IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2009 / 26TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 14647 of 2009(A) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ C.R.RATHEESH, S/O.RAVEENDRAN, NEDUMPILLIL HOUSE, UDAYAMPEROOR P.O. BY ADV.MR.K.N.CHANDRABABU RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEVASWOM BOARD OFFICE, NANDANCODE, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANDANCODE, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE MANAGER, VAIKOM GROUP, UDAYAMPEROOR DEVASWOM, DEVASWOM OFFICE, UDAYAMPEROOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. SUNIL, KIZHIKKATTU HOUSE, CHOTTANIKKARA. R1-R3 BY MR.K.N.VENUGOPALA PANICKER, SC, TDB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P(C) No.14647 of 2009 -A ------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of August, 2009. J U D G M E N T Heard Sri.K.N.Chandrababu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.N.Venugopala Panicker, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Travancore Devaswom Board. 2. The petitioner was working as Sambanthi in a Karanma Post in Major Ekadasi Perum Thrikkovil Temple, Udayamperoor. While matters stood thus, on a complaint filed by the fourth respondent wherein the principal contention was that the petitioner is not a member of the Kuzhikkattu family, an enquiry into the status of the petitioner was conducted and thereupon by Ext.P2 order dated 30.7.2005, the Secretary of the Travancore Devaswom Board directed removal of the petitioner from service. Aggrieved thereby he filed Ext.P7 representation dated 7.9.2005 before the Travancore Devaswom Board. He thereafter filed W.P (C) No.23821 of 2005 in this Court. In view of the fact that the petitioner has already filed an appeal challenging Ext.P2 order passed by the Travancore Devaswom Board, this Court disposed of the writ petition by Ext.P6 judgment delivered on 20.9.2006 recording the submission of the standing counsel for the Board that the appeal has been received and is pending consideration. The Travancore Devaswom Board did not however W.P(C) No.14647 of 2009 -A 2 consider the appeal and pass orders thereon. The petitioner had after Ext.P6 judgment, filed Ext.P9 representation dated 8.11.2006 and produced along with it documents in support of his contentions including Ext.P10 wherein the Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk has certified that the petitioner's grandfather was a member of Muriyakeril family which had Karanma right in the temple where the petitioner was working as Sambanthi. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the first respondent to consider Ext.P7 appeal and Ext.P9 representation within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. 3. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit justifying the stand taken by the Secretary in Ext.P2. However, the first respondent has not referred to the decision taken by the Travancore Devaswom Board on Ext.P7 appeal or on Ext.P9 representation. Since on the earlier occasion, the Board had represented that the appeal is pending consideration by the appellate authority, the Board had a duty to consider the appeal and pass orders thereon. That has not been done evidently for the reason that this Court did not direct the Board to pass orders thereon within a time limit. In my opinion, even without such a direction, the Board ought to have considered Ext.P7 appeal and taken a decision thereon expeditiously. I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the W.P(C) No.14647 of 2009 -A 3 Travancore Devaswom Board/Special Commissioner, who is presently discharging the functions of the Board to consider Ext.P7 appeal along with Ext.P9 representation and the documents produced along with it and to take a decision thereon expeditiously and in any event within three months from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before the Secretary of the Travancore Devaswom Board. The petitioner shall also be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The complainant referred to in the counter affidavit sworn to by the first respondent shall also be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The contentions of both sides on the merits are kept open. P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE ab W.P(C) No.14647 of 2009 -A 4