IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 15TH BHADRA 1933 RP.No. 678 of 2011(C) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.18428/2011 Dated 18/08/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- GOPINATHAN NAIR,S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 40 YEARS,'GOPASADANAM',THATHAMALA, PERUMKADAVILA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695124(PRESIDENT, ADVISORY COMMITTEE(ADHOC),SHANKARANARAYANAPURAM SREE SANKARANARAYANA SWAMY TEMPLE,THATHAMALA, PERUMKADAVILA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 124). BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY SRI.A.S.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. V,THANKAPPAN PILLAI,VICE PRESIDENT SANAKARA NARAYANA SWAMY ,TEMPLE ACTION COMMITTEE, SHANKARANARAYANAPURAM. 2. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTATION BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT,NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEVASWOM COMMISSIIONER,DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE,NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DEPUTY DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER (ADMINISTRATION),DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, NANTHANCODE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. ASST.DEVASWOM OFFICER,NEYYATTINKARA GROUP,NEYYATTINKARA PO. 6. SUB GROUP OFFICER,OTTASEKHARAMANGALAM SUB GROUP,OTTASEKHARAMANGALAM,NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. R1 BY ADV.G.SUDHEER R2 TO R5 BY ADV.K.N.VENUGOPALA PANICKER THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ----------------------------------- R.P.No.678 OF 2011 IN W.P(C).No.18428 OF 2011 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of September, 2011 O R D E R Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J. 1.This review petition comes up with leave having been granted. By judgment dated 18.8.2011, the writ petition was ordered stating that on the face of Exts.P7 and P8, the Travancore Devaswom Board authorities have to ensure that no receipts for collection of funds, notices etc. shall come or be utilised except in accordance with the contents of Exts.P7 and P8. This review petition is filed pointing out, among other things, that different documents, including those issued by TDB authorities, would show that the contents of Exts.P7 and P8 are wrong. It is pointed out that even the reports of Board authorities and other materials produced along with the review petition sufficiently indicate this. RP.678/11 2 2.The immediate grievance of the review petitioner is that following the judgment, Annexure A3 has been issued on 18.8.2011 as if there are directions in the judgment touching the manner in which the temple has to be described in the receipts and other documents. This view of TDB is quite misplaced since the judgment does not contain any direction to that effect. 3.To resolve the controversy, we direct the parties to this matter to appear before the Devaswom Commissioner and place their rival views. The Commissioner will, thereupon, call for the necessary receipts, look into all relevant matters and issue appropriate supervisory orders, over and above the orders issued by any subordinate authority. Until then, no further action shall follow on the basis of Annexure A3 or similar notices. Let such decision be taken within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the materials that may be placed by the parties. The review petition is ordered accordingly. It is clarified that we have RP.678/11 3 not expressed anything on the merits of the rival contentions, either in this order or in the judgment sought to be reviewed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, Judge. kkb.7/9.