Kerala High Court

O.K.Kochukunju vs The Malabar Devaswom Board on 21 May, 2025

Author: Anil K. Narendran

Bench: Anil K. Narendran

W.P.(C)No.11789 of 2019         1




                                                  2025:KER:35004

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN

                                    &

         THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN

 WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2025 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1947

                      WP(C) NO. 11789 OF 2019

PETITIONER:

            O.K.KOCHUKUNJU
            AGED 59 YEARS
            ORANAKUDY,KAMMANA.P.O,MANANTHAVADY,
            WAYANAD-670645.

            BY ADV MOHAN C.MENON


RESPONDENTS:

     1      THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
            REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY/COMMISSIONER,
            KOZHIKODE-673006.

     2      THE COMMISSIONER,
            THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD,
            KOZHIKODE-673006.

     3      SRI.M.MANOHARAN,
            EXECUTIVE OFFICER,VALLIYOORKAVU
            DEVASWOM,MANANTHAVADY,WAYANAD-670645.

     4      SRI.K.V.NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI,
            EXECUTIVE OFFICER,KALLEKULANGARA EMOOR BHAVAVATHY
            DEVASWOM, PALAKKAD-678008.

     5      THE TRUSTEE BOARD,
            REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN,
            VALLIYOORKAVU DEVASWOM, MANANTHAVADY,
            WAYANAD-670645.
 W.P.(C)No.11789 of 2019       2




                                               2025:KER:35004


    *6      *ADDL.R6-K.V.SREEJESH
            AGED 43 YEARS
            S/O.LATE CHANDRASEKHARAN, KUNHIKKALLU VARASALA,
            AARATTHUTHARA P.O, MANANTHAVADY,WAYANAD
            DISTRICT .(*ADDL.R6 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
            17.6.2019 IN IA.NO.1 OF 2019 IN W.P.(C)NO.11789
            OF 2019

            BY ADVS.
            SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
            K.MOHANAKANNAN



OTHER PRESENT:

            SMT. R. RANJANIE, SC, MDB


      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 21.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C)No.11789 of 2019               3




                                                               2025:KER:35004

                                JUDGMENT

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioner, who is a devotee of Valliyoorkavu

Bhagavathy Temple, Mananthavady, which is a controlled

institution under the 1st respondent Malabar Devaswom Board,

has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution of

India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1

and 2 to take action as per the decision of the 1 st respondent

Board dated 06.03.2019 for its logical conclusion, in order to

ensure the welfare of Valliyoorkavu Devaswom, and not to

permit the 4th respondent, who was appointed as the Executive

Officer, to take charge as such.

2. On 11.04.2019, when this writ petition came up for

admission, it was admitted on file. The learned Standing Counsel

took notice for respondents 1 and 2. Urgent notice was ordered

to respondents 3 to 5. This Court granted an interim order

directing maintenance of status quo ante, as on 09.03.2019,

insofar as the post of Executive Officer and Santhi of

Valliyoorkavu Devaswom are concerned, for a period of two

months. The said interim order was extended by two months on

2025:KER:35004

11.06.2019.

3. On 17.06.2019, a third party filed I.A.No.1 of 2019

seeking an order to get himself impleaded as the additional 6 th

respondent. Exts.R6(a) to R6(c) documents were produced along

with that application. Thereafter, on 17.06.2019, the interim

order granted on 11.04.2019 was modified by a detailed order,

which reads thus;

"Pursuant to the passing of order in I.A. No.1 of 2019 we, thought it appropriate to consider the question of modifying interim order dated 11.4.2019 passed in the writ petition, in view of the documents produced by the additional 6th respondent. Along with the application for impleadment he had produced Exts.R6(a) to R6(c). Ext.R6(a) would reveal that the additional 6 th respondent Sri.K.V.Sreejesh @ Sreejesh Namboothiri had earlier moved W.P. (C)No.7757 of 2019 before this Court and the same was disposed of by this Court as per judgment dated 28.3.2019. The petitioner in the captioned writ petition was the 7th respondent therein. As per Ext.R6(a) judgment whereby W.P. (C)No.7757 of 2019 was disposed of, this Court directed the first respondent therein viz., Malabar Devaswom Board to hear the petitioner therein viz., the additional 6th respondent herein and to pass appropriate orders on the question of revocation of his suspension and reinstatement in service. The order would reveal that there was also a direction to afford an opportunity of being heard to the 5 th respondent therein

2025:KER:35004

viz., the Executive Officer of the temple in question before passing orders on the aforesaid question. Pursuant to Ext.R6(a) judgment the matter was considered by the first respondent and Ext.R6(b) order was passed and the same was assailed before this Court by Sree Valliyoorkavu Bhagavathy Devaswom itself by filing W.P. (C)No.15355 of 2019. Evidently, that writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn by judgment dated 10.6.2019. From the facts expatiated above, it is evident that the additional 6 th respondent was ordered to be reinstated as per Ext.R6(b) pursuant to the direction of this Court in Ext.R6(a) judgment and that it was unsuccessfully challenged by the Devaswom. We are referring to these aspects, taking note of the nature of the interim relief sought for by the petitioner in the captioned writ petition and it reads as follows:-

"For the reasons stated in the Writ Petition (Civil) and the affidavit filed in support thereof, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an interim order, directing the maintenance of status quo ante as on 9.3.2019 so far as the post of Executive Officer and Santhi of Valliyoor Kavu Devaswom are concerned, pending disposal of the Writ Petition (Civil), in the interest of justice."

The above extracted interim relief, as sought for, would reveal that the petitioner has sought for an order of status quo in respect of Santhi of Valliyoor Kavu Devaswom as well, viz., against the additional 6th respondent. But, at the same time, the Santhi of Valliyoor Kavu Devaswom was not made a party to the writ petition. It is not as if,

2025:KER:35004

the petitioner was not knowing about the whereabouts of the additional 6th respondent. Ext. P5 itself would reveal that he was very much aware of the same. That apart, Ext. R6(a) would reveal that the petitioner herein was the 7th respondent in the writ petition moved by the additional 6th respondent herein viz., Sreejesh Namboothiri, in which this Court as per Ext.R6(a) directed the Malabar Devaswom Board to consider the request of the additional 6th respondent for his reinstatement. Obviously, the petitioner herein had not preferred appeal against Ext.R6(a) judgment or challenged the order viz., Ext.R6(b) passed pursuant thereto. Taking note of all the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the considered view that it is only appropriate to confine the order of status quo dated 11.4.2019 which was extended on 11.6.2019, only in respect of the post of Executive Officer. In other words, we make it clear that in the light of Ext.R6(b) order there will not be any impediment in reinstating the additional 6th respondent to the post of Santhi of Valliyoor Kavu Devaswom.

Ordered accordingly."

4. The learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom

Board has filed a statement dated 13.06.2019, producing

therewith a copy of Annexure R1 judgment dated 18.09.2015 in

W.P.(C)No.28320 of 2015.

5. Today, when this matter is taken up for consideration,

the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that by the

2025:KER:35004

passage of time, the reliefs sought for in this writ petition have

become infructuous and in such circumstances, the writ petition

may be dismissed as infructuous.

Based on the aforesaid submission by the learned counsel