IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2011 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 60 of 2007(F) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- VADANAPPILLY BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE, VADANAPPILLY, TRICHUR, REPRESENTED ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE, PULLAKKUZHI BALAN KAIMAL. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER, H.R. & C.E. (ADMINISTRATION), CIVIL STATION, CALICUT. *ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED *R2: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HR & CE, THIRUR. * ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 8/4/08 IN I.A.NO.4829/2008. BY ADV.SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.60/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11/10/2004 ISSUED BY THE ASST.COMMISSIONER, HR & CE. P2 COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 29/10/2004. P3 COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN O.P.8803/88 DATED 05/09/2000. P4 COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 20/12/2004 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. P5 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30/10/2006. P6 COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.A4-3070/04 DATED 15/03/2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 60 of 2007 ================== Dated this the 21st day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T By Ext.P5, an amount of ` 51,932/- has been demanded as audit fees stated to be payable by the petitioner to the Malabar Devaswom Board. The petitioner filed this writ petition on the ground that Ext.P5 demand notice is not maintainable, since the petitioner temple is not a public temple, which alone is liable to pay audit fees under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The respondents take the stand that the particular temple has been notified as a public temple in the year 1994, which notification stands unchallenged even today, which position has been taken note of by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C).No.180/2005 filed by the petitioner temple itself. Now the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in Ext.P5 itself the petitioner has been given an opportunity to object to the liability to pay or the quantum demanded in Ext.P5 and, therefore, the petitioner may be given that opportunity as provided in Ext.P5 itself. 2. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Malabar Devaswom Board also. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: The petitioner may file their objections to Ext.P5 as permitted w.p.c.60/07 - : 2 :- therein, within two weeks from today. The 1st respondent shall consider and pass orders on the same, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of the objections, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge