for
consideration the matters in Exts.P1 to P3 and after affording
reasonable opportunity of being heard to the third respondent
Secretary of the Maradu Municipality and the petitioner, may take a
considered decision thereon without much delay, preferably within a
period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of
the judgment. No other orders and directions are required in this case.
With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition
(Civil) will stand disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE
Sd/-
A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE
amk
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14020/2021
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09.06.2021
ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN,MARADU
MUNICIPALITY TO THE PRESIDENT OF COCHIN
DEVASWOM BOARD
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 16.06.2021
ISSUED BY SRI.K.BABU MLA TO THE
PRESIDENT OF COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.06.2021
ISSUED BY THE MINISTER FOR DEVASWOM
AFFAIRS TO SRI.K.BABU MLA.
