IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 33223 of 2008(E) OS.1/2006 OF DISTRICT COURT COURT, KOLLAM PETITIONER: --------------- V.P.S MENON ,S/O.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, VAIKKTHETHU (SOUBHAGYA),ADINADU THEKKU KARA, KATTIL KADAVU POST, KARUNAGAPPILLY,KOLLAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. OACHIRA PARABHRAHMA KSHETHRAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TEMPLE ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD,OACHIRA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. N.R.RAJENDRAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN NADASSERIL HOUSE, THEKKU KOCHUMURI, OACHIRA ,KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. S.JAYAPRAKASH, S/O.SREEDHARAN KALARIKKAL, KADATHOOR, K.S. PURAM PO. 4. C.HARISANKAR, S/O.CELLAPPAN PILLAI PADINILATHU, THEKKU KOCHUMURI, OACHIRA,KOLLAM DISTRICT. 5. PUSHPANGADAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN 'CHAITHANYA' CHERAVALLY, KAYAMKULAM. 6. ASHOK KUMAR, S/O.NANU CHATHAVANA,MADATHIL KARAZHMA P.O. 7. PRASANNAN, OMKARA NILAYAM VARAVILA P.O., VAVVAKKADU, CLAPPANA. 8. G.VIJAYANATHA KURUP, THOTTATHIL VEEDU, PAIKUZHI. OACHIRA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 9. DAMODHARAN UNNITHAN MALAYIL KANDATHIL, NOORANADU P.O., MAVELIKKARA. 10. K.BHARGAVAN, S/O.KRISHNAN SECRETARY, OACHIRA PARABRAHMA KSHETHRAM MUTTATHU, PRAYAR THEKKU,ALUMPEEDIKA P.O. 11. ARAMPIL SUKUMARAN UNNITHAN S/O.NEELAKANDAN UNNITHAN PRESIDENT, OACHIRA PARABRAHMA KSHETHRAM KARIMUTTATH,KATTACHIRA, PALLICHIRA P.O. 12. V.SUNILKUMAR, TREASURER OACHIRA PARABRAHMA KSHETHRAM,EDATHURUTHIL, ALLAPPADU, CHERIAZHEEKKAL P.O. 13. R.BHASKARA KURUP,S/O.RAGHAVA KURUP, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER OACHIRA PARABRAHMA KSHETHRAM, PANAMPLAVIL THEKKU KOCHUMURI,OACHIRA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. 14. V.SADASIVAN, S/O. VASUKUTTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER OACHIRA PARABRAHMA KSHETHRAM, KIDASSERIL PUTHEN VEEDU, PRAYAR NORTH P.O. 15. MADHAVAN PILLAI, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER OACHIRA KSHETHRAM, MENEZHTHU, VAYANAKATHU NJAKKANAL P.O. 16. DR. SIVARAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, MANAGING DIRECTOR, OACHIRA PARABHRAHMA SPECIALITY HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE,OACHIRA,KOLLAM DISTRICT 17. OACHIRA PARABHRAHMA SPECIALITY HOSPITAL REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, OACHIRA,KOLLAM. 18. THE RETURNING OFFICER OACHIRA PARABHRAHMA KSHETHRA POTHU BHARANA ELECTION, OACHIRA. R8 AND R9 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SREEKUMAR R1 AND R2 BY ADV.SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR SMT.LALIZA.T.Y. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.1/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM DATED 10.6.2005. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BYELAWS OF THE COMMITTEE DT.3.9.1999. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE RETURNING OFFICER IN O.S.NO.1/2006 BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM DATED 9.7.2008. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.1273/2008 IN O.S.1/2006, DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM DATED NIL. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.1207/2008 IN O.S.NO.1/2006 DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM BY RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6 DATED JULY, 2008. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT BY THE 13TH RESPONDENT TO THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE RETURNING OFFICER. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KOLLAM IN I.A.NO.1207/2008 AND CONNECTED IAS IN O.S.NO.1/2006, DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM DATED 15.10.2008. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R9(1) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2.12.2006. EXT.R9(2) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.10.2008. EXT.R9(3) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 17.6.2008 PUBLISHED BY THE ELECTION STEERING COMMITTEE. //TRUE COPY// AHZ/ K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 33223 OF 2008 E ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th February, 2009 JUDGMENT Respondents 2 to 6 in this Writ Petition and four others filed O.S.No.1 of 2006, on the file of the Court of the District Judge, Kollam, for framing a scheme for the administration of Sree Oachira Parabrahma Temple. The suit is pending. A learned District Judge was appointed as the Returning Officer for conducting election to the General Council consisting of 261 members and election to the Executive Committee (Pravarthaka Samithi) consisting of 61 members. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that 52 karas in Karunagappilly, Karthikappilly and Mavelikkara Taluks constitute the area of operation of the Committee. The general council of the Temple Committee consists of 261 members. 238 members are to be elected from 52 karas. Out of the 238 members, two members represent the two Sthani families. 23 members are to be nominated by the elected 238 members to induct members of W.P.(C) NO.33223 OF 2008 :: 2 :: other communities who are not properly represented. The Executive Committee, as stated earlier, consists of 61 members. Each kara has to elect one representative from among their council members to be their representative in the Executive Committee and thus 52 members come in the Executive Committee. The two Sthani members and seven members from other communities are the other members of the Executive Committee. The bye-laws also provide that 40% of the Executive Committee members would be members belonging to Nair Community, 40% from Ezhava Community, 10% from Araya Community and 10% from other communities. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the percentage of community was maintained hitherto by electing 22 Nair members, two Sthani Nair members, 24 Ezhava members, 6 Araya members and 7 other community members. 3. The election in the karas would be conducted by first deciding whether the kara belongs to a Nair kara or Ezhava kara. This is decided depending on the total strength of the Nair community members or Ezhava community members in that kara. Once it is found that a particular kara has Nair community members in majority, it would be treated as a Nair kara and only members of W.P.(C) NO.33223 OF 2008 :: 3 :: the Nair community will be allowed to contest the election from that kara. Similar is the treatment in respect of treating a kara as Ezhava kara. All the members of the kara irrespective of community will have the right to vote. The Returning Officer appointed by the Court found that the community equilibrium has changed now and there are only 21 karas having majority of Nair members. 25 karas have Ezhava majority. The Returning Officer thought that the percentage of members in the Executive Committee could be maintained only after deciding the question as to which 24 karas should be treated as Ezhava kara out of the 25 karas having Ezhava majority. The Returning Officer thought that the kara having lesser number of difference between Nair and Ezhava members could be treated as a kara for the purpose of earmarking the particular kara which is to be treated as a Nair kara. The Returning Officer then found that Adinadu Thekku kara is having lesser difference in numbers between Nair and Ezhava community members when compared to the other karas. He submitted a report to the Court seeking directions. The court below considered the report submitted by the Returning Officer and found that the particular Nair kara shall be the Kara where least number of Ezhava members are available out of the total karas. That means, it is not the difference in the number of W.P.(C) NO.33223 OF 2008 :: 4 :: members that is relevant, according to the Court, but the total number of members in the community that is relevant. The petitioner is aggrieved by non-acceptance of the report submitted by the Returning Officer. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order by which the court below took a view different from the view taken by the Returning Officer. 4. It is submitted by Sri.T.Krishnanunni, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the court below has not stated any reason for not accepting the report of the Returning Officer. It is also pointed out that the difference in the number of members belonging to the communities would be a better criterion to select the particular kara as Nair or Ezhava kara. He also pointed out that the court below has not stated any reason for rejecting the suggestion made by the Returning Officer, either. 5. Advocate Sri.K.P.Sreekumar, appearing for respondents 8 and 9, who represent the Sthani Nairs, submits that the term of the previous Committee expired in 2005 and in spite of the expiry of the term, that Committee was allowed to function as Receivers by the orders of the Court. Learned counsel also submitted that it is W.P.(C) NO.33223 OF 2008 :: 5 :: necessary to resolve all the issues in the suit including the question which is raised by the petitioner in this Writ Petition. 6. No respondent who wants to support the view taken by the court below has appeared in the Writ Petition. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the court below was not justified in not accepting the suggestion made by the Returning Officer. There was no reason for rejecting the suggestion made by the Returning Officer and no such reasons are stated either in the order impugned. The court below does not state any reason to adopt a different yardstick than that was suggested by the Returning Officer to identify a particular kara as Nair kara. It would appear that none of the parties put forward a contention akin to the view taken by the court below. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, that part of the order passed by the court below as aforesaid, is set aside. The suggestion made by the Returning Officer to identify the Adinadu Thekku kara as Nair kara shall be accepted. It is made clear that acceptance of the suggestion made by the Returning Officer is tentative for the W.P.(C) NO.33223 OF 2008 :: 6 :: purpose of the election and it shall not be treated as a precedent for any purpose in the forthcoming election or for the purpose of framing the scheme. Advocate Sri.K.P.Sreekumar pointed out that some of the members representing Ezhava community have put forward a contention that Adinadu Thekku kara is to be treated as Ezhava kara and that application is pending consideration before the court below. That application shall be considered along with the suit or earlier, if moved by any of the interested parties. For the purpose of the election as scheduled, the suggestion made by the Returning Officer to identify the Nair kara shall be accepted, without treating it as a precedent as mentioned above. The trial court may make every endeavour to dispose of the suit expeditiously. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/