IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2008 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 33192 of 2006(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ ZAMORIN RAJA OF CALICUT, CHALAPPURAM, CALICUT-2. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN SMT.SHAHNA KARTHIKEYAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER HR & CE DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKODE-20. 2. V.MURALIDHARAN, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, LAKSHMI NIVAS, COMMERY P.O. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SMITHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 1.2.2005 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF DO.DO. DATED 7.8.2006 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF DO.DO. DATED 28.1.2006 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF DO.DO. DATED 27.4.2006 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 1.3.2005 FROM THE THANTHRI OF THE TEMPLE TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 3.10.2006 EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION INVITED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 20.11.2006 EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE MANAGER OF THE TEMPLE DATED 7.12.2006 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K. MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. No. 33192 OF 2006 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair,J. Petitioner is challenging Ext.P8 notice issued by the first respondent directing the petitioner to withhold appointments of four persons in the temples under the control of the petitioner. Even though petitioner has raised specific allegations on the complaint from the second respondent, who is ex-non-hereditary trustee, second respondent has not filed any counter affidavit denying the allegations. Moreover persons appointed are handling instruments like, chenda, Maddalam, Kuzhal, Kombu , etc. Second respondent obviously is not an applicant for the post. Petitioner's case is that appointees are persons traditionally engaged in the same job and no-one in the field has any complaint against the appointment of these persons. In the circumstances, we do not find any bona fides about the complaint filed by the second respondent, based on which first respondent has issued 2 Ext.P8. It will be open to the first respondent to take action against the petitioner for anything done improper. W.P. is allowed quashing Ext.P8. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (V.K. MOHANAN) Judge. kk 3