IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2009 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 33324 of 2009(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. R. REMA DEVI, THOTTAKATTU WARRIAM, THOTTAKAM.P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. G. RAMA VARIER, THOTTAKATTU WARRIAM, THOTTAKAM, NOW RESIDING AT P-25, LONG LIFE, BANGUR NAGAR, GOREGAON WEST, MUMBAI. BY ADV. SRI.D.SOMASUNDARAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, VAIKOM. 4. THE SUB GROUP OFFICER, THOTTAKAM SUBRAMANYA SWAMI TEMPLE, THRIPPAKKUDAM SUB GROUP, TRIPPAKKUDAM.P.O, VAIKOM. ADV. SRI.P.GOPAL FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.33324 OF 2009 (I) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T This writ petition concerns appointment of Kazhakam at Thottakam Sree Subramanya Swami Temple within the Vaikom Group. Second petitioner is the Kudumba Karanavar. By Ext.P1 he nominated the first Petitioner as the Karanma Kazhakam Despite Exts.P2 and P3 reminders no orders have been passed by the 2nd respondent on the nomination and therefore this writ petition is filed. 2. Standing counsel appearing for the respondents on instruction submit that, a member of the family viz. Sri. Vanugopal Varyar is presently working as the Karanma Kazhakam and that on receipt of certain complaints, notice has been issued to the 2nd petitioner to nominate another member from the family to replace him. It is submitted that though he nominated the first petitioner since the first petitioner is not a member of the family , respondents considered him to be ineligible. It is stated that in the meanwhile another member from the family submitted an application and that there upon the the 2nd petitioner's views were WPC.No. 33324/09 :2 : sought. However he insisted that the first petitioner should be appointed at least on temporary basis. It is stated that in view of the controversy, the matter has been reported to the 2nd respondent and that a decision in the matter is awaited. 3. As already stated, the petitioners' complaint is that Ext.P1 intimation is not acted upon by the 2nd respondent, despite Exts.P2 and P3. According to the respondents also matter is referred to the 2nd respondent. In the circumstances referred to above, it the for the 2nd respondent to finalize and decide the matter. 4. In view of the above, I dispose of this writ petition directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders in the matter and take appropriate decision as expeditiously as possible and at any ate within 2 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment, with notice to the petitioner. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No. 33324/09 :3 :