IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2011 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 24812 of 2010(B) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. P.K. KRISHNAN NAIR, S/O.LATE SANKARAN NAIR, AGED 65 YEARS, PALLIKKUTH HOUSE, VATTATHUR, CHERUVAYUR P.O., MALAPPURAM-673 645. 2. P.K. GOPALAN, KODAMPARAMBIL, CHERUVAYOOR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 645. BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN, SMT.P.G.BABITHA. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-673 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE-673 001. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 001. 4. RAMAN. P., POOCHATHODI HOUSE, VATTATHUR, CHERUVAYUR P.O., MALAPPURAM-673 645. 5. VISWANATHAN.P., PRANASSERI, CHERUVAYUR, VATTATHUR P.O., MALAPPURAM-673 645. WP(C).No. 24812 of 2010(B) 6. MANNARAKKAL KARUNAKARAN, PALLIKKUTH HOUSE, VATTATHUR, CHERUVAYUR P.O., VAZHAKKAD, MALAPPURAM-673 645. 7. ARMUGHAN, PRANASSERI HOUSE, VETTATHUR, CHERUVAYUR P.O., VAZHAKKAD, MALAPPURAM-673 645. 8. PRABHAKARAN. P., PRANASSERI HOUSE, VETTATHUR, CHERUVAYUR P.O., VAZHAKKAD, MALAPPURAM-673 645. 9. V. GOVINDAKUTTY NAIR, AJITH VIHAR, VETTATHUR, CHERUVAYUR P.O., VAZHAKKAD, MALAPPURAM-673 645. 10. A. KUNHAN, S/O.THAMU, PRANASSERI HOUSE, CHERUVAYUR P.O., MALAPPURAM-673 645. 11. K.C.K. RAJA, NIVASAM, FAROOK COLLEGE P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 632. 12. AREA COMMITTEE, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE-673 001. R1 TO R3 & R12 BY ADV. SMT.R.RANJINI. R4 TO R8 BY ADV. SRI.M.G.ASHOKAN.. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 24812 of 2010(B) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A2-2385/2007 DATED 22/04/2008. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER IN RP.NO.11/2008 DATED 18/07/2008. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25/09/2008 BEARING NO.A2.2391/08/K.DIS. DATED 25/09/2008. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REVISION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE H.R. & C.E. ACT BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER, H.R. & C.E., KOZHIKODE. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER, H.R. & C.E., KOZHIKODE IN I.A. NO.27/2008 IN R.P.NO.31/2008 DATED 07/10/2008. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 33233/2008. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/07/2010 IN RP. NO.31/2008. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE H.R. & C.E. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT PREFERRED BY THE NON HEREDITARY TRUSTEE. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & S.S.Satheesachandran, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.24812 of 2010-B = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 9th day of March, 2011. Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. The petitioner challenges a decision passed by the Commissioner of MDB under Section 18 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. That decision was rendered by the Commissioner on a revision filed against the decision of an Area Committee followed by the action taken by the Assistant Commissioner. The order of the Commissioner is revisable at the hands of the State Government under Section 99 of that Act. Sub-section 1 of Section 99 provides authority for the State Government to call for and examine the records of the Board or Commissioner or any Deputy or Assistant Commissioner, or of any trustee in respect of any WPC24812/10 -: 2 :- proceeding, except those that could be subjected to a suit or an appeal in a court in terms of the provisions of the Act. That authority of the State Government is to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order. The State Government is empowered to modify, annul, reverse or remit for reconsideration. Sub- section 2 of Section 99 empowers the State Government specifically to pass orders of stay of execution of any decision or order, pending the exercise of power under sub-section 1 of Section 99. The petitioner is unable to point out that this statutory remedy cannot be treated as the efficacious one. That is a statutory remedy. Without exhausting it, the petitioner cannot move for the issuance of a writ without demonstrating any of the recognized norms for invoking such authority. No such norm is established. The writ petition has, therefore, to be treated as unnecessary on issue of maintainability in the light of the said statutory remedy. WPC24812/10 -: 3 :- However, we do find that this writ petition stands with an interim order from 12.8.2010 to the effect that Exts.P3 and P7 shall stand stayed. We extend that order for a period of three weeks to enable the petitioner to file appropriate revision before the Government and also seek any interlocutory order, if so advised. We hasten to add that we have not expressed anything on merits and all issues are left open for consideration by the State Government. The writ petition ordered accordingly. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. S.S.Satheesachandran, Judge. Sha/1503