IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 27TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 26298 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.C.VELAYUDHAN NAIR, HERIDITARY TRUSTEE SREE KOTTIYOOR DEVASWOM, P.O.MANATHANA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.D.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE. 4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE. 5. THE CHAIRMAN, TRUSTEE BOARD SREE THRICHERUMANNA ALIAS KOTTIYOOR DEVASWOM, P.O.KOTTIYOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 651. 6. SREE THRICHERUMANNA ALIAS KOTTIYOOR DEVASWOM, P.O.KOTTIYOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 651, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 7. KERALA STATE LOCAL FUND AUDIT EXAMINER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN,SC,MALABAR DEVASWOM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 26298 OF 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 18th September, 2009 J U D G M E N T Raman, J. Petitioner is one of the hereditary trustee of the Kottiyoor Devaswom, who has approached this Court earlier also by filing writ petitions. In the last writ petition filed, W.P. (C) No.12496 of 2009, his grievance was against Exts.P3 and P4 produced in that case, which was directed to be disposed of, in accordance with law. The present grievance of the petitioner is that Exts.P8 and P9 decisions are taken without obtaining the signature of all the trustees, as required by Rule 9 of the HR & CE Act, which according to him, mandates that proceedings shall be drafted and signed by all the trustees. It is contended that in so far as this has not been followed by the Chairman, based on such proceedings, no steps shall be taken to implement those decision. W.P.(C) No.26298 of 2009 2 2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4, as also the learned Government Pleader, at the admission stage itself. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 contended that the present writ petition raises the similar grievance as raised in the earlier writ petition, stated above. Therefore, we posted the case along with judges papers of the earlier writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 12496 of 2009. However, we find that the relief as such prayed for in the present writ petition is not similar to that raised in the earlier writ petition. Therefore, the contention that the relief sought for is same cannot be accepted. 4. Coming to the merit of the contentions, we find, petitioner admits having put signatures at the beginning of the meeting, but the final proceedings are not signed. Both Exts.P8 and P9 are signed by the Chairman. There is a time gap of four months between Exts.P8 and P9 decisions. If Ext.P8 decision is W.P.(C) No.26298 of 2009 3 rendered without the concurrence of trustees, the same should have been brought to notice immediately, or at least before the next meeting, or the aggrieved person could raise a complaint before the appropriate authority, when possibly it may instill confidence in the mind of the Court that such a complaint has some merit for further consideration. But unfortunately, no such petition is seen filed in this case before any authority. Though it is submitted that Ext.P7 representation has been submitted before the second respondent, to enquire into the irregularities committed by the Chairman, that objection is seen raised by some other person and not the petitioner, and also not on the issue now raised. 5. In the absence of any materials placed on record to show that such an objection was raised at the appropriate time or at least later in point of time, we cannot entertain a writ petition, challenging the decisions to be quashed. Before considering as to what is the procedure adopted and whether actually proceedings are not signed by the parties are matters of W.P.(C) No.26298 of 2009 4 factual dispute. Therefore, at this belated stage, we cannot issue any direction to quash Exts.P8 and P9. However, this will not absolve the requirement of Rule 9 of HR & CE Act being strictly complied with. We hence direct that minutes of the meeting held shall be looked into by the authorities, and if there is any irregularity, the same shall be considered and appropriate direction be given to comply with Rule 9 of HR & CE Act, in all future meetings. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Send a copy of this judgment to the respondents for information at the expense of the petitioner. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. nj.