Kerala High Court
Sreevalsan K vs State Of Kerala on 19 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WP(C).No.27540 OF 2020(N)
PETITIONER/S:
SREEVALSAN K.
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O.GOVINDAN NAIR, 1/665, SREEVALSAM, DWARAKAPURI,
OPP.NH, KADAMKODE, PALAKKAD, PIN-678551.
BY ADVS.
SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY
SRI.ARUL MURALIDHARAN
SMT.JAEONA JAMES
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE(DEVASWOMS) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2 THE COMMISSIONER,
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERANHIPALAM,
KOZHIKODE-673006.
3 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, PALAKKAD DIVISION, CIVIL
STATION, PALAKKAD-678001.
4 K.SIVARAMAN
AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, 27/548, PRIYA NIVAS,
KADAMKODE, KARINGARAPPULLY, PALAKKAD, PIN-678559.
5 A.MANI,
AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, 26/326, KENATH
PARAMBU, KUNNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD, PIN-678013.
W.P.(C).27540/2020 :2:
6 K.ASHOK KUMAR,
AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, MANIYANKADU VEEDU,
KUNNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD, PIN-678013.
7 R.RAMDAS,
AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, MANANGAL VEEDU,
KUNNATHURMEDU POST, PALAKKAD, PIN-678013.
R1 BY SR.GP SRI. RENIL ANTO KANDAMKULATHY
R2 & R3 BY SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN, SC, MDB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-
12-2020, THE COURT ON 09-03-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).27540/2020 :3:
JUDGMENT
Haripal, J.
Petitioner claims that he is a resident near Sree Manappullikavu
temple, hereinafter referred to as 'the temple', an ancient temple coming
under the administrative control of the Malabar Devaswom Board, and a
devotee. When the 2nd respondent had invited applications for
appointment of non hereditary trustees of the temple, the petitioner filed
application; he was also in the shortlisted list. But, after enquiry,
respondents 4 to 7 were appointed as non hereditary trustees. The
grievance of the petitioner is that respondents 4 to 7 were appointed as non
hereditary trustees of the temple flouting all norms and guidelines. The 4 th
respondent is the Branch Secretary of the Pandarakkavu branch and local
committee member of Yakkara local committee of the CPI(M) whereas
respondents 5 to 7 are the branch committee members of the said party.
They were appointed as non hereditary trustees on the basis of false
affidavits filed before respondents 2 and 3. Moreover, during 2008-2014,
W.P.(C).27540/2020 :4:
the 4th respondent was the Vice President and respondents 5 and 6 were the
executive committee members of the Vela festival committee of the
temple. The local fund audit had raised allegations of embezzlement of
funds by the committee and surcharge proceedings for Rs.1,23,728/- in the
year 2008, Rs.14,350/- in 2011, Rs.2,47,075/- in 2012 are initiated and
huge amounts are found due for the years 2009-2010. Though the
petitioner filed detailed representation, Ext.P1, before the 1 st respondent
pointing out the above irregularities, without considering the relevant facts
it was rejected, vide Ext.P4 order. Thus the petitioner has approached this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to call for records leading to
Ext.P4 order passed by the 1st respondent and to set it aside, and also to
disqualify respondents 4 to 7 to hold the post of non hereditary trusteeship
of the temple.
2. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned
standing counsel for respondents 2 and 3 as also the learned Government
Pleader for the 1st respondent.
3. It is evident that the petitioner, who was also an aspirant to the
W.P.(C).27540/2020 :5:
post of non-hereditary trusteeship of the temple, though shortlisted at the
initial stage, was not considered for appointment. Instead, respondents 4
to 7 were given appointment. But, according to him, they, being active
politicians and persons against whom surcharge proceedings are initiated,
ought not to have been considered for appointment. Highlighting these
grievances the petitioner moved the Government with Ext.P1
representation. Ext.P4 is the order passed by the 1 st respondent, after
enquiring into the allegations raised by the petitioner. From Ext.P4 it is
certain that the 1st respondent had obtained a detailed report from the 3rd
respondent touching the allegations. A report was given stating that
evidence could not be collected to say that respondents 4 to 7 are active
politicians, though they have affinity to a particular political
denomination. With regard to surcharge proceedings, it was reported that
it was initiated against the committee for the period 2007-2008 and 2011-
2012. According to the report obtained by the 1st respondent, the financial
liabilities of Vela festival committee are on the President and the
Treasurer, that the 4th respondent Sivaraman was only the Vice President.
W.P.(C).27540/2020 :6:
After considering various aspects, the 1st respondent concluded that though
respondents 4 to 7 are sympathizers of a political party, the
petitioner/complainant could not make out that they are active politicians
or persons holding office of any political party. It was also noticed that
merely for the reason that their pictures were found in some photographs
appeared along with newspaper reports, they cannot be deemed as active
politicians. On that score, his representation was rejected, which
prompted the petitioner to move this Court with the reliefs aforestated.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the
contentions. The learned standing counsel for respondents 2 and 3 pointed
out that enquiries did not reveal that respondents 4 to 7 are active
politicians and office bearers of any political party.
5. In other words, there are disputed questions of fact. While
sitting in the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution we are unable to adjudicate on such disputed questions.
Secondly, regarding surcharge proceedings, it seems that the stand taken
by the 1st respondent is reasonable. For the reason that the 4 th respondent
W.P.(C).27540/2020 :7:
was holding the position as the Vice President of the Vela festival
committee, or others were in the committee, there is no mandate that they
have personal liability, if any, initiated against the committee.
6. Similarly, with the photographs highlighting that some of the
respondents shared the platform of a political party, one cannot jump into
the conclusion that they are active politicians. The enquiry conducted by
the 1st respondent showed that respondents 4 to 7 were only sympathizers
of a political party which, ipso facto, will not disentitle them from holding
the post of non-hereditary trusteeship.
On these considerations, we do not find any reason to entertain the
writ petition. It is dismissed in limine. No costs.
Sd/-
C.T. RAVIKUMAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
K.HARIPAL
JUDGE
okb/09/12/2020
//True copy// P.S. to Judge
W.P.(C).27540/2020 :8:
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
30.11.2019 ALONG WITH DOCUMENTS THEREIN
PRODUCED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 17.08.2020
SUBMITTED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONS DATED 07.09.2020
SUBMITTED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.11.2020 IN
G.O.(RT)NO.3437/2020/RD PASSED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
