IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2008 / 13TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 378 of 2008(T) ------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------ 1. O.NARAYANAN, S/O.ACHUTHAN NAIR, "SOUPARNIKA", PORT AVENUE, KUMBALAM VILLAGE, PANANGAD. 2. P.UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, "PALAYIL", PORT AVENUE, KUMBALAM VILLAGE, PANANGAD. 3. V.M.GOPALANKUTTY MENON, S/O.MADHAVA MENON, "GOPALAM" KUMBALAM VILLAGE, PANANGAD. 4. K.NARAYANIKUTTY, W/O.NARAYANAN, "SOUPARNIKA" PORT AVENUE, KUMBALAM VILLAGE, PANANGAD. 5. C.V.RAJAN, S/O.KUNHIKANNA KURUP, "RAGAM" KUMBALAM VILLAGE, PANANGAD. 6. GEETHA RAJAN, W/O.C.V.RAJAN, "RAGAM", KUMBALAM VILLAGE, PANANGAD. 7. N.SOBHANA, W/O.MOHANDAS, 8/27B, VILLANCHIRA PORT COLONY, KUMBALAM VILLAGE, PANANGAD. 8. K.G.KAMALA KUMAR, S/O.GANGADHARA PILLAI, KAMAL THENGUMPILLIL, KUMBALAM VILLAGE, PANANGAD. 9. BABY, W/O.UNNIKRISHNAN, "SAROVARAM", KUMBALAM VILLAGE, PANANGAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR - REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. -2- W.P.(C).No.378/2008 2. KAMOTH DEVASWOM, KAMOTH TEMPLE, PANANGAD - REPRESENTED BY ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER, K.JAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 3. ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER/RETURNING OFFICER, KAMOTH DEVASWOM, PANANGAD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & V. K. MOHANAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) NO. 378 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2008. J U D G M E N T Raman, J. This writ petition is filed seeking appropriate directions to be issued to Respondents 2 and 3 to include the petitioners and their family members in the voters list and to permit them to cast their votes in the ensuing election to the Managing Committee of the Kamoth Devaswom, Panangad , Ernakulam and for a direction to the Commissioner appointed by this court to conduct the election directly and to avert interference of the then Secretary to the Devaswom Committee, who is now acting as a Manager. 2. This Court, as per the order in an earlier writ petition - W.P.(C) 21644/2005, had appointed a senior counsel as the Commissioner to conduct the election as well as to administer the temple till the election is conducted and to hand over charge to the newly elected Board. The said order was passed in the writ petition filed by the Devaswom Committee challenging an order passed by the Cochin Devaswom Board in the matter of appointing an Interim Trustee to administer the temple. Pursuant to the judgment Ext.P4 passed by this Court, the Commissioner has published the WP(C) 378/2008 :2: voters' list. Petitioners, nine in number, whose names were not found in the voters list, raised their objection before the Commissioner, who in turn asked the petitioners to produce their SSLC Book to take a decision as to whether they should be included in the voters list. According to the petitioners, the view taken by the Commissioner is that the only piece of evidence on which they could prove to be residents of the locality is the SSLC certificate and according to them, even persons who do not belong to Panangad are entitled to be included in the voters list provided they belong to a Nair Family residing in Panangad at the time of preparation of voters list. According to the petitioners, they have purchased properties and are permanently residing in Panangad for several years which fact can be proved by evidence such as ration card, voters list etc. 3. In the light of the above submission made in the writ petition, we gave notice to the Commissioner and we heard him. It is submitted that non inclusion of the petitioners name is not due to the non production of the SSLC Book. But the fact is that there was no materials produced before the Commissioner to show that they belong to Nair Families of Panangad. In this connection, he placed reliance on an amendment made to the Scheme Ext.P2 by the Cochin Devaswom Board by which persons who married members of the Nair Family who are existing members of the Kamoth WP(C) 378/2008 :3: Devaswom and those who attained the age of 21 and above and their children who attained the age of 21 are entitled to be included as members of the General Body of the Commoth Devaswom and they have the right to vote. Hence, according to the Commissioner, those who have migrated to the place and subsequently started residing there may not be entitled to be included in the voters list. 4. According to the counsel for the petitioner, as per Clause 42 of the Scheme Ext.P1 there is no warrant for such an interpretation and according to him, whoever is the residence of Panangad at the time of the preparation of the electoral roll and belonging to Nair Family are entitled to be included in the voters list. Therefore, the whole matter rest on the interpretation of Clause 42 of the Scheme. As per Clause 61 of the Scheme, whenever there is any dispute regarding the interpretation or execution of the conditions of the Scheme or any doubt thereon, power is conferred on the Cochin Devaswom Board to take a decision and their decision would be final. Thus, the scheme itself provided the remedy to resolve the disputes relating to the interpretation of the clause containing in the Scheme. Petitioners are bound by Clause 61 and therefore without recourse to the remedy so provided under the Scheme and bye-passing such remedy, they cannot straight away approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of WP(C) 378/2008 :4: India, seeking for interpretation of the bye-law. 5. We have heard Counsel Sri. Kurup on behalf of Cochin Devaswom Board. As regards the second prayer is concerned, since this Court has appointed the Commissioner to conduct the election, we have no doubt in our mind that the Commissioner will conduct the election and take decision independently without being interfered with by anybody. In such circumstances, the right of the petitioners to approach the Cochin Devaswom Board for resolution of the dispute irising out of the interpretation placed to Clause 42 or any other dispute, as the case may be is left open. We decline to interfere in the matter at this stage, rather leave open the right of the petitioner to invoke the remedy provided under Clause 61 of the Bye-law for resolution of the dispute. If a petition is received by the Cochin Devaswom Board in this regard, the same shall be considered and disposed of within ten days of receipt of the same. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this order before the Cochin Devaswom Board for information and compliance. P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) V. K. MOHANAN, (JUDGE) knc/-