IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 2ND ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 26995 of 2009(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.P.ASOKAN, S/O.KUNJIYEKAN, KOYILOTHUMPADIKKAL, VIYYUR AMSOM, KOLLAM DESOM, P.O.KOLLAM, QUILANDY. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CHAIRMAN, TRUSTEE BOARD, SREE PISHARIKAVU DEVASWOM, KOLLAM, KOYILANDY. 2. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KOLLAM SREE PISHARIKAVU DEVASWOM KOLLAM, QUILANDY. 3. COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. 4. MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN,SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM FOR R3 & 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 26995 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 24th September, 2009 J U D G M E N T Raman, J. Petitioner is styled as a devotee. He is vindicating the grievance of 'Moosaths of Vattoli Illam, who had hereditary right to conduct the poojas in Sree Pisharikavu Devaswom Temple, Kollam. Moosaths himself is not stated to be disabled in any way to approach the legal forum for redressal of his grievance. 2. Be that it may, the contention raised in the writ petition is that the action of respondents 1 and 2 are upsetting the existing customary practice of 'Ariyilezhuthu' vazhipad conducted by Moosaths of Vattoli Illam on Vijayadashami day in Sree Pisharikavu Devaswom Temple, and also to permit others to conduct said vazhipadu. W.P.(C) No.26995/2009 2 In other words, what is attempted to be done by respondents 1 and 2 is contrary to the custom and practice. Custom and Practice is a civil right to be proved after adducing both oral and documentary evidence. Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be entertained in such cases. Even treating this as a exceptional case, we will not be able to grant any relief as sought for. Hence, relegating the petitioner to avail the normal remedies available to him, we decline this jurisdiction. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. nj.