IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 34061 of 2010(G) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. RADHAKRISHNAN @ SASI, S/O. KESHAVA PANICKER, VAZHUVELIL HOUSE, MUNDAKAYAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. M.G. BALACHANDRAN, S/O. GOPALA PILLA, MATTAKKATTIL HOUSE, PERUVANTHANAM P.O., PERUVANTHANAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL V.MOHAMMED RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IDUKKI, KUILMALA, PAINAVU, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 603. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CIRCLE OFFICE, PEERMADE, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 531. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERUVANTHANAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 532. 4. MOHANAN NAIR, S/O. MADHAVA PANICKER, CHERUPADICKAL HOUSE, PERUVANTHANAM VILLAGE, PERUVANTHANAM P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 532. 5. K.N.RAJEEVAN, S/O. MADHAVAN NAIR, KIZHAKKEDATH HOUSE, PERUVANTHANAM VILLAGE, PERUVANTHANAM P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 532. 6. RAJMOHAN, S/O. MADHAVAN NAIR, KIZHAKKEDATH HOUSE, PERUVANTHANAM VILLAGE, PERUVANTHANAM P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 532. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.T.K. VIPINDAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.C.No.34061 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of November 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.JOSEPH,J The petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 3 to afford adequate police protection to the petitioners to attend the affairs of Peruvanthanam Vazhuvelil Sree Dharmashastha Temple. ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take immediate action against the activities of the respondents 4 to 6 in the light of the direction contained in Ext.P4 judgment and further to restrain them from carrying on any activities in Peruvanthanam Vazhuvelil Sree Dharmashastha Temple, without the orders of the Civil Court permitting such activities. 2. It is submitted that the entire dispute is regarding the management of affairs of a temple exclusively vested with the named parties and the members through them of Vazhuvelil W.P.C.No.34061 of 2010 2 family as per Ext.P1 partition deed. It is stated that the 1st petitioner's mother was entrusted by parties 1 to 9 with the management of the temple and on her death the 1st petitioner is conducting the daily Sankranthi Pooja. The 4th respondent has claimed himself to be the senior most male member. There is reference to civil suit and R.F.A.No.653/2007 before this Court and a Final Decree Application preferred by the 4th respondent. There is also reference to Ext.P4. 3. It is further stated that in October 2010, the petitioners reliably understood that respondents 4 to 6 are again planning for yet another Bhagavatha Sapthaha Yagnam in the temple overlooking Ext.P4. The 2nd petitioner preferred a petition before respondents 2 and 3 stating that any act by respondents 4 to 6 in the temple is against Ext.P4 as there are no orders from any of the Courts permitting them to manage the affairs of the temple or conduct poojas including ceremonies therein (Ext.P5). It is on this allegation that the petitioners are before us. 4. We have heard Adv.Sri.Sunil V. Mohammed, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Petitioners claim that Ext.P4 is a judgment in a writ petition praying for police protection. It W.P.C.No.34061 of 2010 3 is made clear in the judgment that it is open to the appropriate forums to examine the respective rights of the parties and that no party has been conferred with any special authority by this Court in the management of the affairs of the temple and it is for the parties, in case of any dispute, to seek appropriate clarification from the civil court. 5. We think that this judgment cannot avail the petitioners to contend that this Court should direct police protection to be granted or direct the police to take action. If the petitioners are aggrieved, it is for the petitioners to seek appropriate orders from the competent civil courts and thereupon to seek further orders of police protection from the civil court. In such circumstances, without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to seek appropriate relief before appropriate forum, this writ petition is dismissed. (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge W.P.C.No.34061 of 2010 4 W.P.C.No.34061 of 2010 5 K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 30/082010