IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2009 / 24TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18590 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.46/ 1116 of D.C & SESSIONS COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- VIDHYADHARAN, AGED 68, S/O.CHELLAPPAN, VIDYA, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. MR.K.JAYAKUMAR, MR.P.B.KRISHNAN, MR.E.NARAYANAN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE DEITY OF PETTAH PUTHAN KOVIL BHAGAVATHI KSHETHRAM, PETTAH P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER, PETTAH, PUTHANKOVIL. 2. M.S.MOHANACHANDRAN, (SPECIAL COMMISSIONER), RETIRED DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KARTHIKA, AMMAN KOVIL LANE, THEVALLI P.O., KOLLAM. 3. K.RAVEENDRANATH, RAVIMANI MANDIRAM, KOCHU VELI, BEACH POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. A.KRISHNANKUTTY, KUZHIYIL PURAYIDAM, AMBALATHU MUKKU, VANCHIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. VISWANATHAN, SREENIDHI, PRASANTH NAGAR, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. Kss ..2/- ...2.... WPC.NO.18590/2009 O 6. C.RAVEENDRAN, VALIYA VEEDU,BANK ROAD, UDAVOOR, ANAYARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. C.P.SETHU NATHAN, VISWANADAM, SN NAGAR, PETTAH P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 8. REGHU THILAKAM, LAKSHMI, PATTOOR, PETTAH P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *ADDL.R9 TO R12 ARE IMPLEADED: R9. G.V.MITHRAN, S/O.GOVINDAN, AGED 76 YEARS, KAILAS, T.C.30/1149-I, HIGH SCHOOL ROAD, PETTAH,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R10. DR.N.PRASANNAN, S/O.NANOO, AGE 72 YEARS, DHAKSHAYANI VIHAR, AMBALATHUMUKKU, PETTAH P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R11. K.LAKSHMANAN, S/O.KOCHAPPI, AGED 91 YEARS, PANDARATHOPPU VEEDU, PATTOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R12. S.DINESH BABU, S/O.PONNAPPAN, AGED 68 YEARS, 1169, PANDARAVILAKAM, 27, RISHIMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *ADDL.RESPONDENTS 9 TO 12 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 10/07/2009 IN I.A.NO.8526/09 IN WPC.NO.18590/09. R3,4 & 6 BY ADV.MR.A.AHZAR R5 BY ADVS. MR.M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN, SMT.M.A.ZOHRA, MR.R.S.MADHU, MR.MAHESH ANANDAKUTTAN. R7 BY ADV. MR.B.KRISHNA MANI R9 TO R12 BY ADV. MR.B.PREMNATH (E) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.18590/2009 O APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE DECREE DTD. 09/02/1943 IN O.S.NO.46/1116 M.E. BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TOGETHER WITH THE SCHEME. P2: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 29/01/1975 ON I.A.NO.3121/69 IN O.S.NO.46/1116 M.E. BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 03/09/1975 ON I.A.NO.423(a)/75 IN O.S.NO.46/1116 M.E. BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P4: COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT AND ORDER DTD. 27/01/2009 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN CRP 661/08. P5: COPY OF THE I.A.512/2009 IN O.S.46/1116 DTD. 04/04/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P6: COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DTD. 06/04/2009 IN I.A.512/09 IN O.S.46/1116 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P7: COPY OF THE REPLY AFFIDAVIT DTD. 21/05/09 IN I.A.512/09 IN O.S.46/1116 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P8: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 19/06/2009 IN I.A.512/09 IN O.S.46/1116 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P9: COPY OF THE ELECTION IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO K.LAKSHMANAN. P10: COPY OF THE PENSION PAYMENT ORDER DTD. 29/03/88 ISSUED TO G.V.MITHRAN. P11: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY CHAKRAPANI IN WPC.NO.35085/2008 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P12: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY K.SIDHARTHAN, IN WPC.NO. 35085/2008. P13: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT IN FAO 302/07 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P14: COPY OF THE MEMO FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE TEMPLE IN FAO 302/07 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P15: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 19/01/2009 IN CRP 662/2008 on the FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. Kss ...2/- ..2... WPC.NO.18590/2009 O P16: COPY OF THE ELECTION IDENTITY CARD OF DINESH BABU. P17: COPY OF THE ELECTION IDENTITY CARD OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT. P18: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 25/09/06 INI.A.NO.10267/04 IN O.S.1305/04 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P19: COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DTD. 16/02/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT HEREIN IN WPC.NO.4659/09 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P20: COPY OF THE PENSION PAYMENT ORDER DTD. 10/07/92 OF DR. N.PRASANNAN. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R5(A): COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO.136/96 OF THE PRINCIPAL SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, TVM DTD. 18/11/03. R5(B): COPY OF THE LIST IN WPC.NO.35085/08. R5(C): COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 5/07/09. R5(D): COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DTD. 8/01/2009. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 18590 of 2009 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 15th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T This writ petition relates to a private temple, namely, Petta Puthankovil Bhagavathi Temple, originally, founded by 7 families. Since some disputes arose between the family members over the administration of that temple, some of the family members instituted a suit, namely, OS.No.46/1116ME before the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram for framing a scheme for the proper administration and management of the affairs of the temple. That suit was decreed settling a scheme. Copy of that decree is Ext.P1. It is the admitted case of the parties, later, when some disputes cropped up at the instance of some family members applications were moved before the court for modification of the scheme and after adjudication of the disputes, the scheme was modified twice and copies of the orders modifying the scheme are produced as Exts.P2 and P3 in the writ petition. When such state 2 of affairs continued, in the year 1995, some of the family members, dissatisfied with the management of the temple, filed a suit as OS.No.136 of 1996 before the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Another suit was also filed in respect of the disputes relating to the temple as OS.No.1401/95. The two suits were jointly tried and a decree was passed in OS.No.136/96 and the other suit was dismissed. In fact, it was not a decree but some directions that the temple should be administered strictly in accordance with Ext.P1 scheme and the modified schemes under Exts.P2 and P3. The plaintiff in OS.No.136/96 moved an execution petition for implementing the directions covered by the decree passed in that suit as E.P.No.237/04. In the execution petition, an application was moved for appointment of a Receiver over the temple and the execution court appointed a party Receiver. That order was challenged before this court as F.A.O.No.302/07. That appeal was disposed after formulating a Committee of 20 members, two each from 10 families which have right over the administration of the temple, to be in management of the temple, till disposal of the execution petition and also appointing a retired District Judge as a Special Commissioner to 3 supervise and to attend the day to day affairs of the temple. In the light of the orders passed in the appeal as above, the F.A.O. was disposed of and the execution petition was also allowed to continue. The execution court thereupon constituted a Committee of 18 members leaving the nomination of two families open as there was no satisfactory evidence for inclusion of their right to be nominated in the Committee. The order passed by the execution court was challenged in two revisions as CRP Nos.661/08 and 662/08 before this court. Meanwhile, the present 5th respondent also filed a writ petition questioning the status of Karanavan conferred on one of families namely, Cheriyakotta family. That W.P.(C) No.35085/08 and the revision petitions were heard together and a common judgment was rendered on 27.1.2009. Ext.P4 is the copy of that judgment. This court under Ext.P4 judgment, on the basis of consensus arrived at by the parties, issued certain directions explicitly making it evident that such directions would amount to modification of Ext.P1 scheme as modified by Exts.P2 and P3. It is an admitted fact that only 10 families have right over the temple and as such the eldest member of each family, Karanavan, was ordered to be included as one 4 among the members of the 20 member Committee for managing the temple. Since there was a dispute as to who should be the Karanavan of Cheriyakotta family, which was the subject matter of the dispute raised in the writ petition contending that the eldest member of that family, one Mr.Chakrapani, was unfit to hold the post of Karanavan under Ext.P4 judgment, an enquiry as to his fitness was directed to be conducted by the District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. In respect of the remaining 9 families, there was no dispute between the parties as to who should be the Karanavan and their inclusion in the 20 member Committee. The Committee envisaged of Karanavans of 10 families and also one Elamasthan, the next eldest member of the Karanavan, from each family, as members. Since there was serious dispute between the parties as to who are the Elamasthan of each family entitled to be included in the Committee under Ext.P4 judgment it was ordered such disputes shall also be thrashed out in the enquiry to be conducted by the District Judge. Pursuant to Ext.P4 judgment and in compliance of the directions thereunder, the District Judge conducted the enquiry. In that enquiry, Sri.Chakrapani, whose eligibility to be the Karanavan of Cheriyakotta family was disputed, 5 appeared before the District Judge and being satisfied of his fitness to be the Karanavan, the District Judge in his order held that he is eligible to be the Karanavan of that family. With regard to the selection of Elamasthans from 10 families to the Committee, one each from a family, both sides furnished the names, and the District Judge, after having an enquiry and hearing the counsel on both sides, approved the selection of 10 persons. Ext.P8 is the order passed by the learned District Judge. Selection made by the District Judge of Elamasthans of 5 families which had been disputed in the enquiry, is challenged in W.P.(C) No.18590/09. Meanwhile, on the constitution of the Committee of 20 members consisting of the 10 Karanavans and 10 Elamasthans selected by the District Judge in consonance with the directions given under Ext.P4 judgment under the supervision of the Special Commissioner, an election was conducted to elect the office bearers of that Committee. Though the election was conducted by virtue of the orders passed in this petition the declaration of results was ordered to be kept in abeyance, and the election results have not been announced so far. Even now, the previous Committee, under the supervision of the Special Commissioner continues in 6 management of the temple. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. Having regard to the fact that selection of the 10 Elamasthans from the 10 families was made by the learned District Judge by way of a preliminary enquiry, that too based on the directions issued by this court under Ext.P4 judgment it is contended that there was no adjudication over the disputes as to who should be the Elamasthan of a family but only a preliminary finding. It appears there is some force in the contention because the enquiry which was directed to be conducted by the District Judge under Ext.P4 judgment was only preliminary and not by giving notice to all members of the ten families whose interests are involved in the selection and also the administration of the temple. In view of the limited scope to go into such disputed questions as regards the selection of Elamasthans made in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it is appropriate to reserve the right of the parties to seek appropriate relief in case they have any serious dispute as regards the selection of Elamasthans made under Ext.P8 order on the basis of Ext.P4 judgment before the appropriate forum. But, after hearing the 7 counsel on both sides at length and perusing Ext.P4 judgment, I find it is not open to any of the contesting parties in the present proceedings to raise any objection as to the selection of Sri.Viswanathan as an Elamasthan of Cheriyakotta family since it is seen from Ext.P4 judgment that both sides had conceded before this court that he is the eldest member of that family after the Karanavan Sri.Chakrapani. So much so, with respect to the selection of Sri.Viswanathan, 5th respondent, it is not open to any of the parties in the proceedings to reopen that issue. Likewise, the challenge made against the selection of 7th respondent from Valiyakotta family, namely C.P.Sethu Nathan, raising a contention that one Raju, ought to have been selected, cannot be reagitated by any of the parties in the proceedings since Raju is not a party in the proceedings. So far as the challenge raised against the selection of Elamasthan from Varuvilakom family, namely, A.Krishnankutty, it is seen in the light of Ext.P4 judgment, recognizing Reghuthilakam as the Karanavan of the family, that question cannot be reopened. If at all, any of the parties in the present proceedings wish to challenge the selection of Elamasthan to the Committee, it will be confined to only two 8 members namely, K.Raveendranath(R3) from Chittatuvilakom family and C.Raveendran(R6) from Kizhakke Pandarathoppu family. So, I find, if at all any dispute survives with regard to the selection of Elamasthan from the respective families by the learned District Judge under Ext.P8 order by taking appropriate proceedings in appropriate forum, it has to be confined to and limited to the selection of two persons namely, K.Raveendranath from Chittavilakom family and C.Raveendran from Kizhakke Pandarathoppu family. So much so, this petition is closed reserving the right of the petitioner to challenge the selection of the above two Elamasthans included in the Committee, if so advised, before the appropriate forum for the appropriate relief. Needless to point out any other member of that respective families, including 11th and 12th respondents, can also agitate that issue, if they so desire, in accordance with law before the appropriate forum. 3. The election to the administrative Committee of the temple has been conducted by the Committee constituted in accordance with the directions given under Ext.P4 judgment by this court. The Special Commissioner appointed in 9 F.A.O.No.302/07, whose continuance was directed till a Committee is duly constituted for administration of the temple, has also to be relieved from the duties of supervising and attending to the day to day affairs of the temple. This court has directed for payment of a remuneration initially, Rs.10,000/-, per month, to the Special Commissioner, which was later enhanced to Rs.15,000/- with effect from 1.1.2009. The Special Commissioner has been functioning as such and attending to the duties assigned to him to the satisfaction of the members of all families who have interest in the temple for the last 1 ½ years. In token of appreciation of the meritorious services rendered by the Special Commissioner, which is recorded, in the fitness of things, I direct that a sum of Rs.50,000/- shall be paid to him out of the temple funds by the 1st respondent. Special Commissioner shall file a report to the District court which shall form part of the records of OS.46/1116, within a period of two weeks from the date of this judgment. Special Commissioner is also directed to announce the results of the election and the new Committee on such announcement shall take office and discharge its functions in accordance with the scheme as modified under Exts.P2 and P3 and Ext.P4 judgment. 10 Discharge of the Special Commissioner shall be subject to the orders passed by the District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, after submission of the report and accounts by the commission, as directed earlier in the judgment produced by this Court in W.P.(C).No.35085/2008. I make it clear that the reservation made enabling the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.18590 of 2009, and members of the Chittatuvilakom family and Kizhakke Pandarathoppu family to challenge the selection of the 3rd and 6th respondents respectively will not in any way affect the rights of those respondents to function as Committee members in the administration of the temple in any manner, but, that will be subject to any order to the contrary passed by a competent court. W.P.(C) No.18590/09 is closed subject to the above observations. (S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE) aks 11 S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp