N.Vishnu Namboothiri vs Travancore Devaswom Board
2021 Latest Caselaw 19226 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
                                   &
                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
 TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 23RD BHADRA, 1943
                      WP(C) NO. 18803 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

             N.VISHNU NAMBOOTHIRI,
             AGED 46 YEARS
             VISHNU NILAYAM, 100/2, KANDIYUR, TATTARAMBALAM
             P.O., MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA 690 103.

             BY ADVS.
             S.KRISHNAMOORTHY
             SNEHA ROSE



RESPONDENTS:

    1        TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
             REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NANTHANCODE,
             TRIVANDRUM 695 003.

    2        THE DEWASOM COMMISSIONER,
             TRAVANCORE DEWASOM, NANTHANCODE,
             TRIVANDRUM 695 003.

    3        THE VIGILANCE OFFICER
             VIGILANCE WING, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
             NANTHANCODE, TRIVANDURM 695 003.

    4        TETTALIKKAL DEVI TEMPLE,
             SNDP YOGAM- BR 434, REP. BY SECRETARY,
             MANNANTHOTTUVAZHY, KADAPRA, MANNAR P.O.,
             NIRANAM 689 626.


THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.09.2021,     THE   COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C).No.18803 of 2021

                                         2




                            JUDGMENT

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioner, who is an aspirant for the post of Melsanthi at

Sabarimala Temple, who had submitted an application pursuant to

Ext.P1 notification dated 27.05.2021, has filed this writ petition

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of

certiorari to quash Ext.P2 rejection memo dated 02.09.2021,

whereby his application stands rejected, for the reason stated

therein, which reads thus:-

"ന ലവൽ ജ ല ച യനത യ അജ കയൽ സ പ ചടള ജകതതൽ വജ ഷ ദവസങള ൽ മ ത! ദവസജവതന അടസ നതല ണ% പ ച യവരനചതന% അജന)ഷണതൽ അറവ യടളത ണ% . ന ബനനകള ൽ റയ! പക രമള ജമൽ ന പവർത ര യമല തത ന ൽ അജ ക ന രസകന."

The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus,

commanding the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P4 petition, which

is one submitted as provided in Ext.P2 rejection memo, at the

earliest, in the light of Ext.P3 certificate issued by the authorities in

the 4th respondent temple, after affording him an opportunity of

being heard, through video conferencing.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the

learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board,

representing respondents 1 to 3. Considering the nature of the W.P.(C).No.18803 of 2021

relief proposed to be granted, service of notice on the 4 th

respondent is dispensed with.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

a time bound consideration of Ext.P4 petition filed before the

Secretary of the 1st respondent Board is highly essential, since the

interview is scheduled to commence from 22.09.2021.

4. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom

Board would submit that the Secretary of the 1 st respondent Board

shall consider Ext.P4 petition and take an appropriate decision

thereon, on or before 20.09.2021, after affording an opportunity of

being heard to the petitioner, through video conferencing.

5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned

counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of, without

going into the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner, by

directing the Secretary of the 1 st respondent Board to consider and

pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4 petition, taking note of the

contentions raised by the petitioner relying on materials placed on

record, and after affording an opportunity of being heard through

video conferencing, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,

before 20.09.2021. The decision so taken shall be communicated W.P.(C).No.18803 of 2021

to the petitioner forthwith.

6. In Bhaskara Rao A.B. v. CBI [(2011) 10 SCC 259]

the Apex Court reiterated that, generally, no court has competence

to issue a direction contrary to law nor can the Court direct an

authority to act in contravention of the statutory provisions. The

Courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass the

orders or directions which are contrary to what has been injected

by law.

Therefore, in terms of the directions contained in this

judgment, the Secretary of the 1 st respondent Board shall take an

appropriate decision on Ext.P4 petition, strictly in accordance with

law.

No order as to cost.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

Sd/-

K. BABU, JUDGE AS W.P.(C).No.18803 of 2021

APPENDIX

PETITIONER EXHIBITS:

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ROC 61/2021/S DATED 27.5.2021 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION MEMO SR NO. 6 DATED 2.9.21 ISSUED BY IST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 8.9.2021.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 8.9.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT.