IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2009 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35387 of 2009(P) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER : ----------------------- PAYYANNUR SREE SUBRAHMANYA SWAMI TEMPLE, REPRESENTED BY ITS BORAD OF TRUSTEES THROUGH ITS MEMBER, THEPPATH KARIPATH NARAYANA PODUVAL, S/O. KUNHIRAMA PODUVAL, AGED 58 YEARS, OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, SS TEMPLE, PAYYANNUR - 670 307. BY ADV. SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.R.SREEHARI RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE -20. 2. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PAYYANNUR SREE SUBRAMANYA SWAMI TEMPLE, PAYYANNUR - 670 307. 3. K.V. RAJAN, S/O. LATE KRISHNAN MOOTHA PODUVAL, AGED 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT MAHADEVAGRAMAM, PAYYANNUR - 670 307. SRI. K. MOHANAKANNAN, SC FOR MDB FOR R1 SRI. M. RAMESH CHANDER FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P.(C) No. 35387 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 9th day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT Ext.P1 is the proceedings of the petitioner terminating the service of the third respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the third respondent filed A.P.No.7 of 2009 before the first respondent, under section 49(2) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. Along with the said appeal, the third respondent filed I.A. No.14 of 2009 seeking stay of Ext.P1. A copy of the I.A. is Ext.P2. In the said I.A. Ext.P4 order has been passed by the first respondent staying the operation of Ext.P1, as a result of which the third respondent is enabled to claim reinstatement in service, pending disposal of the appeal. Challenging Ext.P4 this writ petition is filed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that prayer made by the third respondent was for a direction that the post vacated by him be kept vacant or in the alternative to stay operation of the said order. It is pointed out that although the tenor of the order is to require the petitioner to keep the post vacant, finally Ext.P1 itself is stayed leading to claim for reinstatement, which is illegal. W.P.(C) No. 35387/09 2 3. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent and Adv. Sri.M. Ramesh Chander appearing for the third respondent. 4. Although counsel for the third respondent submitted that in pursuance of Ext.P4, the third respondent assumed charge on 8-12-2009, on instructions, learned standing counsel for the first respondent submitted that the third respondent has not taken charge, as asserted on his behalf. It is stated that the second respondent was on leave on 8-12-2009 and the office itself was remaining closed. Having regard to the submissions thus made by the learned standing counsel, I am inclined to think that claim of the third respondent of having assumed charge on 8-12-2009 is factually incorrect. 5. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the effect of Ext.P4 order is that virtually the final relief itself has been granted which could not have been granted at an interlocutory stage. At this stage what was appropriate for the appellate authority was to have required the petitioner to keep the post vacant and thus preserve status quo, rather than passing an order enabling reinstatement of the third respondent. For that reason, I am inclined to interfere with Ext.P4 order. 6. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:- W.P.(C) No. 35387/09 3 1) Ext.P4 will stand set aside, however, it is ordered that the petitioner shall keep the post of Vazhipad Clerk held by the third respondent vacant, until the disposal of A.P. No.7 of 2009. 2) The first respondent, the appellate authority, is directed to dispose of A.P. No.7 of 2009 filed by the third respondent with notice to him and the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within six weeks of the production of a copy of this judgment. 3) In order to expedite the disposal of the appeal, as agreed by counsel on both sides, the petitioner and the third respondent are directed to appear before the first respondent on 18-12-2009 at 11 A.M. 4) The first respondent shall either hear the matter on 18-12-2009 or fix a date for hearing the appeal. 5) The petitioner to produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the first respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. mn.