IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/2ND POUSHA 1933 WPC.No. 32408 of 2011 (A) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ AKKAL SREEDHARAN NAIR, SUDHEER BHAVAN, PERUNTHANAM, KELAKAM.P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY SRI.A.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN (SR.) ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE - 673 006. 2. THE COMMISSIONEER, 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.P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 5. A. KARUNAKARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT MANATHANA, KOTTIYOOR.P.O, KANNUR DISTTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR,SC,MALABAR DEVASWOM SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYANAN,SC,MALABAR DEVASWOM R4 BY SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR (SR.) ADV.SRI.K.P.SUDHEER R5 BY ADV.SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN SMT.P.G.BABITHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-12-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.32408/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY F THE JUDGEMENT IN MFA NO.74/1988 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. P2 COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN O.P.NO.2/1949 BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE OF NORTH MALABAR. P3 COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT VIDE THE JUDGEMENT IN W.A.NO.117/1954 OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT. P4 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 12/11/2010 P5 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08/06/2011. P6 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 09/06/2011 P7 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27/06/2011. P8 COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 29/06/2011 IN WP(C)NO.17618/2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. P9 COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 19/07/2011. P10 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03/10/2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P11 COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 09/11/2011 IN WP(C)NO.29224/2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. P12 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/11/2011 OF THS 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts “C.R” THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). No. 32408 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. Petitioner is Akkal Sreedharan Nair, a nominee of Akkal Karunakaran Nair, who is the Karanavan of Akkal Tharawad, for the purpose of clause 5 (iii) of the Scheme framed by this Court in M.F.A No.74 of 1988 for Sree Kottiyoor Perumal Seva Sanghom. It is not in dispute that Karunakaran Nair had nominated Sreedharan Nair. The question is, whether, having done so, he retains the authority to withdraw the nomination of Sreedharan Nair. 2. This issue initially went to the Malabar Devaswom Board. It came out with Ext.P9 holding that this cannot be done and the nomination cannot be withdrawn. That became the subject matter of W.P.(C).No.29224 of 2011. By Ext.P11 judgment, the Commissioner was directed to decide that issue untrammeled by anything stated in the decision of the Board. In the light of that W.P.(C) 32408/2011 2 judgment, W.P.(C).No.17618 of 2011 was also closed. 3. In W.P.(C).No.17618 of 2011, Ext.P8 interim order was issued at the stage of admission. It is profitable, in this context, to read paragraph 3 of that order, which is as follows:- “The petitioner Karunakaran Nair, going by Ext.P6, is the hereditary trustee. He nominated the 7th respondent Sreedharan Nair to act on his behalf in accordance with the provisions of the scheme framed by this Court in M.F.A.74 of 1988. The Malabar Devaswom Board approved that and issued Ext.P6 as a consequence. Obviously, therefore, the recognition of any officiation by Sreedharan Nair, the 7th respondent, can be only as the nominee of the writ petitioner, who is the hereditary trustee. Therefore, we are clear in our mind that Ext.P10 issued by the President of the Malabar Devaswom Board only means to say that the 7th respondent Sreedharan Nair is appointed in terms of the nomination by the petitioner and hence, he is obliged to attend the meeting scheduled as per Ext.P9. Obviously, his such participation in the meeting scheduled as per Ext.P9 or in any adjourned meetings of Kottiyur Devaswom will be only as the nominee of the petitioner. It is so ordered. This order is being issued on the basis of the factual position as pointed out by the learned standing counsel for the Board. We further direct that the competent authority in the Malabar Devaswom Board will take immediate decision on Ext.P7 request of the petitioner.” W.P.(C) 32408/2011 3 4. Clause 5 of Ext.P1 Scheme provides for hereditary trustees and non-hereditary trustees for the purpose of constitution of the Board of Trustees. It runs as follows:- “The said Board of Trustees shall consist of the following members, namely: Hereditary Trustees (i) The Karanavan for the time being of the Kolangarath tarwad or some other member of the tarwad nominated by him and accepted by the Commissioner. (ii)The Karanavan for the time being of the Karimpanakkal tarwad or some other member of the tarwad nominated by him and accepted by the Commissioner. (iii)The Karanavan for the time being of the Akkal tarwad or some other member of the tarwad nominated by him and accepted by the Commissioner. (iv)The Karanavan for the time being of the Thittayil tarwad or some other member of the tarward nominated by him and accepted by the Commissioner. Non-hereditary Trustees (v)Of the two present Thanthries of the temple belonging to the Kozhikkattiri and Nandhiyarvally Manas, the senior Thantri for the time being of the W.P.(C) 32408/2011 4 temple shall be an Ex-officio member. (vi)One Hindu Revenue Officer, not below the rank of Tahasildar, working in the Kannur District, nominated by the Commissioner with the approval of the District Collector of the Kannur District (vii) The Rajah of Kottayom or his nominee. (viii)The President and Secretary of Sri.Kottiyoor Perumal Seva Sanghom, registered No.47 of 1964, Kottiyoor shall be Ex-officio members.” 5. At the outset, we note that what is to be stated is about the constitution of the Board of Trustees. It shall consist of the entities enumerated in clause 5, read above. The hereditary trustees are categorised into four, identifying them on the basis of four Tharawads. The third in that sequence is Akkal Tharawad. The identity of the Tharawad cannot be changed. The identity of the person who will be the member of the Board of Trustees on behalf of the respective Tharawad, is mentioned in the Scheme as the Karanavan for the time being, or some other member of the Tharawad, nominated by him. This means that the person who is the Karanavan for the time being, can nominate any other member of the Tharawad. The identity of the Karanavan cannot be changed. The Karanavan's W.P.(C) 32408/2011 5 office to be a being a member of the Board of Trustees does not depend upon the acceptance of the Commissioner. When the Karanavan of a particular Tharawad nominates another member of that Tharawad, such nomination has to be accepted by the Commissioner. This nomination does not carry anything more than the authority to act in lieu of the Karanavan, thereby meaning, that the person who is nominated by the Karanavan and whose nomination is accepted by the Commissioner, acts only as an agent of the Karanavan. 6. Therefore, the Karanavan, going by a clear reading of clause 5 of Ext.P1, is entitled to withdraw the nomination and such withdrawal need not be with the acceptance of the Commissioner. While upholding the petitioner's contention that it is only a member of the same Tharawad who can be nominated by the Karanavan in terms of clause 5 (iii) of Ext.P1, we repel the contention that such nomination, once accepted ,cannot be revoked by the Karanavan. We answer the question raised in this writ petition as aforesaid. W.P.(C) 32408/2011 6 7. This concludes the issue and the Commissioner, MDB will follow the declaration of interpretation of clause 5 in Ext.P1. 8. With the aforesaid, relief sought for in the writ petition to quash Ext.P12 is only to be rejected. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN (Judge) C.T. RAVIKUMAR (Judge) spc/23.12.