IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2011 / 8TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 15757 of 2011(T) ---------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- KRISHNAN.C.S, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.SANKARA NARAYANAN `SHANTI', VAYILLAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM VAKA SIVA KSHETHRAM, KADAMPAZHIPURAM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, PALAKKAD. 3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, VAYAILLAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM, KADAMPAZHIPURAM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REVENUE (DEVASWOM) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. SANDESH RAJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 15757 of 2011(T) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.12.95 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT EXECUTIVE OFFICER CONFIRMING THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER AS SHANTI OF THE TEMPLE WITH EFFECT FROM 1.7.94. EXT.P2 : PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SALARY SCHEDULE OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE TEMPLE. EXT.P3 : PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. H 41665/09/M.D.B. OF THE COMMISSIONER DATED 18.3.2009. EXT.P4 : PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER G.O.(MS) NO. 116/2009/RD DT. 28.2.09. EXT.P5 : PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER G.O.(MS) NO. 83/2009/RD DATED 2.10.09. EXT.P6 : PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 3.9.10. EXT.P7 : PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 4.4.2009. EXT.P8 : PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25.6.2009. EXT.P9 : PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 8.12.2009. EXT.P10 : PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 28655/2010 DATED 16.9.2010. EXT.P11 : PHOTOSTAT COPY OF ORDER NO. A1/5436/2010/MDB DATED 7.2.2011. EXT.P12 : TYPED COPY OF THE REVISION FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 28.2.2011 WITHOUT THE DOCUMENTS ENCLOSED. EXT.P13 : COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN R.P.4/2011 DATED 11.5.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.15757 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner in this writ petition is working as a Santhi in Sree Vayillamkunnu Bhagavathy Devaswom Vaka Siva Temple, which is under the control and supervision of the Malabar Devaswom Board. In respect of certain grievances regarding his service against Ext.P11 order of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed R.P. No.4/2011 before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent rejected the same by Ext.P13 order which reads as follows: “Heard the Counsel for the revision petitioner. The matter in this petition pertains to service condition of a temple employee. Hence it is not maintainable. The petitioner is directed to seek administrative remedies if interested. The Revision Petition is dismissed” The petitioner is challenging the same. According to the petitioner, under Section 18 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1951, a revision is maintainable against the orders of the Assistant Commissioner. W.P.(C)No.15757 of 2011 -2- 2. I have heard the learned standing counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board also. Section 18 reads thus: 18. Power of Commissioner to call for records and pass orders:- (1) The Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any Deputy or Assistant Commissioner, of any Area Committee, or of any trustee not being the trustee of a math or of a specific endowment attached to a math, in respect of any proceeding under this Act (not being a proceeding in respect of which a suit or an appeal to a Court is provided by this Act), to satisfy himself as to the regularity of such proceeding, or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order passed therein. (2) If any such decision or order has been passed by any Deputy or Assistant Commissioner, or by the trustee of any religious institution other than one included in the list published under section 38, and it appears to the Commissioner that the decision or order should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, he may pass orders accordingly. (3) (a) If any such decision or order has been passed by any Area Committee or by the trustee of any religious institution included in the list published under section 38, the Commissioner may, if he thinks fit, remit the matter together with his observations in regard thereto, to the Committee or trustee for reconsideration of the decision or order and report to the Commissioner within a time to be specified by him in this behalf. (b) On receipt of, and after considering, such report, it shall be open to the Commissioner to modify, annul or reverse the decision or order, or the decision or order as revised after such reconsideration, as the case may be. (c) If the report is not received by the Commissioner within the time specified or such further time as may be granted by him the Commissioner may modify, annul or reverse the decision or order of the Area Committee or trustee, as the case may be. W.P.(C)No.15757 of 2011 -3- (4) The Commissioner shall not pass any order prejudicial to any party under sub-section (2) or clause(b) or clause (c) of sub-section (3), without hearing him or giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (5) The Commissioner may stay the execution of any decision or order of the nature referred to in sub-section (1), pending the exercise of his powers under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) in respect thereof. From the same, it is abundantly clear that from every orders of the Assistant Commissioner a revision would lie to the Commissioner and service matters are not excluded from its purview. That being so, Ext.P13 is clearly unsustainable. Accordingly Ext.P13 is quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to re-consider R.P. No.4/2011 on merits and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/