IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 29224 of 2011(C) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ AKKAL SREEDHARAN NAIR, SUDHEER BHAVAN, PERUNTHANAM KELAKAM PO, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY SR.ADV. SRI.A.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN SRI.B.PRAMOD RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE 673 006. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE 673 006. 3. THE PRESIDENT MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE 673 006. 4. SREE KOTTIYOOR DEVASWOM , KOTTIYOOR PO, KANNUR DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER-670 651. 5. A.KARUNAKARRAN NAIR RESIDING MANATHANA KOTTIYOOR PO, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 651. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN FOR R1-R3 SRI.K.P.SUDHEER FOR R4 SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN FOR R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPC 29224/2011 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN MFA 74/88 OF THIS COURT EXT. P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT. 12.11.10 EXT. P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 8.6.2011 EXT. P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT. 9.6.11 EXT. P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 27.6.2011 EXT. P6 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DT. 29.6.2011 IN WPC 17618/2011 EXT. P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DT. 19.7.2011 EXT. P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 3.10.2011 /TRUE COPY/ THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------- W.P(C).No.29224 OF 2011 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J. 1.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, standing counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board and the respective counsel for respondents 4 and 5. 2.The 5th respondent is the Karanavar, for the time being, of the Akkal tharwad for the purpose of clause 5(iii) of the scheme in terms of Ext.P1 judgment. He nominated the petitioner. Such nomination was accepted by the Devaswom Commissioner. With the passage of time, the 5th respondent Karanavar took the stand that he can manage the affairs of the temple on behalf of the Akkal tharwad and does not require a nominee. That led to a situation resulting in Ext.P6 interim order. WPC.29224/11 2 3.After that, Ext.P8 is now issued, essentially removing the petitioner from the nomination made by the 5th respondent on behalf of Akkal tharwad. We refrain from making any further reference to the facts since the controversies between the parties as to the interpretation of the different clauses of the scheme, including clause 5(iii) can be best considered only after hearing both sides. The statutory authority, the Commissioner, did not hear the petitioner. 4. In the aforesaid circumstances, without expressing anything on merits, we vacate Ext.P8 and direct the parties to appear before the Commissioner on 17.11.2011 and thereupon, the Commissioner will hear both sides at an earliest occasion and issue final orders, without fail, on or before 30.11.2011, untrammelled by anything stated in Exts.P7 or P8. It is clarified that even if there is any decision by the Board by way of Ext.P7 or otherwise, that shall not hinder the decision making process of the Commissioner in terms of the WPC.29224/11 3 directions contained herein. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, Judge. kkb.10/11.