IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 27TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 4626 of 2009(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ANIL KUMAR, AGED 40, S/O. K. RAMACHANDRAN, KOCHUPARACKLA HOUSE, KIZHAKKEKARA, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, (DEVASWOM DEPARTMENT), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THIRUVITHAMKUR DEVASWOM BOARD, REP. BY DEVASWOM BOARD COMMISSIONER. 3. DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, THIRUVITHAMKUR DEVASWOM BOARD. 4. DEPUTY DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, PATHANAMTHITTA. 5. DEVASWOM ASSISTANT, COMMISSIONER, KOTTARAKKARA. 6. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, P.O. MANIKANDESWARAM DEVASWOM, KOTTARAKKARA. 7. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, KULASEKHARANALLOOR SUB GROUP, THIRUVITHAMKUR DEVASOM BOARD. 8. THE BOARDE OF TRUSTEES, P.D. MANIKANDESWARAM DEVASOM, KOTTARAKKARA. BY STANDING COUNSEL FOR TDB SRI.K.N.VENUGOPALA PANICKER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.4626 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 16th February, 2009 J U D G M E N T Raman, J. The petitioner was the highest bidder in the auction conducted for the year 2008-09 in Kottarakkara Manikanteshwaram Devaswom for 'Nalikera Kuttaka Lelam'. But it is stated that on 20.1.2009, the authorities have removed the iron fencing and did not permit the devotees to break coconuts, as result of which, the petitioner could not collect broken coconuts on those days and thereby suffered damages. This being in the realm of damages, primarily, it is for the petitioner to satisfy that any loss is sustained by him, on account of alleged stoppage of breaking of coconuts, which itself is disputed by the Devaswom. Further, we are of the view that even if it is stopped for one or two days, it would not have resulted in any loss, since a devotee proposing to offer coconuts will necessarily offer the same on the next day or on the subsequent days. Any way, we W.P.(C) No.4626 of 2009 2 need not go into the merits of the contentions now. However, we find that this is not a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. nj.