IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 24TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 35070 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ MANOJ KUMAR.K., S/O.LATE PARAMESWARAN NAIR, KANDIYOOR HOUSE, KUMBLANGAD, KANJIRAKKODE POST, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. P.K.SURESH KUMAR MR. SANTHEEP ANKARATH RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEVASWOM BOARD OFFICE, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR 680 001. 2. KARUMAKKAD DEVASWOM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VADAKKANCHERRI, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. KEEZHMUNDAYOOR PARAMESWARAN NAMBOOTHIRIPAD, "THANTHRI", KURUMAKKAVU TEMPLE, KANJIRAKKOD P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. KUTTAPPAN, S/O.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, THECHIKKOTTU HOUSE, KUMBLANGAD, KANJIRAKKOD POST 680 590, THRISSUR DISTRICT. R1 BY MR. K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, SC, COCHIN D.B R3 BY MR. MADHU N.NAMBOOTHIRIPAD R4 BY MR. C.A.CHACKO THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 35070 of 2008(Y) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.02.2008 IN W.P.(C).No.1152/2008 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. P2: COPY OF THE NOTICE OF HEARING DATED 07.06.2008 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE SECRETARY OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BOARD. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER No.M4.4991/08 DATED 13.11.2008 ISSUED BY SECRETARY OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BOARD. P4: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01.08.2008 OF OORALAN SRI.NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRIPPAD. P5: COPY OF THE MASS PETITION DATED 25.07.2008 SUBMITTED BY RESIDENTS OF THE LOCALITY. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: R-1(a): COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT. R-4(a): COPY OF THE ELECTION I.D.CARD OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. R-4(b): COPY OF THE RATION OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. R-4(c): COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THIRUVAMPADI TEMPLE FESTIVAL COMMITTEE TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE kkms/ V.GIRI, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = W.P.(C). No. 35070 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of September 2009. JUDGMENT The dispute in this writ petition relates to the claim made by the petitioner for appointment as a 'Velichappadu' in a temple administered by the Cochin Devaswom Board. Petitioner asserts that the right to act as a Velichappadu in the Kumblangad Kurumakavu Bhagavathy Temple is a customary right, available to his family with his grandfather Velu Nair performing as a Velichappadu and thereafter his father Parameswaran Nair performed the duty for 40 years till his death. According to the petitioner, on the death of Parameswaran Nair, the Devaswom Board should have recognized the petitioner's right to act as a Velichappadu of the temple. The Board nevertheless invited applications from interested persons and this was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.1162/2008. After hearing both sides, this Court disposed of the said writ petition by Ext.P1 judgment issuing comprehensive directions to the Board to issue notice to the petitioner and the 5th respondent (4th respondent herein), conduct an enquiry as to the right and duties of the Velichappadu in the Kumblangadu Kurumakavu Bhagavathy Temple and ascertain whether it is a right that is available to the W.P.(C). No. 35070 OF 2008 2 family of the petitioner. Board was also to take a decision on the question as to whether the right could be recognized as a hereditary right available to the family of the petitioner. 2. Pursuant to the directions, an enquiry was conducted by the Law Officer of the Board, as specifically authorized by the Board. He submitted a report inter alia finding that there are no materials to find whether the right to act as a Velichappadu in the temple is a hereditary and customary right of the members of the petitioner's family. The report was accepted by the Board which passed Ext.P3 order in affirmation of the same. Ext.P3 has been challenged in this writ petition. 3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent and also by the contesting 4th respondent. 4. I heard Counsel on both sides. 5. The report of the Law Officer which was drawn up after an enquiry in terms of the direction issued by this Court has been placed on record as Ext.R1(a). The perusal of Ext.R1(a) will show that no materials were placed on record by the petitioner to clearly indicate that the right to act as a Velichappadu was a Karaima or customary right of the petitioner's family. The Law W.P.(C). No. 35070 OF 2008 3 Officer also enquired with the Ooralan and Thanthri. It was also found therein that the Parameswaran Nair, petitioner's father also was appointed as a Velichappadu not in recognition of a Karaima right of the family. Marumakkathayam system was prevailing in the community earlier. This was also taken note of and if that be so, according to the Law Officer, the Karaima right if any should have devolved in the female line of descend and not from Velu Nair to Parameswaran Nair. 6. Essentially a detailed enquiry as to whether the right to act as a Velichappadu has the characteristics of a customary right is that which could be enquired into and found only by a Civil Court, wherein evidence could be adduced. The directions issued by this Court in Ext.P1 judgment only contemplated an enquiry at the level of the Devaswom Board meaning thereby that if there are clinching materials to indicate that the right to act as a Velichappadu in the temple in question was, without break, availed as a customary right by any family, and if that position is affirmatively found the Board, then the petitioner's case can be accepted. But in the present case, according to the Board, there are no materials to indicate the existence of a W.P.(C). No. 35070 OF 2008 4 customary right as pleaded by the Petitioner. An elaborate enquiry and a finding on the basis of the same, as to the existence or otherwise of a customary right, can be done only by a Civil Court which is properly moved in that regard. 7. I do not find any grounds to interfere with Ext.P3 order on the basis of the materials available on record. 8. I these circumstances, if the petitioner moves the Civil Court for the declaration that the right to act as the Velichappadu in the Kumblangad Kurumakavu Bhagavathy Temple is a customary right that is available to his family, then the Civil Court shall consider the same untrammeled by what has been found in Ext.P3 order in Ext.R1(a). It is further made clear that the parties shall not be bound by the finding in Ext.R1(a) and Ext.P3 in this regard. Subject to the above, writ petition is disposed of. (V.GIRI) JUDGE kkms/