Kerala High Court

Praveen Namboothiri vs V.K.Krishnan Namboothiri on 12 February, 2025

Author: Anil K. Narendran

Bench: Anil K. Narendran

WA NO.516 OF 2021                 1




                                                             2025:KER:11904
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                      PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN

                                         &

                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.

         WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 23RD MAGHA, 1946

                                WA NO. 516 OF 2021

            AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED IN WP(C) NO.31479 OF 2018 OF HIGH

                                 COURT OF KERALA




APPELLANT/7TH RESPONDENT:

              PRAVEEN NAMBOOTHIRI
              AGED 28 YEARS
              S/O. PARAMESHWARAN NAMBOOTHIRI, MELSANTHI, SREE
              MOOLASTHANAM, SREE THIRUMANDHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHI DEVASWOM,
              ANGADIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679321.


              BY ADVS.
              SRI.M.SASINDRAN
              SRI.K.PRAMOD




RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6:

     1        V.K.KRISHNAN NAMBOOTHIRI
              AGED 49 YEARS
              S/O. V.K.RAMAN NAMBOOTHIRI, KEEZHSANTHI, SREE
              THIRUMANDHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHI TEMPLE, ANGADIPPURAM, RESIDING
              AT KARIPPATH SREENILAYAM, VALAMBUR PO, PATTIKKAD (VIA),
              MALAPPURAM DISTRICT , PIN-679325.

     2        THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
              REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF
              REVENUE (DEVASWOM), GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

     3        THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD,
              KOZHIKODE-673001, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

     4        THE COMMISSIONER,
              MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE-673001.
 WA NO.516 OF 2021                    2                        2025:KER:11904



     5        THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
              MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE-673001.

     6        THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
              THIRUMANDHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHI DEVASWOM, ANGADIPURAM,
              MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679321.

     7        THE HEREDITARY TRUSTEE,
              THIRUMANDHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHI DEVASWOM, ANGADIPURAM,
              MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679321.


              BY ADVS.
              P.MOHANDAS(ERNAKULAM)
              K.SUDHINKUMAR(K/572/2014)
              SABU PULLAN(K/35/2001)
              GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN(K/000886/2016)
              R.BHASKARA KRISHNAN(K/000891/2016)
              BHARATH MOHAN(K/1392/2020)
              K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)(S-242)


OTHER PRESENT:

              SMT. VINITHA B., SR. GP;
              SMT. R. RANJANIE, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD.


         THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.02.2025, THE

COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WA NO.516 OF 2021           3




                                                        2025:KER:11904


                            JUDGMENT

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The 7th respondent in W.P.(C)No.31479 of 2018 has filed

this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5(i) of the

Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment of the

learned Single Judge dated 04.02.2021 in W.P.(C)No.31479 of

2018. That writ petition was one filed by the 1 st respondent

herein-petitioner, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court

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

certiorari to quash Ext.P6 order dated 20.01.2018 issued by the

4th respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board and

Ext.P10 order dated 17.08.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent

State of Kerala; and a declaration that denial of promotion to the

post of Melsanthi of Sree Moolasthanam of Sree

Thirumandhamkunnu Bhagavathi Devaswom, Angadippuram, to

the petitioner, holding that the said post is hereditary, is violative

of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16, 19 and

21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has also sought for

a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 6 to promote

him to the post of Melsanthi in Sree Thirumandhamkunnu WA NO.516 OF 2021 4 2025:KER:11904

Bhagavathi Devaswom, Angadippuram, in accordance with the

custom and traditions of the temple. By the impugned judgment,

the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by

directing the 4th respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom

Board, to reconsider the matter, after deliberation with the Tantri

of the temple as well as the hereditary trustee. Feeling aggrieved

by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellant-7th

respondent is before this Court in this writ appeal.

2. On 22.03.2021, when this writ appeal came up for

admission, it was admitted on file. The Division Bench granted an

interim order. Paragraphs 2 to 7 of that order read thus;

"2. Sri.T. Ramaprasad Unni, the learned Advocate, has taken notice for the 1st respondent herein/writ petitioner, Sri.B. Vinod, the learned Senior Government Pleader, has taken notice for the 2nd respondent (State Government), Sri.R.Lakshmi Narayan, the learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board, has taken notice for respondents 3 to 5 and Sri.Mahesh V. Ramakrishnan, the learned Advocate, has taken notice for respondents 6. Issue notice to the 7th respondent by speed post, returnable within 2 weeks. 3. The Registry will show the names of the abovesaid Advocates in the cause list.

4. It is urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that all throughout the 'melshanti' of the 6 th respondent temple was a hereditary position as can be seen from Sl. No.3 of Ext.R5(b) proceedings dated 29.09.1995, issued by the HR & CE department and that the same is the statutory

2025:KER:11904 schedule finalised in accordance with Rule 10 famed under Section 100 (2)(y) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (HR & CE Act) and that Sl. No.3 of Ext.R5(b) is the petitioner's father, viz., C.M. Parameswaran Namboodiri, who was the 'melshanti' and after his death his elder son (the petitiioner's elder brother) had held the position of 'melshanti' and due to illness of the latter, the petitioner as the senior most available male member and the son of the previous 'melshanti' was duly appointed and continued as 'melshanti' from 2014 onwards.

5. That the claim of the 1 st respondent herein (writ petitioner) is that, 'melshanti' is a position which is nonhereditary is untenable and that no reliance can be placed on Ext.P1 letter said to have been given by the 'Thanthri', who has only given his personal opinion in the matter and that too without any material basis. On the other hand, the 4th respondent Commissioner of the Malabar Devaswom Board has issued Ext.P6 proceedings dated 20.01.2018, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner and upholding that the position of 'melshanti' in the instant temple is a hereditary one and not non.hereditary, etc. Further that, without any material basis, the 'Thanthri' for reasons known only to him has blandly stated in Ext.P1 to the contrary and that cannot be the basis to impeach the considered findings made by the Commissioner of the Malabar Devaswom Board and that too based on the consistent practice known to all that the position of 'melshanti' in the instant temple is hereditary and that Ext.R5(b), which is a statutory document which has got WA NO.516 OF 2021 6 2025:KER:11904

sanctity and which has not been altered in the manner known to law. Further that, if at all the writ petitioner has any grievance, it is for him to file a civil suit and get the matter adjudicated in the manner known to law and such disputed question of fact cannot be resolved in public law proceedings as in the instant one.

6. Taking note of the abovesaid submissions, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has made out a strong prima facie case in the matter.

7. Accordingly it is ordered that the operation and enforcement of the impugned judgment dated 04.02.2021, rendered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.31479/2018, shall remain stayed and shall be kept in abeyance. The interlocutory direction will be in force till 31.05.2021."

3. The interim order dated 22.03.2021, which was

extended by two months on 10.06.2022, was extended until

further orders on 17.08.2022.

4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the

appellant-7th respondent, the learned Senior Counsel for the 1 st

respondent-writ petitioner, the learned Senior Government

Pleader for the 2nd respondent, the learned Standing Counsel for

Malabar Devaswom Board for respondents 3 to 5, the learned

counsel for the 6th respondent Executive Officer and also the

learned counsel for the 7th respondent hereditary trustee.

5. The issue that requires consideration in this writ

appeal is as to whether the judgment of the learned Single Judge

2025:KER:11904 ordering reconsideration of the matter, in the manner as stated

in that judgment, can be sustained in law.

6. The writ petition is one filed by the 1 st respondent-writ

petitioner challenging Ext.P6 order dated 20.01.2018 of the 4 th

respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board and

Ext.P10 order dated 17.08.2018 of the 2nd respondent State of

Kerala. The conclusions of the 4th respondent Commissioner in

Ext.P6 order dated 20.01.2018, read thus;

"There are three Melsanthi posts existing in the Devaswom which are hereditary and it is obviously seen in the schedule of establishment of the Devaswom. The appointment of Sri. Praveen Namboodiri is transperant and no procedural flaws have taken place. All the grievances raised by the petitioner are baseless hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.

Executive Officer produced the dittam of the Devaswom. schedule of establishment since 1988 and connected documents.

On perusal of the statement and documents connected therewith it is seen that the post of Melsanthi of Sree Moolasthanam is hereditary. It is vested with Cherukunnath Mana family. As the post of Melsanthi is hereditary the petitioner can not claim for appointment in the same post. There is no rule as to the method of appointment to the temple employees and it is very well known that melsanthi post of the temple is not a WA NO.516 OF 2021 8 2025:KER:11904

promotion post. For the foregoing reasons the prayer is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. It is also observed that the rules do not provide for appointment by promotion. According to the respondent the petitioner is not amenable to the authorities and to the devotees."

7. Ext.P6 order was under challenge in Ext.P7 revision

petition filed under Section 99 of the Madras Hindu Religious And

Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, before the 2 nd respondent

State Government. After considering the rival contentions, the

revisional authority passed Ext.P10 order dated 17.08.2018,

declining interference, on a finding that the post in question is a

hereditary post.

8. In the writ petition, the 6 th respondent Executive

Officer of Sree Thirumandhamkunnu Bhagavathi Devaswom has

filed a detailed counter affidavit dated 16.03.2019, producing

therewith various documents to show that the post in question is

a hereditary post.

9. During the course of arguments, the learned Senior

Counsel for the 1st respondent-writ petitioner would place

reliance on Ext.P1 reply dated 20.10.2014 given by the Tantri of

the temple, wherein it is stated that Melsanthi of Sree

Moolasthanam is not a hereditary post. However, the documents

produced along with the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition

by the 5th respondent Executive Officer, the 6th respondent

2025:KER:11904 herein, would show that it is a hereditary post. In Ext.R5(b)/2

revised schedule of establishment with effect from 01.01.1995,

Sl.No.3 is C.M. Parameswaran Namboodiri, in which it is stated

that he is holding a hereditary post. In Ext.R5(c) schedule of

establishment dated 01.08.1998, Sl.No.3 is C.M. Parameswaran

Namboodiri, Sree Moolasthanam Melsanthi, in which it is stated

that he is holding a hereditary post. In Ext.R5(d)/2 schedule of

establishment dated 01.07.2014 (page No.102), Sl.No.30 is C.M.

Parameswaran Namboodiri, in which it is stated that he is holding

a hereditary post. The document marked as Ext.R5(e) is the

proceedings dated 25.11.2014 of the hereditary trustee, in which

it is stated that C.M. Parameswaran Namboodiri is appointed as

Sree Moolasthanam Melsanthi, which is a hereditary post.

10. The learned Senior Government Pleader would point

out the stand taken by respondents 2 to 4 in paragraph 4 of the

statement filed in the writ petition, which reads thus;

''4. There is no rule as to the method of appointment to the temple employees and it is very well known that Melsanthi post of the Temple is not a promotion post. The Rules do not provide for appointment is promotion in the temples. As per the Schedule of establishment of the Devaswom, approved as per the Rule 10 framed under Section 100 (2)(y), the post of Sree Moolasthanam is a WA NO.516 OF 2021 10 2025:KER:11904

hereditary post. The right of Sree Moolasthariam Melsanthi, is vested with Cherukunnath mankkal tharawad. No evidence was adduced to prove that the post of Melsanthi is nonhereditary. As the post is hereditary, a member of the Cherukunnath Manaakal tharawad, wherein the hereditary right is vested, shall be appointed as melsanthi. The petitioner is not entitled to any such right. When Sri.C.M.Parameswaran Namboodiri, Melsanthi of Sree Moolasthanam died on 29.07.2014, and his son, the petitioner in Writ Petition was appointed in the above post, hereditarily, as per order No.TBD 2698/14 dated 25.11.14, the appointment is quite proper and legal.''

11. The specific stand taken in the counter affidavit filed

by respondents 2 to 4 in the writ petition is that as per the

schedule of establishment of the Devaswom approved as per

Rule 10 framed under Section 100(2)(y) of the Madras Hindu

Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, the post of Sree

Moolasthanam Melsanthi is a hereditary post. Therefore, a

member of Cherukunnath Manakkal Tharavad, wherein the

hereditary right is vested, shall be appointed as Sree

Moolasthanam Melsanthi.

12. In the above circumstances, we find no reason to

sustain the judgment of the learned Single Judge, interfering

with Exts.P6 order dated 20.01.2018 of the 4 th respondent