IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2011 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32631 of 2011(D) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- R.RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.LATE SHRI.C.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, MANIYEDATH PUTHANKALAM, POST ELAMBULASSERY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 595. BY ADVS. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.R.SREEHARI RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE-673 006. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE-673 006. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-678 001. 4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SHREE NALUSSERY BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM, ELAMBULASSERY POST, PALAKKAD-678 595. 5. THE MANAGING TRUSTEE, SHREE NALUSSERY BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM, ELAMBULASSERY POST, PALAKKAD-678 595. R1-3 BY ADV. SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYANAN,SC,MALABAR DEVA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 32631/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 9.8.2009 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO K.KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR. P2: COPY OF THE REPLY LAWYER NOTICE SENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 11.8.2009. P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 8.8.2011 SENT BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.J-5/1601/2011/MDB/K DIS DATED 11.10.2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & C.T.Ravikumar, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.32631 of 2011-D = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 14th day of December, 2011. Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 by which the Malabar Devaswom Commissioner has issued an order approving the temporary recruitment against certain categories. The petitioner does not belong to those who could aspire to any of those posts. He is only a devotee. He points out that in terms of Ext.P2, certain matters in connection with the temple in question have to be carried out by members of certain families. Petitioner does not claim to be a member of any of those families. Under such circumstances, we find no locus-standi for the petitioner to challenge Ext.P4 merely on the ground that he is a devotee. The writ petition is dismissed without prejudice WPC32631/11 -: 2 :- to the petitioner's right, if any, as a devotee to point out to the Commissioner any matter relating to the audit. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan Judge C.T.Ravikumar Judge Sha/1512