IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2011 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 CRP.No. 212 of 2011() ------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23/12/2010 IN IA.2839/2010 IN OS.NO.199/1957 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------ B.RAMACHANDRAN UNNITHAN, S/O.BHASKARAN PILLAI, AMMACHIVEEDU, KARIKULANGARA CHERRY, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM. BY SRI.P.N.KRISHNANKUTTY ACHAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV.SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------------- 1. G.NARAYANAN UNNITHAN, AMMACHIVEEDU, KARIKULANGARA CHERRY, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM-691 005. 2. G.MOHANAN UNNITHAN, AMMACHIVEEDU, KARIKULANGARA CHERRY, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM-691 001. R2 BY ADV. SRI.LEO GEORGE SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR SRI.K.N.SASIDHARAN NAIR SRI.M.SUNIL SMT.BABITHA THAMBI THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/12/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== C.R.P. No.212 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 14th day of December, 2011 O R D E R This civil revision is in challenge of the order dated 23.12.2010 on I.A. No.2839 of 2010 in O.S. No.199 of 1957 of the court of learned Additional District Judge-I, Kollam. A scheme was famed for administration of the temple. The scheme contained either directions or guidelines as the case may be, for administration and management of the temple. Clause 12 of the Scheme related to formation of a committee to assist the Manager for administration. Petitioner before me belongs to the Sakha of Bhavani Itty. After her death, the next senior member in that Sakha was Thankappan Unnithan who was included as a member of the Committee pursuant to clause 12 of the Scheme. The said Thankappan Unnithan expired on 12.05.2010. The next senior member in that Sakha is Chellamma Itty. At that stage petitioner who, it is not disputed, is the senior male member of that Sakha moved the learned Additional District Judge, with I.A. No.2839 of 2010 for a direction that he be included in the Committee, being the senior male member of the Sakha of Bhavani Itty. That C.R.P. No.212 of 2011 -: 2 :- application was dismissed by the learned District Judge by order dated 23.12.2010 which is under challenge. 2. Learned Senior Advocate for petitioner contends that since there is no decision of the court on the Scheme, directions made therein are still large and that the learned District Judge did not go by the earlier order passed on 29.11.1978 on I.A. No.2576 of 1978 where, in paragraph 15 (paragraph 15 of that order is extracted in page 4 of the order under challenge) it is stated that it is convenient to make the senior most adult male member of each Sakha to represent the Sakha in the Advisory Committee formed under clause 12 of the Scheme. It is also contended by the learned Senior Advocate that since Chellamma Itty who is the present senior most member of the Sakha of petitioner and the mother of petitioner, has no objection in giving way to the petitioner the request of petitioner ought to have been accepted by the learned District Judge. 3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the second respondent contended that the Scheme was settled as early as in the year, 1976 and since then the directions/guidelines in the Scheme were being followed. It is contended that Bhavani Itty being the senior most member of the Sakha of petitioner was C.R.P. No.212 of 2011 -: 3 :- representing that Sakha until her death and thereafter it was her son, Thankappan Unnithan who represented that Sakha until his death on 12.05.2010. It is pointed out by Senior learned Advocate that as per clause 12 of the Scheme there is no direction that it must be the senior most adult male member who should be the representative in the committee and clause 12 only says that it must be the senior most major member of the Sakha. It is contended that the said description will suit only Chellamma Itty, the mother of petitioner so far as she is alive and on the death of Chellamma Itty the next senior most member of the Sakha is Anandavally Amma who is not even made a party in the present application. 4. It appears to me that there is some conflict between the view taken by the learned District Judge in the order under challenge and the view taken in the order dated 29.11.1978 on I.A. No.2576 of 1978. It is also seen that Anandavally Amma though she was removed from her membership of the Committee is not made a party in I.A. No.2839 of 2010 (nor has she challenged the impugned order). 5. Having heard senior Advocate on both sides it appears to me that the matter requires fresh consideration by the learned C.R.P. No.212 of 2011 -: 4 :- District Judge. Since a finding on the issue may have a bearing on the right of other members of the Sakha also to represent their Sakha in the Committee it is appropriate that notice of I.A. No.2839 of 2010 is given to all the Sakhas not to say that notice is given to Anandavally Amma who was removed from the Committee. After giving such notice learned District Judge has to consider clause 12 of the Scheme and the order dated 29.11.1978 on I.A. No.2576 of 1978 and take appropriate decision in the matter. Resultantly, Civil Revision is allowed. The impugned order dated on I.A. No.2839 of 2010 is set aside. That application is remitted to the learned Additional District Judge, for fresh decision after complying with the directions made above. All pending Interlocutory Applications will stand dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv