IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2009 / 23RD ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 27839 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- EZHIKODE SATHEESAN NAMBOOTHIRI, ANUGRAHAM, UDEYAMPER0OR,ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE, DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. Raman & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.27839 of 2009-Y - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of October, 2009. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The petitioner herein is an applicant for appointment to the post of Melsanthi in Sabarimala Temple. While admitting the writ petition, we passed an interim order on 7.10.2009. Thereafter, counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents and the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Travancore Devaswom Board and the learned Govt. Pleader. 3. Briefly stated, the personal details of the petitioner are the following: At the time of inviting the application, the petitioner was working as Melsanthi in Thuravoor Kainikkara Shri Krishna Swamy Temple and Ext.P2 is the certificate issued by the Thanthri of the said Temple. Thereafter, he was selected as Melsanthi of Velorvattom Mahadeva Temple from 17.8.2009 which is evidenced by Ext.P3. The petitioner had worked as Melsanthi of Guruvayoor Temple during the period from October, 2007 to March, 2008. Going by Ext.P4, he had wpc 27839/2009 2 worked as Melsanthi of Kottaram Bhagavathi Temple during the years 1170 ME, 1171 ME and 1174 ME. It is therefore, contended that the petitioner had been working as Melsanthi of Major Temples and the stipulations provided in Ext.P1 are satisfied in his case. 4. Along with the counter affidavit, Ext.R1(a) report of the Vigilance Wing of the Devaswom Board has been produced. It is averred in para 6 of the counter affidavit that the Vigilance Wing, after conducting an investigation, found that the petitioner was not working in any Major Temple and that the temple of which he is stated to be a Melsanthi, is only a family temple which closes by 9 a.m. in the morning and opens in the evening and that it was the uncle of the petitioner who was lighting the lamp in the temple and it is further stated that the petitioner was in no way involved in the affairs of the said temple. On further enquiry, by the Vigilance Wing, it was noticed that there were no regular poojas conducted in the temple which was situated in the household property of the petitioner's mother and that there was no income for the temple. It was also noticed that there was no hundi in the temple nor was there any Temple Advisory Committee. Thus, the averments in the writ petition are stoutly refuted by the Devaswom Board in their counter affidavit. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no sanctity can wpc 27839/2009 3 be attached to the report of the Vigilance Wing and therefore the rejection of the application cannot be supported. By reiterating the averments contained in the writ petition and in the reply affidavit, it is contended that the enquiries conducted by the Vigilance Officer are not elaborate. The temple is an ancient one and is a Major Temple. 6. The question is whether the rejection of the application can be said to be arbitrary and per-se illegal. It is clear that the application and the documents produced along with the same, had been subjected to scrutiny by the Vigilance Wing of the Devaswom Board. Therefore, there were materials for the respondents to consider the claim raised by the petitioner in the application and in the certificates produced by him. It is after assessing the various circumstances that the respondents decided to reject the application. The question whether the temple in question is a Major Temple or not, cannot be a subject matter of decision by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, since it requires consideration of elaborate evidence and findings on questions of fact. We are only concerned with the question whether the rejection of application can be said to be arbitrary or illegal or that the relevant materials were not considered by the respondents. On an assessment of various factors pointed out in the counter affidavit and the reasons stated for rejection of the application, we wpc 27839/2009 4 are satisfied that the rejection cannot be said to be per se illegal or arbitrary. 7. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the rejection of application of the petitioner. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. It is made clear that we have not expressed anything on the merits or otherwise of the claim of the petitioner that he is well-versed in poojas and has expertise in Thanthras. No costs. (P.R. Raman, Judge.) (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/