IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 16TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1152 of 2008(K) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- MANOJ KUMAR.K., AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.LATE PARAMESWARAN NAIR, KANDIYOUR HOUSE, KUMBLANGAD, KANJIRAKKODE POST, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. PRESIDENT, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM BOARD OFFICE, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR-680 001. 2. COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEVASWOM BOARD OFFICE, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR-680 001. 3. DEVASWOM OFFICER, KARUMARAKKAD DEVASWOM, VADAKKANCHERRI, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. KUMBLANGAD SREE KURUMAKAVU KSHETRA SAMITHI TRUST, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KUMBLANGAD, KANJIRAKKOD POST-680 590, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. KUTTAPPAN, S/O.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, THECHIKKOTTU HOUSE, KUMBLANGAD, KANJIRAKKOD POST-680 590, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP,SC,COCHIN D.B SRI.C.A.CHACKO --- R5 SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY --- R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/02/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO: 1152/2008 K APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1. COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED IN THE NOTICE BOARD OF THE TEMPLE OFFICE AND DT. 26/12/2007. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT. 29/12/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R3. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE MASS PETITION DT. 4/1/2008 SUBMITTED BY RESIDENTS OF THE LOCALITY BEFORE THE R1. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DT. 22/1/2008 GIVEN BY THE OORALAN OF KURUMAKKAVU BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS /ANNEXURE ANNEXURE-I: COPY OF THE LETTER DT. NIL TO THE DEVASWOM OFFICER, KARUMARAKKAD DEVASWOM. EXT.R5A. COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 31/12/2007 ISSUED BY THE DEVASWOM BOARD TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R5B. COPY OF THE RATION CARD OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.R5C. COPY OF THE ELECTION IDENTITY CARD OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.R5D. COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE THIRUVAMPADI TEMPLE FESTIVAL COMMITTEE TO THE PETITIONER. True copy tga V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.1152 of 2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of February, 2008. JUDGMENT The dispute in this case relates to the right claimed by the petitioner to act as “Velichappadu” of the Kumblangad Kurumakavu Bhagavathy Temple. According to the petitioner, his grandfather Velu Nair was the Velichappadu and thereafter his father Parameswaran Nair, who had apparently, performed his duties for 40 years. Parameswaran Nair passed away in November, 2007. Petitioner describes his right to act as Velichappadu in paragraph 2 of the writ petition as follows: “An Oracle is the one and only link between the deity and the residents of the Thattakam. The residents of the locality expressed their grievance to the deity through the Oracle and the deity speaks to her people through the Oracle. Hence an Oracle is a very important link between deity and her 'praja'. Hence it is most essential residents of the locality have faith and trust in the Oracle as well. It is for this reason that in all temples Oracle would be a person who is a local resident invariably discharging the duties W.P.(C).NO.1152/08 :: 2 :: hereditarily and would be known to the people living in the locality. In the case of Kurumakavu Bhagavathy Temple also the duties and rights of the Oracle having performed by the petitioner's forefathers in the paternal line.” 2. Petitioner submits that the Devaswom Board should have recognised him and his family to act as the Velichappadu of the temple. Nevertheless, the Board invited applications from other persons as per Ext.P1. It was with hesitation that the petitioner also replied as per Ext.P1(a). He submits that he may be appointed, taking note of the fact that his father Parameswaran Nair and his grandfather Velu Nair were acting as Velichappadu and that therefore, the family had the hereditary right to hold the post and perform the duties of Velichappadu. A selection was conducted by the Devaswom Board and ultimately, the 6th respondent was appointed as the Velichappadu. This is challenged by the petitioner. 3. A statement has been filed by the Secretary of the Devaswom Board and counter affidavits have been filed by respondents 4 and 5 and reply affidavits have been filed by the petitioner. W.P.(C).NO.1152/08 :: 3 :: 4. The petitioner claims the right to hold the post of Velichappadu on the premise that it is available to him as a hereditary right of the family. This is disputed by the Devaswom Board. The claimant should move the Civil Court for a declaration of his status and possibly for declaration of the right of the family as well. But, in the instant case, there is one aspect which apparently has not been taken note of by the Devaswom Board; that admittedly no person other than Parameswaran Nair functioned as Velichappadu during his life time and it seems, this is applicable during the life time of Velu Nair also. There seems to be some substance in the claim of the petitioner that for decades the right to act as Velichappadu has been exercised by a member of his family. 5. Mr.Gopalakrishna Kurup, learned counsel for the Devaswom Board submits, that by itself will not confer any right to act as a Velichappadu , as the hereditary right exercised by the family, nor does it mean that the right will be available to the family as such. He points out that the personal law applicable to the W.P.(C).NO.1152/08 :: 4 :: community, at least as it prevailed till 1976, a male lineal descendant could not have raised a claim as a member of the same family. Obviously, these are all aspects to be considered by a civil court. 6. But, as I noted above, the Devaswom Board could have first considered the right that was being exercised by his father and grandfather in the manner claimed by him and if so, whether it can be recognised as right by the Devaswom. It cannot be said that the Board is incompetent to decide at least for its satisfaction as to the existence of any such right. The Board has to necessarily to come to the conclusion that the right exercised by Parameswaran Nair and before him by Velu Nair was a right which was given to the family and they had exercised the right as a nominee of the family. I refrain from expressing any opinion at this stage. It is for the Board to take a decision. 7. The annual festival of the temple is to be held on 9th February, 2008. Apparently, on selection being conducted by the Devaswom Board, the 5th respondent is liable to offer his prayers and observe the W.P.(C).NO.1152/08 :: 5 :: Bhajanam before the deity for a period of 41 days, immediately preceding the festival. There was a dispute as to whether he actually is doing so. But, I am constrained to take note of the fact that petitioner's claim is not accepted by the Board and he has not been offering his prayers as such for the requisite mandatory 41 days Bhajanam prior to the commencement of the festival. This obviously is not in derogation of any right, but only due to the rejection of the application of the petitioner. 8. After hearing counsel on both sides, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms: (a) The 2nd respondent Devaswom Board shall, after issuing notice to the petitioner and the 5th respondent, conduct an enquiry into the right and duties of Velichappadu in the Kumblangad Kurumakavu Bhagavathy Temple and whether it is a right which is available to the family of the petitioner, his father Parameswaran W.P.(C).NO.1152/08 :: 6 :: Nair and Parameswaran Nair's father Velu Nair. (b) If it is so found by the Board, after due enquiry, the Board shall take a decision on the question as to whether the right could be recognised as the hereditary right available to the family of the petitioner. (c) If the Board finds in favour of the petitioner, a decision may be taken as to recognise such a right of the petitioner, subject to the eligibility of the petitioner being verified by the Board in a manner which is considered as a reasonable and appropriate by the competent officer. (d) The entire process outlined above shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (e) It is made clear that the performance of duties as Velichappadu by the 5th respondent for the current year shall W.P.(C).NO.1152/08 :: 7 :: be treated as provisional and will not confer, by itself, any right on the 5th respondent. (f) Any right of the 5th respondent will be subject to the decision to be taken by the Board in the manner directed above. (g) In conducting the enquiry, as mentioned above, it will be appropriate to seek the opinion of the “thanthri Ooralan” or any other competent person, as a body of individuals. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy//