Kerala High Court
Suresh R Potti vs Travancore Devaswom Board on 19 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 28TH BHADRA, 1944
W.P.(C)NO.29068 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
SURESH R. POTTI,
AGED 53 YEARS,
S/O. RAMAN POTTI, VARRILLATHUMADOM, 90/10,
THALAYAZHAM. P.O., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM - 686 607.
BY ADVS.
M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.)
BALU TOM
BONNY BENNY
GOVIND G. NAIR
BEJOY JOSEPH P.J.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
NANTHANCODE, DEVASWOM HEADQUARTERS, KAWDIAR P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY.
2 DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, DEVASWOM
HEADQUARTERS, KAWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695
003.
3 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO REVENUE (DEVASWOM)
DEPARTMENT, ROOM 394, 1ST FLOOR, MAIN BLOCK,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695
001.
BY ADV SRI.G.BIJU, SC, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI S.RAJMOHAN - SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.09.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).29073/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
W.P.(C)Nos.29068 & 29073 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
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 28TH BHADRA, 1944
W.P.(C)NO.29073 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
SURESH R. POTTI,
AGED 53 YEARS,
S/O. RAMAN POTTI, VARRILLATHUMADOM, 90/10,
THALAYAZHAM P.O., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM - 686 607.
BY ADVS.
M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.)
BALU TOM
BONNY BENNY
GOVIND G. NAIR
BEJOY JOSEPH P.J.
RESPONDENTS:
1 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
NANTHANCODE, DEVASWOM HEADQUARTERS, KAWDIAR P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
PIN- 695 003
2 DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, DEVASWOM
HEADQUARTERS, KAWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695
003.
3 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO REVENUE (DEVASWOM)
DEPARTMENT, ROOM 394, 1ST FLOOR, MAIN BLOCK,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695
001.
BY ADV SRI.G.BIJU, SC, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.09.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).29068/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
W.P.(C)Nos.29068 & 29073 of 2022
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
Since common issue is raised, these writ petitions are
heard together and are being disposed of by this common
judgment.
2. W.P.(C)No.29068 of 2022:- The petitioner, who
submitted Ext.P4 application for being selected as Melsanthi of
Sabarimala Devaswom, for the year 1198 ME, pursuant to the
notification issued by the 1st respondent Travancore Devaswom
Board, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P6
rejection memo dated 23.08.2022 and Ext.P9 order dated
05.09.2022 of the 1st respondent, whereby the decision taken in
Ext.P6 rejection memo stands confirmed. The petitioner has also
sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to
allow him to participate in the interview for selection of Melshanti
of Sabarimala Devaswom.
3. W.P.(C)No.29073 of 2022:- The petitioner, who
submitted Ext.P4 application for being selected as Melsanthi of
Malikappuram Devaswom, for the year 1198 ME, pursuant to the
notification issued by the 1st respondent Travancore Devaswom
W.P.(C)Nos.29068 & 29073 of 2022
Board, has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to
quash Ext.P6 rejection memo dated 23.08.2022 and Ext.P9
order dated 05.09.2022 of the 1st respondent, whereby the
decision taken in Ext.P6 rejection memo stands confirmed. The
petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding
the respondents to allow him to participate in the interview for
selection of Melshanti of Malikappuram Devaswom.
4. On 15.09.2022, when these writ petitions came up
for admission, this Court passed the following order;
"In Ext.P3 judgment dated 26.07.2022 in W.P.(C)Nos.
19012 and 19016 of 2021, this Court has made it clear
that, in case the report of the Vigilance Wing of the
Travancore Devaswom Board on the application made by
the petitioner for selection as Melsanthi of Sabarimala
Devaswom and Malikappuram Devaswom for the year
1198 M.E. is not in favour of the petitioner, the adverse
materials relied on by the Vigilance Wing for making such
an observation shall be furnished to the petitioner and he
shall be given a reasonable opportunity to substantiate his
contentions. It was also made clear that, it would be open
to the petitioner to submit applications, pursuant to the
notification issued by the Travancore Devaswom Board for
the year 1198 M.E., along with documents to show that
he belongs to Malayala Brahmin.
A reading of Ext.P6 rejection memo and the order dated
05.09.2022 would show that the specific directions
W.P.(C)Nos.29068 & 29073 of 2022
contained in Ext.P3 judgment dated 26.07.2022 have
been flouted by the 1st respondent.
Having considered the pleadings and materials on record
and also the submissions made by the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel
for Travancore Devaswom Board and also the learned
Senior Government Pleader for the 3rd respondent State,
we deem it appropriate to direct the Secretary of the 1 st
respondent Board to be personally present in Court on
19.09.2022 at 2.00 p.m., along with the files relating to
the applications made by the petitioner for selection as
Melsanthi of Sabarimala Devaswom and Malikappuram
Devaswom for the year 1198ME, the report of the
Vigilance Wing and also the minutes of the personal
hearing conducted on 03.09.2022."
5. Today, when these matters are taken up for
consideration, the Secretary of the 1st respondent Travancore
Devaswom Board is personally present in Court along with the
relevant files.
6. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner,
the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board
for respondents 1 and 2 and also the learned Senior Government
Pleader for the 3rd respondent State.
7. The issue that arises for consideration in these writ
petitions is as to whether any interference is warranted on
Ext.P9 order dated 05.09.2022 in the respective writ petitions,
W.P.(C)Nos.29068 & 29073 of 2022
whereby the applications made by the petitioner for selection
as Melsanthi of Sabarimala Devaswom and Malikappuram
Devaswom stand rejected for the reasons stated therein,
thereby confirming the stand taken in Ext.P6 rejection memo in
the respective writ petitions.
8. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court in
W.P.(C)Nos.19012 of 2021 and 19016 of 2021, challenging the
rejection of his applications for selection as Melsanthi of
Sabarimala Devaswom and Malikappuram Devaswom, for the
year 1197 ME. Those writ petitions were disposed of by Ext.P3
judgment dated 26.07.2022. Paragraphs 13 to 17 of that
judgment read thus;
"13. In the instant case, one of the grounds on which the
petitioner's applications for selection as Melsanthi of
Sabarimala Devaswom and Malikappuram Devaswom
stand rejected is that he does not belong to Malayala
Brahmin. In support of the claim that the petitioner
belongs to Malayala Brahmin, the learned Senior Counsel
for the petitioner would place reliance on Ext.P14
certificate of the petitioner's father, which is placed on
record along with I.A.No.2 of 2021, and also Ext.P18
certificate dated 05.10.2021 produced along with
I.A.No.4 of 2021, issued by the Village Officer,
Thalayazham, wherein it is certified that the petitioner
belongs to Malayala Brahmin. Admittedly, Exts.P14 and
W.P.(C)Nos.29068 & 29073 of 2022
P18 were not enclosed along with Ext.P9 application
made by the petitioner. Therefore, relying on the
aforesaid documents, the petitioner cannot raise a valid
challenge against Ext.P11 rejection memo or Ext.P16
order passed by the 1st respondent Board, whereby his
applications for selection as Melsanthi of Sabarimala
Devaswom and Malikappuram Devaswom stand rejected
on the ground that the available materials would not
show that the petitioner belongs to Malayala Brahmin. If,
as a matter of fact, the petitioner belongs to Malayala
Brahmin, it is for him to substantiate the said claim by
producing appropriate materials along with his
applications for the current year, i.e., 1198 M.E.
14. Another reason stated in Ext.P16 orders for rejecting
Ext.P9 applications is the observations made by the
Vigilance Wing in Annexure R1(a) enquiry report,
wherein it is stated that the devotees of Thrippakudam
Devaswom are not having good opinion about the
petitioner, where he is functioning as Melsanthi and that,
one Vijayamma has filed a complaint in the Women Cell
complaining about his immoral activities.
15. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore
Devaswom Board would submit that, on receipt of
applications for selection as Melsanthies of Sabarimala
Devaswom and Malikappuram Devaswom, the Secretary
of the Board will forward those applications to Chief
Vigilance and Security Officer for enquiry and report. The
report of the Vigilance Wing shall be enclosed along with
the respective applications when it is placed before the
Board for consideration. The applicants, who are issued
W.P.(C)Nos.29068 & 29073 of 2022
with rejection memo after the scrutiny of applications by
the Board, will be given an opportunity to submit
objection. After considering the objection, with notice to
the respective applicant, the Board will take a decision
as to whether he should be called for interview.
16. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore
Devaswom Board would submit that, in view of the
observations made in Annexure R1(a) report of the
Vigilance Wing, the Board rejected Ext.P9 applications
made by the petitioner, taking into consideration the
stipulations in Ext.P8 notifications. Per contra, the
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the observations in Annexure R1(a) enquiry report
of the Vigilance Wing are absolutely without any basis.
The petitioner was not granted a reasonable opportunity
to substantiate his case, after furnishing the adverse
materials relied on by the Vigilance Wing.
17. Having considered the submissions made by the
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the learned
Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board and
also the learned Senior Government Pleader, we find no
reason to interfere with Ext.P11 rejection memo or
Ext.P16 order in the respective writ petitions, whereby
Ext.P9 applications made by the petitioner for
selection as Melsanthi of Sabarimala Devaswom and
Malikappuram Devaswom for the year 1198 M.E. stand
rejected for the reasons stated therein. It would be open
to the petitioner to submit applications pursuant to the
notification issued by the Travancore Devaswom Board
for selection as Melsanthi of Sabarimala Devaswom and
W.P.(C)Nos.29068 & 29073 of 2022
Malikappuram Devaswom for the year 1198 M.E., along
with the documents to show that he belongs to Malayala
Brahmin. In case the report of the Vigilance Wing on the
application made by the petitioner is not in favour of the
petitioner, the adverse materials relied on by the
Vigilance Wing for making such an observation shall be
furnished and he shall be given a reasonable opportunity
to substantiate his contentions."
9. The grievance of the petitioner is that showing scant
regard to the specific directions contained in Ext.P3 judgment of
this Court, copy of the report of the Vigilance Wing and also the
adverse materials relied on by the Vigilance Wing for making
such an observation were not furnished to the petitioner and he
was also not afforded with a reasonable opportunity to
substantiate his contentions.
10. From the files made available for the perusal of this
Court by the Secretary of the 1st respondent Board, we notice
that, the petitioner was afforded with an opportunity of personal
hearing. As per the minutes of the meeting of the Board, during
personal hearing the petitioner was provided with the report of
the Vigilance Wing. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner,
as instructed by the instructing counsel, would submit that the
petitioner was not provided with the report of the Vigilance Wing,
during the personal hearing. The 1st respondent has no such
W.P.(C)Nos.29068 & 29073 of 2022
case in Ext.P9 order. The learned Senior Counsel would also
point out that the specific direction contained in Ext.P3 judgment
is that, in case the report of the Vigilance Wing on the application
made by the petitioner is not in his favour, the adverse materials
relied on by the Vigilance Wing for making such an observation
shall be furnished to the petitioner and he shall be given a
reasonable opportunity to substantiate his contentions.
11. The Secretary of the 1st respondent Board and also
the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board
would submit that such an opportunity was not afforded to the
petitioner.
12. Having considered the pleadings and materials on
record and also the submissions made by the learned counsel on
both sides, we find that the procedure adopted by the 1st
respondent Board while rejecting the applications made by the
petitioner for selection as Melsanthi of Sabarimala Devaswom
and Malikappuram Devaswom is in violation of the specific
directions contained in Ext.P3 judgment. The procedure adopted
by the Board is per se arbitrary and illegal and it is in flagrant
violation of the principles of natural justice. We deprecate in the
strongest words, the casual approach of the 1st respondent
W.P.(C)Nos.29068 & 29073 of 2022
Board while considering the applications of the petitioner,
despite the specific directions contained in Ext.P3 judgment.
13. In such circumstances, this writ petitions are
disposed of by setting aside Ext.P9 orders dated 05.09.2022 in
the respective writ petitions and by directing the 1st respondent
Board to reconsider the applications made by the petitioner for
selection as Melsanthi of Sabarimala Devaswom and
Malikappuram Devaswom, after furnishing the petitioner copy of
the report of the Vigilance Wing and also the adverse material
relied on by the Vigilance Wing for making such an observation.
Those materials shall be furnished to the petitioner by 4.00 p.m.
on 20.09.2022. The petitioner shall be personally present before
the Secretary of the 1st respondent Board for collecting those
materials. Thereafter, the petitioner shall submit a written
submission before the 1st respondent Board on 22.09.2022,
raising appropriate legal and factual contentions, which shall be
acknowledged by the Secretary of the 1st respondent Board. The
1st respondent Board shall consider that written submission in
its next meeting scheduled to be held on 24.09.2022. The
petitioner shall be afforded with an opportunity of being heard
and the 1st respondent Board shall taken an appropriate decision
W.P.(C)Nos.29068 & 29073 of 2022
in the matter, which shall be communicated to the petitioner
forthwith, since the interview is scheduled to be held on
25.09.2022 and 27.09.2022.
14. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore
Devaswom Board would submit that the decision taken by the
1st respondent Board shall be communicated to the petitioner on
24.09.2022 itself. The aforesaid submission made by the learned
Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board is recorded.
15. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed
anything on the claim made by the petitioner for being selected
as Melsanthi of Sabarimala Devaswom and Malikappuram
Devaswom. Ext.P9 order in the respective writ petitions are set
aside, since those orders are issued in violation of the principles
of natural justice.
16. While taking a decision on the applications made by
the petitioner, the 1st respondent Board shall take note of the
law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Mohandas
Embranthiri v. Travancore Devaswom Board [2001 (1)
KLT 203], Krishnan Namboothri v. Travancore Devaswom
Board [2015 (5) KHC 829], Rajesh J. Potti v. Travancore
Devaswom Board [2018 (5) KHC 220] and also the
W.P.(C)Nos.29068 & 29073 of 2022
judgment in Travancore Devaswom Board v. Deputy
Examiner for Local Fund Audit [Order dated 04.07.2022 in
DBA No.5 of 2022].
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE
min
W.P.(C)Nos.29068 & 29073 of 2022
APPENDIX OF WP(C)29073/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE BOARD DATED
15.07.2015.
Exhibit P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 22120/16
DATED 07.07.2016.
Exhibit P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC
19016/2021 DATED 26.07.2022.
Exhibit P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE
BOARD DATED 14.07.2022 WITHOUT THE
DOCUMENTS.
Exhibit P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE CASTE CERTIFICATE ISSUED
BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THALAYAZHAM DATED
05.10.2021.
Exhibit P6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REJECTION MEMO DATED
23.08.2022 ISSUED BY THE BOARD.
Exhibit P7 PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE
VILLAGE OFFICER, THALAYAZHAM DATED
04.08.2022.
Exhibit P8 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY TO THE SECRETARY,
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD DATED 26.08.2022
WITHOUT DOCUMENTS.
Exhibit P9 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.R.O.C.8063/2022/SABA DATED 5/9/2022
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P10 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 26/9/2017
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P11 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
11/12/2013 RECEIVED UNDER THE RIGHT TO
INFORMATION ACT
W.P.(C)Nos.29068 & 29073 of 2022
APPENDIX OF WP(C)29068/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE BOARD DATED
15.07.2015.
Exhibit P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 22120/16
DATED 07.07.2016.
Exhibit P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC
19012/2021 DATED 26.07.2022.
Exhibit P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE
BOARD DATED 14.07.2022 WITHOUT THE
DOCUMENTS.
Exhibit P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE CASTE CERTIFICATE ISSUED
BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THALAYAZHAM DATED
05.10.2021.
Exhibit P6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REJECTION MEMO DATED
23.08.2022 ISSUED BY THE BOARD.
Exhibit P7 PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE
VILLAGE OFFICER, THALAYAZHAM DATED
04.08.2022.
Exhibit P8 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY TO THE SECRETARY,
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD DATED 26.08.2022
WITHOUT DOCUMENTS.
Exhibit P9 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.R.O.C.8063/2022/SABA DATED 5/9/2022
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P10 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 26/9/2017
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
NO.R.O.C.669/17/SABA DATED 26/9/2017
Exhibit P11 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
11/12/2013 RECEIVED UNDER THE RIGHT TO
INFORMATION ACT. NO.BB3/90998/13/CGE DATED
11.12.2013
