Kerala High Court
P.S. Dileepkumar vs Cochin Devaswam Board on 17 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 27TH VAISAKHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 3836 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
P.S. DILEEPKUMAR, AGED 53 YEARS
S/O SANKARA MENON,'MANGAMADATHIL' TARWARD,SANKARA
MANDIRAM, PANANGAD .P.O, ERNAKULAM-682 506.
BY ADV MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 COCHIN DEVASWAM BOARD, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, COCHIN
DEVASAM BOARD BUILDING, THRISSUR-680 001
2 THE INTERIM TRUSTEE, PANANGATTU KAMOTHU DEVASWAM,
PANANGAD.P.O, ERNAKULAM-682 506
3 PANANGATTU KAMOTHU DEVASWAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS INTERIM
TRUSTEE, PANANGAD.P.O, ERNAKULAM-682 506.
4 ADDL.R4. NAYANA RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 24 YEARS
D/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, KUZHIKKARA HOUSE, PANANGAD P.O,
ERNAKULAM, 682 506
5 ADDL.R5. GAYATHRI UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 30 YEARS
W/O.SANDEEP , VELIYIL HOUSE, PANANGAD P.O, ERNAKULAM-
682506
6 ADDL.R6. BABY GOPINATH, AGED 60 YEARS
D/O.KAMALAKSHI AMMA, KUHHIKKARA HOUSE, PANANGAD P.O,
ERNAKULAM-682 506
7 ADDL.R7. RADHAKRISHANAN, AGED 57 YEARS
KUZHIKKARA HOUSE, PANANGAD P.O, ERNAKULAM-682506
8 ADDL.R8. SANTHOSH, AGED 49 YEARS
S/O.BABY, KUZHIKKARA HOUSE, PANANGAD P.O, ERNAKULAM-
682506
9 ADDL.R9. BINDU RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 49 YEARS
W/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, KUZHIKKARA HOUSE , PANANGAD P.O,
ERNAKULAM-682506
-2-
W.P(C)Nos.3836 & 4184 of 2022
10 ADDL.R10. AJITHAKUMARI, AGED 54 YEARS,
W/O.NANDAKUMAR, ANJALI NIVAS, PANANGAD P.O,
ERNAKULAM-682506
11 ADDL.R11. M.G.SATHYAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.GOPALA
PANICKER, ANJALI NIVAS, PANANGAD P.O, ERNAKULAM-
682506
12 ADDL.R12. M.G.SURESHBABU, AGED 52 YEARS,
S/O.GOPALAPANICKER, ANJALI NIVAS, PANANGAD P.O,
ERNAKULAM-682506
13 ADDL.R13. PADMANABHAN, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.GOPALA
PANICKER, VELIYIL HOUSE, PANANGAD P.O, ERNAKULAM-
682506
14 ADDL.R14. SANDEEP, AGED 40 YEARS,
S/O.PADMANABHAN, VELIYIL HOUSE, PANANGAD P.O,
ERNAKULAM-682506
15 ADDL.R15. M.D.BOSE, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.DAMODARA
MENON, MANGATTIL MADAM, PANANGAD P.O, ERNAKULAM-
682506
16 ADDL.R16. GEETHA BOSE, AGED 53 YEARS, W/O.M.D.
BOSE, MANGATTIL MADOM, PANANGAD P.O, ERNAKULAM-
682506
17 ADDL.R17. JAYESH P.M, AGED 42 YEARS
S/O.MANI, POKKOLIL HOUSE, PANANGAD P.O,
ERNAKULAM-682506
18 ADDL.R18. SATHEESH P.M, AGED 39 YEARS
S/O.MANI, POKKOLIL HOUSE, PANANGAD P.O,
ERNAKULAM-682506
19 ADDL.R19. RAJESWARI SATHYAN, AGED 48 YEARS,
W/O.M.G.SATHYAN, ANJALI NIVAS, PANANGAD P.O,
ERNAKULAM-682506
20 ADDL.R20. V.G.SREENIVASAN, AGED 58 YEARS,
S/O.P.C.RAJESWARI, KOCHU PARAMBIL HOUSE, PANANGAD
P.O, ERNAKULAM-682506
21 ADDL.R21. ARUN KUMAR, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.ANIL
KUMAR, PANANGA MADATHIL, PANANGAD P.O, ERNAKULAM-
682506
22 ADDL.R22. HARIKRISNAN, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.ANIL
KUMAR, PANANGA MADATHIL , PANANGAD P.O,
-3-
W.P(C)Nos.3836 & 4184 of 2022
ERNAKULAM-682506
23 ADDL.R23. PANKAJAKSHA MENON, AGED 75 YEARS
(FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER),
MUTTATHIL, PANANGAD P.O, ERNAKULAM-682506
24 ADDL.R24. LEELA, AGED 65 YEARS, W/O.PANKAJAKSHA
MENON, MUTTATHIL , PANANGAD P.O, ERNAKULAM-682506
25 ADDL.R25. REKHA SOMASHEKHARAN, AGED 45 YEARS,
W/O.SOMASHEKHARAN, PANANGA MADTHIL, PANANGAD P.O,
ERNAKULAM-682506
26 ADDL.R26. SREEDEVI, AGED 60 YEARS, D/O.PADMAVATHI
AMMA, PANANGA MADATHIL , PANANGAD P.O, ERNAKULAM-
682506
27 ADDL.R27. ANIL KUMAR, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.
BHASKARAN NAIR, PANANGA MADATHIL , PANANGAD P.O,
ERNAKULAM-682506
28 ADDL.R28. SOMASEKHARAN, AGED 52 YEARS,
S/O.PADMANABHAN NAIR, PANANGA MADATHIL, PANANGAD
P.O, ERNAKULAM-682506
29 ADDL.R29. SHIVA PRASAD, AGED 45 YEARS,
S/O.VENUGOPALAN NAIR, ANIZHALAYAM, CHEPPANAM,
PANANGAD P.O, ERNAKULAM-682506
30 ADDL.R30. LAKSHMI R.NAIR, AGED 40 YEARS,
W/O.SHIVA PRASAD, ANIZHALAYAM, CHEPPANAM,
PANANGAD P.O, ERNAKULAM-682506
31 ADDL.R31. SMITHA BABU, AGED 42 YEARS,
W/O.M.G.SURESHBABU, MECHERIL, PANANGAD P.O,
ERNAKULAM-682506
32 ADDL.R32. SANTHAKUMARI, AGED 54 YEARS, W/O.
ANILKUMAR, PANANGA MADATHIL , PANANGAD P.O,
ERNAKULAM-682506
33 ADDL.R33. CHANDRIKA, AGED 60 YEARS,
W/O.PADMANABHAN, VELIYIL HOUSE, PANANGAD P.O,
ERNAKULAM-682506
34 ADDL.R34. DIVYA D.N., AGED 30 YEARS,
D/O.NANDAKUMAR, MECHERIL HOUSE, PANANGAD P.O,
ERNAKULAM-682506
35 ADDL.R35. DHANYA D.N, AGED 28 YEARS,
-4-
W.P(C)Nos.3836 & 4184 of 2022
D/O.NANDAKUMAR, MECHERIL HOUSE, PANANGAD P.O,
ERNAKULAM-682506
36 ADDL.R36. VISHNU, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.SREEDEVI,
PANANGA MADATHIL, PANANGAD P.O, ERNAKULAM-682506.
ADDL R4 TO R36 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
08-02-2022 IN IA.NO. 1/2022 IN WP(C)3836/2022
BY ADVS.SRI.M.JITHESH MENON
SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL
SRI K.P. SUDHEER, SC, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 17.05.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).4184/2022, THE COURT ON
05.04.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-5-
W.P(C)Nos.3836 & 4184 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 27TH VAISAKHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 4184 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
SASIDHARAN.T.K, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.LATE
T.S.KRISHNA MENON, THEKKEMANGAMADATHIL HOUSE,
KUMBALAM VILLAGE, PANANGAD AMSOM DESOM, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT - 682 506
BY ADVS.SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN
SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA
SRI.D.S.THUSHARA
SRI.H.PRAVEEN (KOTTARAKARA)
SMT.MAYA S.KUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR, SWARAJ ROUND N,
ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR, KERALA 680 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
2 SPECIAL DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, COCHIN DEVASWOM
BOARD, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 301
3 INTERIM TRUSTEE, KAMOTH DEVASWOM, PANANGAD (PO)
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 506
4 KAMOTH BHAGAVATHI DEVASWOM, PANANGAD, (PO)
ERNAKULAM, KERALA 682 506, REPRESENTED BY ITS
INTERIM TRUSTEE,
5 THE ELECTION OFFICER, (INTERIM TRUSTEE) KAMOTH
BHAGAVATHI DEVASWOM, PANANGAD (PO), ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT - 682 506
6 ADDL.R6. NAYANA RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 24 YEARS,
D/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, KUZHIKKARA HOUSE, PANANGAD
P.O., ERNAKULAM - 682 506.
-6-
W.P(C)Nos.3836 & 4184 of 2022
7 ADDL.R7. GAYATHRI UNNIKRISHNAN, W/O.SANDEEP, AGED
30 YEARS, VELIYIL HOUSE, PANANGAD P.O.,
ERANAKULAM - 682 506.
8 ADDL.R8. BABY GOPINATH, D/O.KAMALAKSHI AMMA, AGED
60 YEARS, KUHHIKKARA HOUSE, PANANGAD P.O.,
ERANAKULAM - 682 506.
9 ADDL.R9. RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.DEVAKI AMMA, AGED 57
YEARS, KUZHIKKARA HOUSE, PANANGAD P.O.,
ERANAKULAM - 682 506.
10 ADDL.R10. SANTHOSH, S/O.BABY, AGED 49 YEARS,
KUHIKKARA HOUSE, PANANGAD P.O., ERANAKULAM - 682
506.
11 ADDL.R11. BINDU RADHAKRISHNAN, W/O.RADHAKRISHNAN,
AGED 49 YEARS, KUZHIKKARA HOUSE, PANANGAD P.O.,
ERANAKULAM - 682506.
12 ADDL.R12. AJITHAKUMARI, W/O.NANDAKUMAR, AGED 54
YEARS, ANJALI NIVAS, PANANGAD P.O., ERANAKULAM -
682 506.
13 ADDL.R13. M.G.SATHYAN, S/O.GOPALA PANICKER, AGED
56 YEARS, ANJALI NIVAS, PANANGAD P.O., ERANAKULAM
- 682 506.
14 ADDL.R14. M.G.SURESHBABU, S/O.GOPALA PANICKER,
AGED 52 YEARS, ANJALI NIVAS, PANANGAD P.O.,
ERANAKULAM - 682 506.
15 ADDL.R15. PADMANABHAN, S/O.GOPALA PANICKER, AGED
70 YEARS, VELIYIL HOUSE, PANANGAD P.O.,
ERANAKULAM - 682 506.
16 ADDL.R16. SANDEEP, S/O.PADMANABHAN, AGED 40
YEARS, VELIYIL HOUSE, PANANGAD P.O., ERANAKULAM -
682 506.
17 ADDL.R17. M.D.BOSE, S/O.DAMODARA MENON, AGED 60
YEARS, MANGATTIL MADAM, PANANGAD P.O., ERANAKULAM
- 682 506.
18 ADDL.R18. GEETHA BOSE
W/O.M.D.BOSE, AGED 53 YEARS, MANGATTIL MADAM,
PANANGAD P.O., ERANAKULAM - 682 506.
19 ADDL.R19. JAYESH P.M.
S/O.MANI, AGED 42 YEARS, POKKOLIL HOUSE, PANANGAD
-7-
W.P(C)Nos.3836 & 4184 of 2022
P.O., ERANAKULAM - 682 506.
20 ADDL.R20. SATHEESH P.M.
S/O.MANI, AGED 39 YEARS, POKKOLIL HOUSE, PANANGAD
P.O., ERANAKULAM - 682 506.
21 ADDL.R21. RAJESWARI SATHYAN
W/O.M.G.SATHYAN, AGED 48 YEARS, ANJALI NIVAS,
PANANGAD P.O., ERANAKULAM - 682 506.
22 ADDL.R22. V.G.SREENIVASAN
S/O.P.C.RAJESWARI, AGED 58 YEARS, KOCHU PARAMBIL
HOUSE, PANANGAD P.O., ERANAKULAM - 682 506.
23 ADDL.R23. ARUN KUMAR
S/O.ANILKUMAR, AGED 29 YEARS, PANANGA MADATHIL,
PANANGAD P.O., ERANAKULAM - 682 506.
24 ADDL.R24. HARIKRISNAN
S/O.ANILKUMAR, AGED 25 YEARS, PANANGA MADATHIL,
PANANGAD P.O., ERANAKULAM - 682 506.
25 ADDL.R25. PANKAJAKSHA MENON
(FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) AGED
75 YEARS, MUTTATHIL, PANANGAD P.O., ERANAKULAM -
682 506.
26 ADDL.R26. LEELA
W/O.PANKAJAKSHA MENON, AGED 65 YEARS, MUTTATHIL,
PANANGAD P.O., ERANAKULAM - 682 506.
27 ADDL.R27. REKHA SOMASHEKHARAN
W/O.SOMASHEKHARAN, AGED 45 YEARS, PANANGA
MADATHIL, PANANGAD P.O., ERANAKULAM - 682 506.
28 ADDL.R28. SREEDEVI
D/O.PADMAVATHI AMMA, AGED 60 YEARS, PANANGA
MADATHIL, PANANGAD P.O., ERANAKULAM - 682 506.
29 ADDL.R29. ANILKUMAR
S/O.BHASKARAN NAIR, AGED 55 YEARS, PANANGA
MADATHIL,PANANGAD P.O., ERANAKULAM - 682 506.
30 ADDL.R30. SOMASHEKHARAN
S/O.PADMANABHAN NAIR, AGED 52 YEARS, PANANGA
MADATHIL, PANANGAD P.O., ERANAKULAM - 682 506.
31 ADDL.R31. SHIVA PRASAD
S/O.VENUGOPALAN NAIR, AGED 45 YEARS, ANIZHALAYAM,
-8-
W.P(C)Nos.3836 & 4184 of 2022
CHEPPANAM, PANANGAD P.O., ERANAKULAM - 682 506.
32 ADDL.R32. LAKSHMIN R.NAIR
W/O.SHIVA PRASAD, AGED 40 YEARS, ANIZHALAYAM,
CHEPPANAM, PANANGAD P.O., ERANAKULAM - 682 506.
33 ADDL.R33. SMITHA BABU
W/O.M.G.SURESHBABU, AGED 42 YEARS, MECHERIL,
PANANGAD P.O., ERANAKULAM - 682 506.
34 ADDL.R34. SANTHAKUMARI
W/O.ANILKUMAR, AGED 54 YEARS, PANANGA MADATHIL,
PANANGAD P.O., ERANAKULAM - 682 506.
35 ADDL.R35. CHANDRIKA
W/O.PADMANABHAN, AGED 60 YEARS, VELIYIL HOUSE,
PANANGAD P.O., ERANAKULAM - 682 506.
36 ADDL.R36. DIVYA D.N.
D/O.NANDAKUMAR, AGED 30 YEARS, MECHERIL HOUSE,
PANANGAD P.O., ERANAKULAM - 682 506.
37 ADDL.R37. DHANYA D.N.
D/O.NANDAKUMAR, AGED 28 YEARS, MECHERIL HOUSE,
PANANGAD P.O., ERANAKULAM - 682 506.
38 ADDL.R38. VISHNU
S/O.SREEDEVI, AGED 30 YEARS, PANANGA MADATHIL,
PANANGAD P.O., ERANAKULAM - 682 506.
[ADDL.R6 TO R38 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
15.02.2022 IN I.A.1/2022 IN WP(C)4184/2022.]
BY ADVS.
M.JITHESH MENON
SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 17.05.2022, ALONG WITH
WP(C).3836/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-9-
W.P(C)Nos.3836 & 4184 of 2022
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The common challenge made in these writ petitions is
against an election notification dated 17.01.2022 issued by the
Interim Trustee of Panangad Kamoth Devaswom. Since common
issues are raised, these writ petitions were heard together and
are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. W.P.(C)No.3836 of 2022 is one filed by a general body
member of Panangad Kamoth Devaswom, seeking a writ of
certiorari to quash Ext.P10 communication dated 24.01.2022 of
the 2nd respondent Interim Trustee of Panangad Kamoth
Devaswom; a declaration that Ext.P8 election notification dated
17.01.2022, issued by the 2nd respondent, which was published
in Mathrubhumi daily dated 18.01.2022, and all further
proceedings pursuant thereto, are not sustainable, since it is in
violation of the relevant provisions of Ext.P1 Scheme for
administration of Panangad Kamoth Devaswom dated
22.08.1955, published in the Gazette dated 13.09.1955 of
Government of Travancore-Cochin, and the findings and
directions of this Court in Ext.P2 judgment dated 15.12.2010 in
W.P.(C)No.2809 of 2008, Ext.P3 judgment dated 11.07.2017 in
W.P.(C)No.21797 of 2017 and Ext.P5 order dated 31.08.2017 in
W.P(C)Nos.3836 & 4184 of 2022
R.P.No.732 of 2017 in W.P.(C)No.21797 of 2017; a writ of
certiorari to quash Ext.P8 election notification dated 17.01.2022,
issued by the 2nd respondent; a writ of mandamus commanding
the 2nd respondent to re-notify the election to the managing
committee of Panangad Kamoth Devaswom, the 3 rd respondent
herein, afresh, by strictly complying with the relevant provisions
of Ext.P1 Scheme and the findings and directions contained in
Exts.P2, P3 and P5 judgments; and a writ of mandamus
commanding the 2nd respondent to revise Ext.P11 final voters' list
of Panangad Kamoth Devaswom published by the 2 nd respondent
on 26.01.2022, as mandated by Ext.P1 Scheme and the findings
and directions in Exts.P2, P3 and P5 judgments, after affording
an opportunity of being heard to all persons, including the
petitioner, by submitting objections and by ensuring that only the
members who belong to four "Nair grihams" as mentioned in
Exts.P1 and P2 are included in the final voters' list.
2.1. On 04.02.2022, when this writ petition came up for
admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom
Board pointed out that, apart from the question of
maintainability, none of the affected persons are parties to this
writ petition. After arguing for sometime, the learned counsel for
the petitioner sought adjournment to 08.02.2022. On
W.P(C)Nos.3836 & 4184 of 2022
08.02.2022, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of 2022, seeking an
order to implead the ineligible persons (according to the
petitioner), who are included in Ext.P11 final voters' list. That
application was allowed.
3. W.P.(C)No.4184 of 2022 is one filed by the former
Secretary of Panangad Kamoth Devaswom, the 4th respondent
herein, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P2 election
notification dated 17.01.2022 published by the 3 rd respondent
Interim Trustee of Panangad Kamoth Devaswom [which is Ext.P8
notification in W.P.(C)No.3836 of 2022] and also Ext.P8
communication dated 24.01.2022 of the 3rd respondent; a writ of
mandamus commanding respondents 3 to 5 to include the name
of the petitioner in the final voters' list for election to the
Managing Committee of Panangad Kamoth Devaswom and permit
him to submit nomination and take part in the election process; a
writ of mandamus, commanding respondents 3 to 5 not to
proceed with any further steps pursuant to Ext.P2 election
notification dated 17.01.2022; a writ of mandamus commanding
the 3rd respondent to publish a draft voters' list in terms of Ext.P1
Scheme for administration of Panangad Kamoth Devaswom and
conduct the election in terms of the said Scheme, after following
W.P(C)Nos.3836 & 4184 of 2022
the procedures contained therein, and to form the Managing
Committee of Panangad Kamoth Devaswom.
4. On 08.02.2022, when W.P.(C)Nos.3836 of 2022 and
4184 of 2022 came up for admission, this Court noticed that the
common challenge made in the writ petitions is against the
election notification dated 17.01.2022 issued by the Interim
Trustee of Panangad Kamoth Devaswom [Ext.P8 in W.P.
(C)No.3836 of 2022 and Ext.P2 in W.P.(C)No.4184 of 2022]. The
main contention raised in the writ petitions, in order to challenge
the said election notification, is by placing reliance on Clause
(46) of the Scheme for management of Panangad Kamoth
Devaswom, which is placed on record as Ext.P1 in both writ
petitions. As per the said clause, the Election Special Officer has
to publish the notification for the conduct of election, at least 30
days before the date of election, which has to be published in the
Devaswom Office and also in a malayalam daily having
circulation in the area. The petitioners contended that the said
election notification dated 17.01.2022 was published in
Mathrubhumi Daily only on 18.01.2022. Since the date of
election notified is 13.02.2022, there is a clear violation of
Clause (46) of Ext.P1 Scheme.
W.P(C)Nos.3836 & 4184 of 2022
5. The learned standing counsel for Cochin Devaswom
Board pointed out the pendency of O.S.No.16 of 2017, filed by
the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.4184 of 2022, before the competent
Civil court. Having considered the preliminary arguments by the
learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)Nos.3836 of 2022
and 4184 of 2022 and also the submissions made by the learned
Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board, we found it
appropriate to admit the writ petitions on file and grant an order
staying the operation and further proceedings pursuant to the
election notification dated 17.01.2022. Accordingly, the writ
petitions were admitted on file. The learned Standing Counsel
for Cochin Devaswom Board took notice for the official
respondents and urgent notice by special messenger was ordered
to additional respondents 4 to 36 in W.P.(C)No.3836 of 2022,
returnable by 11.02.2022. This Court granted an interim stay of
operation and all further proceedings pursuant to the election
notification dated 17.01.2022 [Ext.P8 in W.P.(C)No.3836 of 2022
and Ext.P2 in W.P.(C)No.4184 of 2022] for a period of two
weeks.
6. On 11.02.2022, when these writ petitions came up for
consideration, additional respondents 4 to 20 and also additional
respondents 21 to 36 entered appearance through counsel, who
W.P(C)Nos.3836 & 4184 of 2022
sought time to file counter affidavit. In W.P.(C)No.4184 of 2022,
the learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to file an
application to implead additional respondents and accordingly,
both these writ petitions were ordered to be listed on
15.02.2022.
7. On 15.02.2022, I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.(C)No.4184 of
2022 filed for impleading additional respondents 6 to 38 was
allowed and the additional respondents entered appearance
through counsel. As requested by the learned counsel on both
sides, the writ petitions were ordered to be listed on 03.03.2022
and the interim order was also extended till that date.
8. On 03.03.2022, it was pointed out by the learned
counsel on both sides that the temple festival is scheduled to
commence on 07.03.2022. By the order dated 03.03.2022, both
sides were directed to submit a panel of seven persons for
inclusion in the Ad-hoc Committee for conducting temple festival.
On 04.03.2022, when these writ petitions came up for
consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)
Nos.3836 of 2022 and 4184 of 2022 and also the learned
counsel for the additional respondents 4 to 20 furnished the list
of members who can be included in the Ad-hoc Committee.
After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel
W.P(C)Nos.3836 & 4184 of 2022
on both sides, on consensus, an Ad-hoc Committee was
constituted for the conduct of temple festival, consisting of the
following persons:
1) The Interim Trustee, Panangad Kamoth Devaswom
2) Sri.K.P.Gopinathan, Kottanatt, Kovilakathum Veedu
3) Anilkumar, Mecheril
4) Sreedhara Menon, Edathikovil
5) Nandhakumar, Panangamadam
6) Nandakumar K.N., Kuzhuthiriyal
7) Jayan, Pokolichirayil
The Ad-hoc Committee was directed to elect one person from
among them as Chairman, on 05.03.2022 itself.
9. In W.P.(C)No.3836 of 2022, additional respondents 4
to 20 have filed a counter affidavit dated 03.03.2022, opposing
the reliefs sought for in that writ petition, raising various legal
and factual contentions. In W.P.(C)No.4184 of 2022, additional
respondents 6 to 22 have filed a counter affidavit dated
03.03.2022, raising similar contentions.
10. On 05.04.2022, when these writ petitions came up for
consideration, detailed arguments were heard. The learned
counsel for the petitioner in the respective writ petitions, the
learned standing counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board and also
the learned counsel for the additional respondents submitted that
the annual festival of the temple has already been conducted by
W.P(C)Nos.3836 & 4184 of 2022
the Ad-hoc Committee constituted as per the order of this Court
dated 04.03.2022. Now the issue that has to be considered is
regarding the conduct of election to the Managing Committee of
Panangad Kamoth Devaswom. The election has to be conducted
in terms of Ext.P1 Scheme for administration of Panangad
Kamoth Devaswom and taking note of the findings and directions
of this Court contained in the judgment dated 15.12.2010 in W.P.
(C)No.2809 of 2008, the judgment dated 11.07.2017 in W.P.
(C)No.21797 of 2017 and the order dated 31.08.2017 in
R.P.No.732 of 2017 in W.P.(C)No.21797 of 2017.
11. In so far as the challenge made in these writ petitions
against the election notification dated 17.01.2022 published by
the Interim Trustee of Panangad Kamoth Devaswom is
concerned, as already noticed in the order dated 08.02.2022, the
said notification is one issued in violation of the provisions under
Clause (46) of Ext.P1 Scheme, which provides that the Election
Special Officer has to publish the notification for the conduct of
election, at least 30 days before the date of election, which has
to be published in the Devaswom Office and also in a malayalam
daily having circulation in the area. Admittedly, the election
notification dated 17.01.2022 was published in Mathrubhumi
daily, only on 18.01.2022. When the date of election notified was
W.P(C)Nos.3836 & 4184 of 2022
13.02.2022, the election notification dated 17.01.2022,
published by the Interim Trustee is in violation of Clause (46) of
Ext.P1 Scheme and as such, the process of election conducted by
the Interim Trustee, in his capacity as the Election Special
Officer, cannot be sustained in law.
12. The conduct of election to the Managing Committee of
Panangad Kamoth Devaswom is governed by the provisions
under Chapter V of Ext.P1 Scheme for administration of
Panangad Kamoth Devaswom. As per Clause (40) of the Scheme,
election to the Managing Committee has to be conducted once in
three years in the manner specified therein. Clause (41) deals
with the publication of a preliminary notification by the Election
Special Officer and Clause (42) deals with preparation of voters'
list. As per Clause (42), all males and females of 21 or more
years of age in the "Nair grihams" in Panangad Desom in
Kumbalam Village will be entitled to be members of the general
body and would be eligible to vote. A Division Bench of this Court
had occasion to consider the issue relating to the effect of the
provisions contained in Clause (42) of Ext.P1 Scheme and its
modulation as per Ext.P2 proceedings No.E.1625/1994 dated
12.07.1994, issued by the Cochin Devaswom Board, in W.P.
(C)No.2809 of 2008. In the proceedings dated 12.07.1994, it
W.P(C)Nos.3836 & 4184 of 2022
was clarified that those persons who come into the "Nair
grihams" referred to in Clause (42) of Ext.P1 Scheme by reason
of marriage and the children, who would be born to them, would
also with the passage of time, be with the electoral college. In
the judgment dated 15.12.2010, in W.P.(C)No.2809 of 2008, a
copy of which is placed on record as Ext.P2 in W.P.(C)No.3836 of
2022 and as Ext.P10 in W.P.(C)No.4184 of 2022, the Division
Bench found that the use of the phrase "Nair grihams" and not
"Nairs" or "members of the Nair Community" is indicative of the
conscious decision of the Board, to identify a group as
constituting "Nair grihams" for the purpose of Ext.P1 Scheme.
Therefore, in construing the effect of the phrase "Nair grihams"
in Ext.P1 Scheme, the Court have to necessarily proceed to
appreciate it in the light of the relevant materials in that regard.
The concepts germane to "Nairs" and "Nair Community" as
reflected by the statutory provisions that applied to that
community at the relevant time would be a safe yardstick. After
considering the rival contentions, the Division Bench concluded in
Ext.P2 judgment that the concept of "griham" in the context of
Ext.P1 as understood and acted upon in Ext.P2 in 1994, is
essentially made with reference to the concept of "tharwad" or
joint hindu family. This is why, even when the question was
W.P(C)Nos.3836 & 4184 of 2022
raised before the competent authority in 1994, it was stated that
the persons who come into the families by marriage would also
be eligible to be in the electoral college. Obviously, therefore, the
identity of the four Nair families in existence at that time, formed
the basis of the use of the term "Nair griham" in Clause (42) of
Ext.P1. This means that only those four "Nair tharwads" were
treated as "Nair grihams" for the purpose of Clause (42). As
regards Clause 43(a) of Ext.P1, all that it provides is that there
has to be revision of the electoral roll every three years. This
means that the voters' list has to be revised by including
persons, who have attained the bench mark of age for entry into
the voters' list without incurring any of the disqualifications as
are prescribed in Clause (45) and by excluding the names of
persons who may be dead or otherwise liable to be removed
from the electoral roll, including by disqualification. Paragraphs 9
and 10 of that judgment read thus:
"9. We would recall that in 1950, when Ext.P1 was made,
the law that governed the Nairs in Kerala was not, in any
manner, affected by any disruption of the concept of joint
family. That happened only in 1976 by the coming into
force of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition)
Act, 1976. This means that the cohesiveness of the
concept of "Tharwad" was well in the mind of those, who
made Ext.P1. It has necessarily to be presumed that this
was very much there. Added to this, we find that Ext.P19
issued under the Right to Information Act shows that
there were four families, namely, 'Mankamadathil',
W.P(C)Nos.3836 & 4184 of 2022
'Madathil', 'Edathil' and 'Kovilkovilakathumveedu', which,
going by Ext.P19, were ''ooranmas" of the temple in
question. Though the petitioners dispute as to whether
the temple is an "ooranma" temple or not, we need not
go into that issue at all for the purpose of deciding the
controversy in hand. This is because, whether those
families were actual "ooranmas" or were among the
founder families, it makes no distinction. All that is to be
decided is as to whether those four families were the only
"Nair grihams" which is referred in Clause 42 of Ext.P1 or
whether every house where a Nair resides with the
passage of time, would also be eligible for coverage
under Clause 42 of Ext.P1. The concept of "griham" in the
context of Ext.P1 as understood and acted upon in Ext.P2
in 1994, is essentially made with reference to the concept
of "tharwad" or joint hindu family. This is why, even when
the question was raised before the competent authority in
1994, it was stated that the persons who come into the
families by marriage would also be eligible to be in the
electoral college. Obviously, therefore, the identity of the
four Nair families in existence at that time, formed the
basis of the use of the term "Nair griham" in Clause 42 of
Ext.P1. This means that only those four "Nair tharwads"
were treated as "Nair grihams" for the purpose of Clause
42. This is the manner in which we see Clause 42 on its
plain reading as also on a contextual construction that
could be applied to that provision in the light of Exts.P1
and P2. It is not as if every person belonging to the Nair
community, who would migrate and get settled within the
Panangad desom of Kumbalam village would get the right
to be in the electoral college. The petitioners do not claim
to be members of any of those four "Nair grihams".
10. As regards Clause 43(a) of Ext.P1, all that it provides
is that there has to be revision of the electoral roll every
three years. This means that the voters' list has to be
revised by including persons, who have attained the
bench mark of age for entry into the voters' list without
incurring any of the disqualifications as are prescribed in
Clause 45 and by excluding the names of persons who
may be dead or otherwise liable to be removed from the
electoral roll, including by disqualification. In this context,
W.P(C)Nos.3836 & 4184 of 2022
the materials tend to suggest that the only available
voters' list is that of 1994. Therefore, as of 1994, there is
a list with reference to the members of the four "Nair
grihams" and all that is required with the passage of time
is to ensure that persons referable to those "Nair
grihams" in accordance with Clause 42 of Ext.P1 and the
clarification - Ext.P2, have to be included subject to their
not being disqualified in terms of Clause 45. Similarly,
persons who are liable to be deleted from that voters' list
have to be deleted. This would keep in order the electoral
process as regards the finalisation of the voters' list."
13. Based on the aforesaid finding in Ext.P2 judgment, the
Division Bench has found that the petitioners therein are not
entitled to be included in the voters' list for election to the
Managing Committee of Panangad Kamoth Devaswom and
accordingly, that writ petition ended in dismissal.
14. The provisions under Clause (42) of Ext.P1 Scheme
came up for consideration before another Division Bench in W.P.
(C)No.21797 of 2017, which was filed by the petitioners who are
members of three "Nair Grihams" in Panangad desom in
Kumbalam village. Their grievance was mainly with regard to
the steps taken for conducting election to the Managing
Committee of Panangad Kamoth Devaswom, by including
persons who are actually not eligible to become members, in
terms of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.2809 of 2008. That writ
petition was closed by the judgment dated 11.07.2017 [Ext.P3 in
W.P.(C)No.3836 of 2022 and Ext.P11 in W.P.(C)No.4184 of 2022].
W.P(C)Nos.3836 & 4184 of 2022
This Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to publish a
fresh draft voters' list strictly in terms of Ext.P1 Scheme and the
judgment dated 15.12.2010 in W.P.(C)No.2809 of 2008 and
finalise the same after calling for objection from the interested
parties. In the said judgment this Court made it clear that only
the eligible persons in terms of Exts.P1 Scheme and judgment
dated 15.12.2010 in W.P.(C)No.2809 of 2008 shall be included in
the said list and objection shall be called for, from the interested
parties. It will be open for the Advocate Commissioner to cause
inclusion of other eligible persons, if any, who have been left out,
either in Exts.P4 or P5 lists. The voters' list shall be finalised and
election shall be conducted in accordance with the relevant
provisions of law. Necessary publication shall be effected as to
the date of election proposed to be conducted, giving sufficient
time, the date of publication of the draft voters' list, the date for
submitting the objection, the date for finalisation and publication
of final voters' list, the date for submitting the nominations, the
date of scrutiny of the nominations, the date of withdrawal of
candidature, if any, the date of final declaration of the list of
contesting candidates, the date for counting votes and the date
of declaration of the result, etc. Paragraphs 9 to 11 and also the
last paragraph of the judgment read as follows:
W.P(C)Nos.3836 & 4184 of 2022
"9. As per the version of the petitioners, the 4 th and 5th
respondents are not eligible to become members in terms
of Exts.P1 and Ext.P3 and are not liable to be included in
the voters'' list. Despite the completion of service of
notice to the said respondents, they have not chosen to
turn up before this Court, to controvert the pleadings
raised by the petitioners. The second respondent has
asserted in the affidavit dated 04.07.2017 that the matter
can be caused to be finalised with the involvement of an
Advocate Commissioner to be appointed by this Court,
who shall supervise the entire process so that there may
not be any grievance for anybody. The only point to be
looked into is whether the persons concerned are actually
eligible in terms of Ext.P1 Scheme and Ext.P3 judgment.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners in
I.A.No.10701 of 2017 submits that they are the
proposed/contesting candidates and they are already
having an entry in Ext.P4 list. But according to the
petitioners, they are also not eligible and that the draft
list of 'actually eligible persons' has been separately
prepared and submitted by the petitioners before the 3 rd
respondent, as borne by Ext.P5. We are not dealing with
the correctness or otherwise of Exts.P5 or P4 in the
present proceedings, which has to be considered and
dealt with by the competent authorities, particularly the
3rd respondent Electoral Officer, under the supervision of
the Advocate Commissioner to be appointed by this
Court, in turn to be acted upon by the 2nd respondent. So
as to facilitate such exercise, this Court finds it
appropriate to appoint Sri.K.S. Manu, a learned Advocate
of this Court as the Advocate Commissioner to deal with
the issue, to verify all the facts and figures, particularly
by scrutinizing Ext.P4 the objections, if any, as well as
Ext.P5 and publish a fresh draft voters'' list strictly in
terms of Ext.P1 Scheme and Ext.P3 judgment. Only the
eligible persons in terms of Exts.P1 and P3 shall be
included in the said list and objection shall be called for,
from the interested parties. It is also open for the
Advocate Commissioner to cause inclusion of other
eligible persons, if any, who have been left out, either in
Exts.P4 or P5. The voters'' list shall be finalised and
W.P(C)Nos.3836 & 4184 of 2022
election shall be conducted in accordance with the
relevant provisions of law. It goes without saying that
necessary publication shall be effected as to the date of
election proposed to be conducted giving sufficient time,
the date of publication of the draft voters'' list, the date
for submitting the objection, the date for finalisation and
publication of final voters'' list, the date for submitting
the nominations, the date of scrutiny of the nominations,
the date of withdrawal of candidature, if any, the date of
final declaration of the list of contesting candidates, the
date for counting votes and the date of declaration of the
result, etc. The proceedings as above, shall be finalised at
any rate, within 'two months' from today.
11. In the above circumstances, the election already
notified to be held on 30.7.2017 will stand altered, to be
on the date notified in the aforesaid terms. Considering
the facts and circumstances, the Advocate Commissioner
shall be paid a Batta Rs.50,000/- by the 2 nd respondent,
for the time being. It will be enough if the amount is
handed over directly to the Advocate Commissioner and
a memo be filed before this Court in this regard. All
incidental expenses shall be borne by the 2 nd respondent.
The Advocate Commissioner shall complete the
proceedings, who shall submit a report before this Court
in this regard.
The writ petition stands closed accordingly. However, it
will be posted again before this Bench, once the report is
submitted by the Advocate Commissioner within 10 days
from the date of declaration of the result, to ascertain
whether any further orders are necessary."
15. Seeking review of the judgment dated 11.07.2017 in
W.P.(C)No.21797 of 2017, R.P.Nos.719 of 2017 and 732 of 2017
were filed, wherein it was contended that there is an error
apparent on the face of the record, insofar as the fact that the
judgment dated 15.12.2010 in W.P.(C)No.2809 of 2008 had
already been complied with by pruning the voters' list published
W.P(C)Nos.3836 & 4184 of 2022
in the year 2011 itself, and completing the election accordingly,
was never brought to the notice of this Court while rendering the
judgment dated 11.07.2017 in W.P.(C)No.21797 of 2017,
because of collusion between the petitioners therein and the
present office bearers of the Managing Committee. Those review
petitions ended in dismissal by the order dated 31.08.2017, a
copy of which is marked as Ext.P5 in W.P.(C)No.3836 of 2022. In
the said order, this Court found that, as per the judgment dated
15.12.2010 in W.P.(C)No.2809 of 2008 only the eligible members
belonging to one of the four "Nair grihams" can participate in the
process of election and the voters' list has to be finalised
accordingly. There is a universal declaration to this effect and as
such, the question is not whether any such exercise was done
pursuant to the said judgment dated 15.12.2010 in the year
2011, but, whether it is being done all throughout. In other
words, merely for the reason that some persons were deleted in
the year 2011 after passing the judgment dated 15.12.2010
itself is not sufficient to hold that the persons remaining as
shown in the voters' list of the year 2011 could continue forever,
if they are not actually belonging to one of the four families that
is four "Nair grihams". This Court made it clear that, if there was
any omission on the part of anybody to point out a wrongful
W.P(C)Nos.3836 & 4184 of 2022
inclusion of an ineligible person in the year 2011 or 2014, it
would not confer any right on the persons enlisted to have a
place all throughout, if he does not come within the purview of
Ext.P1 Scheme or the judgment dated 15.12.2010, in relation to
the subsequent process of election, whenever it is conducted.
This being the position, the dictum in the judgment dated
15.12.2010 in W.P.(C)No.2809 of 2008 has to be given effect to
all throughout and it has to be ensured by all concerned to see
that only the eligible members of one of the four families alone
are enlisted with the right to vote, in the voters' list. It is the said
exercise which was directed to be done and completed as per the
judgment sought to be reviewed, giving appropriate direction to
the Electoral Officer/Advocate Commissioner and as such, there
is no mistake or error apparent on the face of record, to invoke
the power of review. Paragraphs 7 to 10 of that order read as
follows:
"7. The sum and substance of the arguments put forth by
the review petitioners is that Ext.P3 judgment had
already been complied with in the year 2011 and some
deletion was made by the Electoral officer as per
Annexure A7 proceedings [R.P.No.719 of 2017] dated
04.02.2011. The persons at serial No. 606 to 619 of the
final voters'' list were found as migrated to Panangad and
hence they were removed from the final voters'' list,
whereas the persons at serial No.693 and 694 were found
as eligible to be retained. As it stands so, it is quite wrong
on the part of writ petitioners to have contended that Ext.
W.P(C)Nos.3836 & 4184 of 2022
P3 was not implemented and hence the judgment is liable
to be reviewed, submits the learned counsel for the
Review Petitioners. It is pointed out that all the persons
who were enlisted in the corrected voters'' list of 2011
and carried forward in the year 2014 are eligible to be
retained for the present election exercise of the year
2017 as well and as such, the draft voters'' list published
by the advocate Commissioner is not based on the actual
facts and figures and hence is not liable to be acted upon.
8. The learned Advocate Commissioner points out that he
had done an exhaustive job/scrutiny/verification of the
different voters' list and the proceedings right from the
year 1994. The voters'' list published in connection with
the election held in February 2011, and the one published
in connection with the election held in the year 2014 and
Ext. P4 published in the present year were
containing/retaining names of members, but for deleting
the persons who bid farewell to this world, or removed
based on the request that they were not residing in the
area as on date. It is also pointed out that the Electoral
officer, as revealed from the Annexure A9 proceedings
had made it clear that the final voters'' list was published
by him on 09.08.2017 and since copy of Ext.P3 judgment
was not readily made available to him, he was not in a
position to give effect to the same and that necessary
steps would be pursued after getting a copy of the
judgment. This exercise as to verification whether the
persons enlisted in the voters'' list were actually
belonging to one of the four families mentioned in Ext.P1
Scheme/Ext.P3 judgment, was never done or completed,
but for the limited exercise done based on the complaints
as referred to in Annexure A7. Despite the opportunity
given by this Court and in spite of the specific notice
issued by the Advocate Commissioner, the interested
parties did not make use of the opportunity and the
position was not sought to be substantiated before the
Electoral officer/Advocate Commissioner on the dates
notified or even thereafter. But for the vague objections
that the objectors' names were included in the last
voters'' list, their status as a member of one of the four
families, stands not specifically pleaded or established.
W.P(C)Nos.3836 & 4184 of 2022
9. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that there
is no dispute as to Ext.P1 Scheme or Ext.P3 judgment,
which has become final. As per Ext.P3 judgment only the
eligible members belonging to one of the four families
mentioned above can participate in the process of
election and the voters'' list has to be finalised
accordingly. There is a universal declaration to this effect
and as such, the question is not whether any such
exercise was done pursuant to Ext.P3 judgment in the
year 2011, but, whether it is being done all throughout.
In other words, merely for the reason that some persons
were deleted in the year 2011 after passing Ext.P3
judgment itself is not sufficient to hold that the persons
remaining as shown in the voters'' list of the year 2011
could continue forever, if they are not actually belonging
to one of the four families mentioned above. To put it
more clear, if there was any omission on the part of
anybody to point out a wrongful inclusion of an ineligible
person in the year 2011 or 2014, would not confer any
right on the persons enlisted to have a place all
throughout, if he does not come within the purview of
Ext.P1 Scheme or Ext.P3 judgment, in relation to the
subsequent process of election, whenever it is conducted.
This being the position, the dictum in Ext.P3 has to be
given effect to all throughout and it has to be ensured by
all concerned to see that only the eligible members of one
of the four families are enlisted with the right to vote, in
the voters'' list. It is the said exercise which was directed
to be done and completed as per the judgment sought to
be reviewed, giving appropriate direction to the Electoral
Officer/Advocate Commissioner and as such, there is no
mistake or any error apparent on the face of record, to
invoke the power of review. This is more so since, there is
no case for the review petitioners that hey had appeared
before the Advocate Commissioner and submitted any
specific objection for getting their names included, also
producing the necessary proof to substantiate their status
as the member of one of the above four families or that
they had appeared for the hearing scheduled on
07.08.2017 fixed by the Advocate Commissioner.
W.P(C)Nos.3836 & 4184 of 2022
10. Incidentally, it is to be noted that the power of review
is to be sparingly exercised, only on establishing that
there is an apparent error on the face of the record,
which duty has not been discharged by the review
petitioners. It has been made clear by the Apex Court on
many an occasion, that review is not a substitute for
appeal as held in M/s.Thungabhadra Industries Ltd.
v. Government of Andra Pradesh rep. by Deputy
Commissioner Commercial Taxes, Anantapur [AIR
1964 SC 1372], Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari
Choudhary [AIR 1995 SC 455], Amalorpava & Ors.
v. R.C. Diocese Madhurai & Ors. [(2006) 3 SCC
224]. It has also been held by the Apex Court that the
power of review and the jurisdiction to be exercised is not
to provide an opportunity for 'rehearing', as held in
Parison Devi v. Sumitri Devi [(1997) 8 SCC 715].
Similarly, as made clear by the Apex in M/s.Northern
India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. L.T. Governor of Delhi
[(1980) 2 SCC 167] and N. Anantha Reddy v. Anshu
Kathuria [(2013) 15 SCC 534], if the original view
taken by the Court is possible, it cannot be said that
there is any error apparent on the face of the record. We
find that there is no error apparent on the face of the
records. There is absolutely no merit or bonafides in the
review petitions, they are dismissed accordingly."
16. The order of the Division Bench in R.P.Nos.719 of
2017 and 732 of 2017 was under challenge in SLP(Civil)
Nos.35545-35546 of 2017. Those Special Leave Petitions ended
in dismissal by the order dated 06.03.2019 of the Apex Court, a
copy of which is marked as Ext.P6 in W.P.(C)No.3836 of 2022.
17. The term of the Managing Committee of Panangad
Kamoth Devaswom expired on October, 2020. The Devaswom
represented by its Secretary filed W.P.(C)No.215 of 2021,
challenging the order dated 03.11.2020 of the Special Devaswom
W.P(C)Nos.3836 & 4184 of 2022
Commissioner, Cochin Devaswom Board, whereby, an Interim
Trustee was appointed for managing the affairs of the
Devaswom. That writ petition was disposed of by the judgment
dated 09.03.2021, declining interference on the aforesaid order
dated 03.11.2020, a copy which is marked as Ext.P7 in W.P.
(C)No.3836 of 2022. Though interference was declined, taking
note of the rival submissions, the Division Bench disposed of that
writ petition with a direction to the respondents to take
appropriate action to conduct election to the Managing
Committee of Panangad Kamoth Devaswom, expeditiously. By
that judgment, the petitioner therein was directed to hand over
charge to the Interim Trustee in terms of the order dated
03.11.2020, who was directed to conduct election to the
Managing Committee in accordance with Ext.P1 Scheme, within
two months from the date of assuming charge. Pursuant to the
directions contained in the judgment dated 09.03.2021, the
Interim Trustee issued the impugned election notification dated
17.01.2022 for conducting election to the Managing Committee
of Panangad Kamoth Devaswom.
18. Having considered the pleadings and materials on
record and also the submissions made by the learned counsel on
both sides, we find that the election to the Managing Committee
W.P(C)Nos.3836 & 4184 of 2022
of Panangad Kamoth Devaswom has to be conducted strictly in
accordance with the provisions under Ext.P1 Scheme for
administration of the said Devaswom. The Election Special Officer
has to conduct election strictly in terms of the provisions
contained in Chapter V of Ext.P1 Scheme and the preparation of
voters' list has to be carried out in accordance with Clause (42)
of the Scheme and also the findings and directions contained in
the judgment of this Court dated 15.12.2010 in W.P.(C)No.2809
of 2008, judgment dated 11.07.2017 in W.P.(C)No.21797 of 2017
and the observations contained in the order dated 31.08.2017 in
R.P.No.732 of 2017 in W.P.(C)No.21797 of 2017.
19. In such circumstances, these writ petitions are
disposed of by setting aside the election notification dated
17.01.2022 issued by the Interim Trustee of Panangad Kamoth
Devaswom and also the consequential proceedings, which are
under challenge in these writ petitions. Sri.K.B.Pradeep
(K/000908/1990), a lawyer of this Court is appointed as the
Advocate Commissioner to conduct election to the Managing
Committee of Panangad Kamoth Devaswom, who shall conduct
election as the Special Election Officer, strictly following the
procedures contemplated in Part V of Ext.P1 Scheme, taking note
of the findings and directions contained in the judgment of this
W.P(C)Nos.3836 & 4184 of 2022
Court dated 15.12.2010 in W.P.(C)No.2809 of 2008, judgment
dated 11.07.2017 in W.P.(C)No.21797 of 2017 and the
observations contained in the order dated 31.08.2017 in
R.P.No.732 of 2017 in W.P.(C)No.21797 of 2017. As held by this
Court in the judgment dated 15.12.2010 in W.P.(C)No.2809 of
2008, only those four "Nair tharwads" will be treated as "Nair
grihams" for the purpose of Clause (42) of Ext.P1 Scheme. As
provided in Clause 43(a), the voters' list has to be revised by
including persons, who have attained the bench mark of age for
entry into the voters' list without incurring any of the
disqualifications as are prescribed in Clause (45) and by
excluding the names of persons who may be dead or otherwise
liable to be removed from the electoral roll, including by
disqualification. As noticed in the order dated 31.08.2017 in
R.P.No.732 of 2017, in view of the judgment dated 15.12.2010 in
W.P.(C)No.2809 of 2008 only the eligible members belonging to
one of the four "Nair grihams" can participate in the process of
election and the voters' list has to be finalised accordingly. The
question is not whether any such exercise was done pursuant to
the said judgment dated 15.12.2010 in the year 2011, but,
whether it is being done all throughout. In other words, merely
for the reason that some persons were deleted in the year 2011
W.P(C)Nos.3836 & 4184 of 2022
after passing the judgment dated 15.12.2010 itself is not
sufficient to hold that the persons remaining as shown in the
voters' list of the year 2011 could continue forever, if they are
not actually belonging to one of the four families that is four
"Nair grihams". If there was any omission on the part of anybody
to point out a wrongful inclusion of an ineligible person in the
year 2011 or 2014, it would not confer any right on the persons
enlisted to have a place all throughout, if he does not come
within the purview of Ext.P1 Scheme or the judgment dated
15.12.2010, in relation to the subsequent process of election,
whenever it is conducted. Therefore, the dictum in the judgment
dated 15.12.2010 has to be given effect to all throughout and it
has to be ensured by all concerned to see that only the eligible
members of one of the four families are enlisted with the right to
vote, in the voters' list.
20. The Advocate Commissioner shall complete the
process of election as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,
within a period of three months from the date of this judgment.
The Interim Trustee of Panangad Kamoth Devaswom shall pay a
sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) to the Advocate
Commissioner within a period of two weeks from this date,
towards his batta for conducting the election. All incidental
W.P(C)Nos.3836 & 4184 of 2022
expenses for conducting election shall be borne by the Interim
Trustee. The Advocate Commissioner shall complete the
proceedings within the time limit stipulated above and submit a
report before this Court, within ten days from the date of
declaration of the results.
21. For amending Ext.P1 Scheme, the petitioner in
W.P(C)No.4184 of 2022 has already filed O.S.No.16 of 2019
before the District Court, Ernakulam, in which he has filed
Ext.R7(a) interlocutory application against the election scheduled
on 13.02.2022. It is for both sides to raise appropriate legal and
factual contentions before the court below in O.S.No.16 of 2019.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
ANIL K NARENDRAN,
JUDGE
Sd/-
P.G.AJITHKUMAR,
JUDGE
ssa
W.P(C)Nos.3836 & 4184 of 2022
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3836/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEME OF ADMINISTRATION
DATED 22.08.1955 OF PANANGATTU KOMOTHU
DEVASWAM PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE DATED
13.9.1955 OF THE GOVERNMENT OF TRAVANCORE-
COCHIN.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 15.12.2010
IN WP(C) NO. 2809 OF 2008.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 11.07.2017
IN WP(C) NO. 21797 OF 2017.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE VOTERS' LIST DATED NIL
PUBLISHED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER
APPOINTED AS PER JUDGEMENT DATED 11-07-2017
IN WP(C) NO. 21797 OF 2017.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 31.08.2017
R.P.NO. 732 OF 2017 IN WP(C) NO. 21797 OF
2017.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.03.2019 OF
THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN SLP NO.
35545/2017.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 09.03.2021
IN WP(C) NO. 215 OF 2021.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED
17.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND
PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED
18.01.2022.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION LETTER DATED
21.01.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER/ORDER DATED
24.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO
THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL VOTERS LIST DATED
NIL PUBLISHED ON 26.01.2022 BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
W.P(C)Nos.3836 & 4184 of 2022
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31.01.2022
ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT THROUGH REGISTERED POST.
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE SSLC
BOOK OF SRI. SANEESH.P.
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE SSLC
BOOK OF SRI.JAYESH P.M.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.
W.P(C)Nos.3836 & 4184 of 2022
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4184/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA GAZETTE VOL.VII
TRIVANDRUM DATED 13-09-1955, (SCHEME OF
THE SREE KAMOTH BHAGAVATH DEVASWOM)
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ELCTION NOTIFICATION
PUBLISHED BY THE INTERIM TRUSTEE, KAMOTH
DEVASWOM DATED 17-01-2022
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT VOTERS LIST
PUBLISHED BY THE INTERIM TRUSTEE
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER DATED 19.01.2022 BEFORE THE
INTERIM TRUSTEE
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.1591/19
ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUMBALAM
DATED 23-11-2019
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RELATIONSHIP
CERTIFICATE NO.55080353 ISSUED BY THE
KUMBALAM VILLAGE OFFICER, DATED 7-3-2021
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED
11-10-2017 OF THE FATHER OF PETITIONER
ISSUED BY THE MARADU GRAMA PANCHAYAT.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION GIVEN BY
THE INTERM TRUSTEE DATED 24-1-2022 TO
THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL VOTERS LIST
PUBLISHED BY THE INTERIM TRUSTEE
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT
PETITION(C)NO.2809/2008 DATED 15-12-2010
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT
PETITION(C)NO.21797/2017 DATED 11-7-
2017.
RESPONDENTS (6 TO 22) EXHIBITS
Exhibit R17(A) TRUE COPY OF THE INTERLOCUTORY
W.P(C)Nos.3836 & 4184 of 2022
APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT-3, ERNAKULAM
IN O.S.NO.16/2019 DATED 29.01.202.
