IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2011 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1932 RP.No. 122 of 2011 --------------------------- [THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.22011/2009 DATED 10/11/2010] .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONERS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. RAMAN NAIR, AYYAPPANKAVIL KURUPATH HEREDITARY TRUSTEE, ALUR CHAMUNDIKAVU TEMPLE ALUR P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. PARAMESWARA MENON, ATTAYIL PALAKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PATTATHARA P.O., PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR), SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH). RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, REP.BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE ASST.COMMISSIONER, TIRUR – 678 001. 2. THE MANAGER, SREE PADINJARE MADOM DEVASWOM, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT – 678 001. R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN,S.C. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2011, ALONG WITH R.P NO.205 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` R.P. Nos. 122 & 205 of 2011 ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 18th day of March, 2011 O R D E R Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. These review petitions are filed by the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.22011/2009. They were not parties to W.P.(C) No.20571/2009. Yet the two writ petitions were heard together and disposed of by a common judgment. Hence, we had granted leave to the petitioners herein to file review petition as regards the verdict in W.P.(C) No.20571/2009. It is thus that R.P.No.205/2011 has come up. 2. The petitioners in these review petitions, Raman Nair and Parameswara Menon, and the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.20571/2009, Chandran M.A., are members of families who can claim hereditary trusteeship to the Alur Sree Chamundikavu Temple coming under the control of the RP.122&205/2011 : 2 : Malabar Devaswom Board. It appears that Chandran was accused of having not filed statements of accounts etc and in connection with such and other allegations, the MDB proceeded to remove the hereditary trustees and appoint a Trust Board. Notices were issued (Ext.P1 in W.P.(C) No.22011/2009). None among the three hereditary trustees objected to that. Ext.P2 in that writ petition was thereupon issued on 27-06-2009, directing an officer appointed as the executive officer to take charge and custody of the records of the temple from the said hereditary trustees. Thereupon, Raman Nair and Parameswara Menon issued Ext.P3 in W.P. (C) No.22011/2009 to the Assistant Commissioner, MDB. This was followed by another communication by Raman Nair to the Manager, who was appointed as the executive officer, volunteering to give charge. This document is Ext.P4 in W.P. (C) No.22011/2009. Ext.P5 is a communication, whereby the Manager appointed as the executive officer is shown to have written to Parameswara Menon, enquiring about the date on which the charge could be handed over. With these RP.122&205/2011 : 3 : materials, Raman Nair and Parameswara Menon instituted W.P.(C) No.22011/2009, seeking an order that Ext.P5 in that writ petition be enforced. It was pleaded that appropriate directions are required commanding to take over the administration of the temple and forming a new Board of Trustees for the administration. 3. Even before the institution of W.P.(C) No.22011/2009, Chandran had filed W.P.(C) No.20571/2009, challenging the Assistant Commissioner's decision dated 27- 06-2009, ordering take over of charge from the three hereditary trustees. There was no challenge to that decision by either Raman Nair or Parameswara Menon. 4. When the two writ petitions came up for consideration in the aforesaid context, the materials produced by Raman Nair and Parameswara Menon, along with W.P.(C) No.22011/2009, themselves were sufficient for this Court to reasonably conclude to its satisfaction that, Raman Nair and RP.122&205/2011 : 4 : Parameswara Menon, who were also hereditary trustees, never intended to continue to exercise any such right. They had clearly expressed their intention for an administrative board to be constituted for the temple. They volunteered to give up charge. After perusing the materials produced along with W.P.(C) No.22011/2009 and the materials available in W.P.(C) No.20571/2009, this Court recorded in paragraph 3 of the judgment sought to be reviewed that the two among the hereditary trustees desire not to continue as hereditary trustees, while the other hereditary trustee, viz. Chandran, challenges the direction of the Assistant Commissioner to take charge of the affairs even discontinuing Chandran from the officer as hereditary trustee. Based on the materials, it was ultimately noted that there was a communication in the form of Ext.R1(b) dated 16-01-2009 produced along with counter affidavit of MDB in W.P.(C) No.20571/2009. That is a communication by Chandran to the President of MDB, consenting to the constitution of a Board of Trustees with him as the hereditary trustee and with other four non hereditary RP.122&205/2011 : 5 : trustees. It may be remembered in this context that the materials on record include a representation by the public at large requesting for action to take over the administration of the temple. That is Ext.R1(a) along with a counter affidavit of the MDB in W.P.(C) No.20571/2009. With all the materials as noted on record and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the order sought to be reviewed was dictated in open court, ordering the MDB authorities and the petitioner in W.P. (C) No.20571/2009 (Chandran) to abide by what was recorded in that judgment in terms of Ext.R1(b) i.e, the letter addressed by Chandran to the President of MDB. Since the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.22011/2009 (Raman Nair and Parameswara Menon) were seen to have expressed their desire not to continue as hereditary trustees, it was ordered that they would be discharged of their duties and responsibilities in that regard. In these review petitions, the contention and argument in support thereof is that the statement in paragraph 3 of the judgment sought to be reviewed to the effect that two hereditary trustees (Raman RP.122&205/2011 : 6 : Nair and Parameswara Menon) desire not to continue as hereditary trustees is an erroneous one and not based on the pleadings or submissions. If we were to accept this, as a necessary corollary, we would be persuaded to vacate the last sentence of the judgment, whereby we had ordered that Raman Nair and Parameswara Menon be discharged of their duties and responsibilities as hereditary trustees. Having considered the entire materials and the pleadings on record and having heard the learned counsel for the parties on the different aspects of the matter, we find that the application for review does not stand. For one thing, the apprehension of Raman Nair and Parameswara Menon that the judgment essentially strips them of their credentials or office as hereditary trustees is quite misplaced. The suggestion that as a consequence of the judgment, there could be a public impression that they have been eased out of the affairs of the temple on allegations of corruption and mismanagement is also quite misplaced. The judgment sought to be reviewed does not rest on any particular allegation against the two RP.122&205/2011 : 7 : elderly persons Raman Nair and Parameswara Menon. Their existence as members of a family which may have ooranma rights (hereditary trustees) in relation to the temple is unquestionable. The result of the impugned judgment is only that they would not be participating in the management of the temple as hereditary trustees of that temple. They would also not have any right to claim, for themselves, any right to be hereditary trustees participating in any Trust Board that would be constituted for the temple. This, by itself, does not mean that any person who may succeed to either of them and who would acquire a right to be considered as a Hereditary Trustee would be in any manner affected by the judgment sought to be reviewed. All that is recorded in the judgment sought to be reviewed is that Raman Nair and Parameswara Menon had clearly expressed their desire not to participate in the affairs of the temple. This is the line in which the Board had also proceed with the matter and that is why the Board stood by Ext.R1(d) issued by Chandran and relied on that material before us. On such premise, we do not find any error RP.122&205/2011 : 8 : apparent on the face of the record of the judgment sought to be reviewed or any other ground on the basis of which these applications for review deserve to be allowed. In the result, these review petitions are dismissed. No costs. Sd/- (THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) Sd/- (P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE) aks/19/03 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge