IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1932 WA.No. 1962 of 2010 ----------------------- AGAINST JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.31936/2004 DATED 23.9.2010 APPELLANT/PETITIONER --------------------------- SREE KODIKAT BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM, REPRESENTED BY ITS HEREDITARY TRUSTEE, P.T. KOMBI ACHAN. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO REVENUE (DEVESWOM) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS (ADMN.) DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKODE-673001. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS (ADMN) DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKODE-673001. 4. M. SETHUMADHAVAN, S/O. VISHNU EMBRANTHIRI, NAYAR THARA, VADAKKANCHERY ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678683. 5. N. SUNIL KUMAR, S/O.R. RAMANKUTTY NAIR, CHANGARAKKATH HOUSE, THIRUVARA, KIZHAKKANCHERY, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678683. WA NO.1962 OF 2010 - 2 - 6. M. VASAN, S/O. MANIAN NAIR, MANGOTTU HOUSE, NAYAR THARA, VADAKKANCHERRY, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678683. 7. DEVAKIKUTTY @ GEETHA, W/O. SASIKUMAR, CHANRARANKANDATH HOUSE, MANJAPRA, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD-678541. 8. C.RAJAN, S/O. CHAMI, KAVARATHARA HOUSE, VADAKKANCHERRY, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678683. 9. S. SATHEESH, S/O. SANKARAN NAIR KOMBAYIL HOUSE, NAYAR THARA, VADAKKANCHERRY, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678683. R1 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN,SC,MALABAR DEVASWOM R4 TO R9 BY ADV.SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No.1962 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. Aggrieved by judgment dated 23rd September, 2010 in W.P.(C) No.31936 of 2004, the unsuccessful petitioner therein preferred the instant writ appeal. 2. The appellant is a devaswom represented by its hereditary trustee. Respondents 4 to 9 are the employees of the appellant devaswom appointed by one of the predecessors of the present hereditary trustee. The present hereditary trustee on the assumption of office opined that the appointments of respondents 4 to 9 are not justified in view of the financial condition of the devaswom. Therefore, he initiated proceedings for termination of their service. Aggrieved by such proceedings, those respondents carried the matter in appeal under Section 49(2) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. The W.A.No.1962 of 2010 - 2 - Deputy Commissioner/appellate authority set aside the action of the appellant herein. Aggrieved by the same the appellant herein carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner purportedly under sub-section (3) of Section 49 of the above mentioned Act. Though we have serious doubts about the maintainability of such an appeal at the instance of the present appellant, we do not propose to make any final pronouncement on the issue as it is irrelevant for the purpose of the present case. Even in the second appellate stage, the appellant herein was not successful and therefore he carried the matter before the Government in revision under Section 99 of the above mentioned Act unsuccessfully. Therefore, the present appellant approached this Court by way of W.P.(C) No.31936 of 2004 challenging the above mentioned decision of the Government in Ext.P11. 3. By the judgment under appeal, a learned Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition and hence this appeal. 4. A valiant effort is made by the learned senior counsel Sri.T.Krishnanunni seeking a re-appreciation of the factual dispute W.A.No.1962 of 2010 - 3 - on the financial condition of the temple justifying the appointment of respondents 4 to 9. Three statutory bodies consistently held against the appellant herein fortified by the decision of a learned Judge of this Court by way of judicial review holding that the impugned decision does not call for any interference in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We do not see any reason to take a different view from the opinion expressed by the judgment under appeal. We do not see any merit in the appeal. The writ appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge vns