[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Lathika vs State Of Kerala on 23 February, 2026
W.A. No. 2447 of 2025
-1-
2026:KER:16093
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1947
WA NO. 2447 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.08.2025 IN WP(C)
NO.21335 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
1 LATHIKA
AGED 65 YEARS
W/O RAJU, PUTHENPURAYIL, PUTHUPPALI NORTH MURI,
PUTHUPPALLI VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLI TALUK,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 690515 NEW ADDRESS
2 SATHI
AGED 62 YEARS
W/O DEVARAJAN, SAVITHALAYAM, ALUMPEEDIKA,
CLAPPANA SOUTH, CLAPPANA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLI
TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690525
3 SUDHA
AGED 59 YEARS
W/O THAKSHAKAN, SUDHALAYAM, THEKKEKOCHU MURI,
KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLI TALUK,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690515
4 GEETHA
AGED 54 YEARS
W/O SASI, SYAMBHAVANAM, PRAYAR NORTH, PUTHUPPALLI
VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLI, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN
- 690547
W.A. No. 2447 of 2025
-2-
2026:KER:16093
5 SHEEJA
AGED 49 YEARS
W/O RAJASEKHARAN, VILAYISSERIL, PRAYAR NORTH
MURI, PUTHUPPALLI VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLI TALUK,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690547
BY ADVS.
SRI.OMAR SALIM
SRI.A.N.BIJU
SHRI.ASHISH ABY DAVID
SMT.GOURI S.
SMT.SAMGEETHA KUMARY.G
SMT.KAVYA S.A.
KUM. K. REMIYA RAMACHANDRAN
SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR (SR.)
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT,
SECRATARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER
POLICE COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, MUNDAKKAL, KOLLAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 691001
3 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
OFFICE OF ASST. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, NH 47,
NEAR POLICE STATION BUILDING, KARUNAGAPPALLI,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690518
4 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
OACHIRA POLICE STATION, OACHIRA P.O., KOLLAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 690526
5 B. PREMNATH
ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER, KERALA HIGH COURT,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682035
6 THE OACHIRA TEMPLE ADMINISTRATION BOARD
OACHIRA PARABRAHMA TEMPLE, OACHIRA P.O., PIN 690
526 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ADV.
W.A. No. 2447 of 2025
-3-
2026:KER:16093
K.GOPINATHAN, AGED 90 YEARS, S/O KOCHUKRISHNAN,
RESIDING AT SREERANGAM, PUTHUPPALLY SOUTH,
PUTHUPPALLY P.O., ALAPPUZHA IS IMPLEADED AS
ADDITIONAL R11 AS PER ORDER DATED 2.8.2023 IN
I.A.1/2023
7 OACHIRA PARABRAHMA TEMPLE
REPRESENTED BY HON'BLE JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
(RETD) ,ADMINISTRATIVE HEAD/ADMINISTRATOR ,
OCHIRA ,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.PIN-690527.**
IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL R12 AS PER ORDER DATED
28/05/2025 IN IA/1/2025 OF WP(C)-21335/2023
8 SOMAN
AGED 61 YEARS
KOYIKKILETHU PADITTATHIL, PRAYAR NORTH, PRAYAR
P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690547
9 ANILKUMAR
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O RAGHUVARAN, UNNISSERITHARAYIL, PRAYAR SOUTH,
ALUMPEEDIKA P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690547
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.KIRANLAL
SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER
SRI.SABU GEORGE
SMT.MEERA P.
SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN
SRI.T.S.SARATH
SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
SHRI.SAMEER M NAIR
SMT.SAILAKSHMI MENON
SMT. AASHI K. SHAJAN
SMT. CHITHRA JOHNSON
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A. No. 2447 of 2025
-4-
2026:KER:16093
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2026
Soumen Sen, C. J.
Heard Mr. Omar Salim, learned counsel for the
appellants, Mr. M. Kiranlal, learned counsel for the 7 th
respondent, and Mr. S. V. Balakrishna Iyer, learned Senior
Advocate instructed by Ms. Chithra Johnson, learned counsel
for respondent Nos. 8 and 9.
2. The dispute between the parties is essentially civil in
nature, as the writ petitioners claim the right to perform their
duties and discharge their functions at the Undikavu Shrine
in the Oachira Parabrahma Temple on the basis of Exts. P3 to
P6 identity cards.
3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent
Nos. 6 to 10/the appellants, while denying paragraph 6 of the
writ petition, it is alleged that the identity cards were issued
to Mr. Vasu, the father of respondent Nos. 6 to 10, and that
2026:KER:16093
upon his demise, the right devolved upon respondent Nos. 6
to 10, who claim the exclusive right to perform the customs
and duties at the said temple.
4. The dispute, therefore, is essentially with respect to
the right to perform pooja at the said temple. Without
deciding such right, even prima facie, in appropriately
instituted civil proceedings, the direction to render Police
assistance based on Exts. P3 to P6 may not have been the
proper course. There must be an establishment of a prima
facie right to enter the temple and perform the poojas, and
the said issue can be more appropriately decided in a civil
suit. The writ petitioners, instead of filing a civil suit,
approached the writ court relying upon Exts. P3 to P6, the
authenticity of which is now in dispute.
5. It further appears that O.S. No. 42 of 2023, instituted
by respondent Nos. 6 to 10, is pending before the Munsiff
Court, wherein the said respondents have sought a
declaration of their right as Sookshipukars of the Undikkavu
Shrine consequent to the death of their father, along with a
2026:KER:16093
consequential injunction. In the said suit, the temple
administration committee is the 2 nd defendant and the 1st
petitioner in the writ petition is the 1 st defendant. The
existence of the said suit was not disclosed in the writ
petition. Moreover, the writ petitioners have filed petitions in
O.S. No. 1 of 2006 before the District Court, Kollam, seeking
to implead themselves and claiming a right over the income
from the Undikkavu Shrine.
6. Having regard to the nature of the disputes pending
before the civil court, the writ petitioners ought to have
approached the civil court in the pending proceedings or
instituted a fresh proceeding, as the writ jurisdiction is not
an appropriate remedy in the facts and circumstances of the
case.
7. We are informed that in the pending proceedings,
Exts. P3 to P6 are not presently under challenge and that
there is no order of injunction operating against the writ
petitioners from entering the temple and performing their
duties. Having regard also to the stand taken by respondent
2026:KER:16093
Nos. 6 to 10 before the learned Single Judge that they have
not in any manner prevented, obstructed, or interfered with
the conduct of poojas by the writ petitioners, there was no
necessity for granting Police protection. There was no
sufficient material before the learned Single Judge to arrive at
a conclusion that there was a likelihood of a breakdown of
law and order in the absence of such protection.
8. In view of the clear stand of respondent Nos. 6 to 10
that they are not obstructing, preventing, or interfering with
the conduct of poojas by the writ petitioners, Police protection
is not warranted.
9. Accordingly, the directions in the impugned
judgment stands vacated. The parties are at liberty to seek
appropriate reliefs in the pending proceedings or, if so
advised, by instituting fresh proceedings to protect their
rights.
10. In the event the writ petitioners are prevented from
performing the poojas or participating in the conduct of the
poojas in breach of the assurance given by respondent Nos. 6
2026:KER:16093
to 10, it will be open to the writ petitioners to move
appropriate applications in the pending civil proceedings or to
institute fresh proceedings, as may be advised.
Sd/-
SOUMEN SEN
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V. M.
JUDGE
Eb
2026:KER:16093
APPENDIX OF WA NO. 2447 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
03/12/2024 (2024 KHC 6670) IN CIVIL
APPEAL NO(S). 13708 - 13709 OF 2024
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT
Annexure A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED
17/06/2025 IN I.A. NO. 19/ 2022 AND
I.A. NO. 55/2025 IN O.S. NO. 1/ 2006
PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
- I, KOLLAM
Annexure A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
11/09/2025 PREFERRED BY THE APPELLANT
NO.4 (GEETHA) AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS 8
& 9 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION
Annexure A4 THE TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF THE
BANK STATEMENTS OF THE APPELLANTS
ISSUED ON SEVERAL DATES IN THE YEAR
