IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 21ST MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4243 of 2010(O) ------------------------- CMA.13/2010 of DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR OS.476/2009 of M.C.,VADAKKANCHERRY .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ MANOJ KUMAR.K., AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.KANDIYUR LATE PARAMESWARAN NAIR, KUMBALANGAD DESOM, WADAKKANCHERY VILLAGE, TALAPPILLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. PRESIDENT, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD OFFICE, TOWN NORTH, THRISSUR. 2. SECRETARY, -DO- -DO- 3. DEVASWOM OFFICER, KARUMARAKKAD DEVASWOM, VADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. SECRETARY, SREE KURUMAKAVU KSHETHRA SAMITHY TRUST, KUMBALANGAD, KANJIRAKODE P.O. 5. KUTTAPPAN, S/O.PARAMESWARAN, THECHIKKOTT HOUSE, -DO- -DO- THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(c).No.4243 of 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10 thday of February, 2010 JUDGMENT Consequent on the death of the writ petitioner's father who was the Oracle (വളചപട ) of the Kumbalangad Sree Kurumakavu Bhagavathy Temple, the Cochin Devaswam Boad decided to appoint a new Oracle. Accordingly, applications were invited. An interview was conducted and the 5th respondent, Kuttappan was eventually appointed by the Devaswam Board as the Oracle. The said decision was challenged before this Court by the petitioner who is the son of the previous Oracle by filing W.P.(c)No.1152/2008, contending that he had a right to be appointed as the Oracle since the said post was a hereditary post. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 5.2.2008 as per Ext.P3 judgment in which the Devaswam Board was directed to conduct an enquiry as to whether the post of Oracle was hereditary or otherwise, after hearing the W.P.(c)No.4243 of 2010 2 petitioner as well as the 5th respondent. Accordingly, the 1st respondent conducted an enquiry and it was found that the office of the Oracle of the said temple was not a hereditary post and that the petitioner was not entitled to stake his claim. Thereafter, the Board issued an order appointing 5th respondent as the Oracle of the temple. The writ petitioner again challenged the said order in W.P.(c)No.35070 of 2008. It is admitted that the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court holding that the remedy of the petitioner was to approach the Civil Court for a declaration. Thereafter, the petitioner filed O.S.No.476 of 2009 before the Munsiff's Court, Wadakkancherry seeking a declaration of the hereditary right claimed by him and also for a mandatory injunction directing the Board to appoint the petitioner as the Oracle. Pending the said suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.2143 of 2009 seeking a temporary injunction restraining the Devaswam Board from appointing the 5th respondent or anybody else as the Oracle of the said temple. As per Ext.P6 order dated 2.12.2009, the learned W.P.(c)No.4243 of 2010 3 Munsiff allowed the application as follows:- 1. The President of the Cochin Devaswom Board and its Secretary are restrained by an order of temporary injunction from appointing 5th respondent or anybody else to the post of Velichappad at the temple and from allowing to undergo the Kalasham ceremony so as to assume the post of Velichappad till the disposal of the suit. 2. Secretary of the Cochin Devaswom Board will be entitled to authorise any competent person to perform the duties of Velichappad as interim arrangement till the disposal of the suit. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that aggrieved by the above order the 5th respondent has filed C.M.A No.13 of 2010 before the District Court, Thrissur and has obtained Ext.P9 order of stay of operation of Ext.P6 order passed by the learned Munsiff without notice to the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions of the petitioner that the post of Oracle W.P.(c)No.4243 of 2010 4 being a hereditary post, the petitioner has got a rightful claim to the post and that when he had already staked his claim, the Devaswom Board was not justified in appointing the 5th respondent as the Oracle to the extreme prejudice of the petitioner, that the learned Munsiff had passed a considered order granting an interim injunction as prayed for by the petitioner and there was no justification for the lower appellate court to stay the operation of the said order. 4. I am not going into the merits of the case. The main issue pending before the Civil Court is as to whether the post of Oracle in the aforementioned temple is a hereditary post or not. That is an issue which has to be decided after adducing evidence during trial. The very fact that this Court drove the petitioner to the Civil Court to get an adjudication of the said issue and obtain a declaration in support of the claim made by him, indicates that the matter requires deeper consideration at the hands of the Civil Court. When the very same issue was pending trial W.P.(c)No.4243 of 2010 5 before the Civil Court, it cannot be pre-judged by passing any interim order particularly when the 5th respondent has been appointed by the Devaswom Board and his appointment is subject to the final result of the suit. The only course now open to this Court is to direct the trial court to dispose of the suit expeditiously, so that the aforesaid issue can be finally resolved and a finding entered either way, after giving both sides an opportunity of being heard. Even the trial court has observed towards the end of paragraph 17 of Ext.P6 order that if both sides so desire, the trial of the suit itself can be expedited and the dispute can be finally settled. Taking the cue from the said observation, I consider it necessary to expedite the final disposal of the suit so that the controversy could be finally resolved. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the trial court to dispose of the suit expeditiously and at any rate before the end of January 2011. Dated this the 10th day of February, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj