IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL TUESDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2011 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 30153 of 2011(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- G.HARIDASAN POTTI,AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.LATE GOPALAKRISHNAN POTTI,SREEHARI MADOM, PERUMON.P.O,PERINADU,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW SRI.K.S.HARIDAS SRI.V.RENJITH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,KOLLAM CITY, KOLLAM-691001. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNDRA KUNDRA CIRCLE,KOLLAM DISTRICT-691506. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,ANCHALAMMOODU POLICE STATION,KOLLAM-691001. 4. S.R.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR,PRESIDENT, PERUMON KOIKKAMUKKATHU BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE, RESIDING AT LAKSHMI VILASOM,CHITTAYAM,PERUMON, KOLLAM-691006. 5. T.V.RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI,SECRETARY, PERUMON KOIKKAMUKKATHU BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE, RESIDING AT THAYYIL HOUSE,PERUMON,KOLLAM, PIN-691006. ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI FOR R4-5 SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M.K.ABOOBACKER FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENSIX: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22-8-2007 IN OS. No. 180 OF 2005 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 6-8-2010 IN aA.S. No. 208 OF 2007 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2-11-2011 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R4(A) TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF REGULAR SECOND APPEAL DT. 13-10-2010 BEFORE THIS COURT. EXT.R4(B) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 7-9-2007 ISSUED BY THE THANTHRI PUTHILLAM NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI EXT.R4(C) TRUE COPY OF REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE MANAGER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THEDEVASWOM DT. 12-10-2007 EXT.R4(D) TRUE COPY OF MEMO DT. 15-10-2007 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER EXT.R4(E) TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DT. 15-12-2007 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE TEMPLE. EXT.R4(F) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DT. 19-6-2008 OF THE MANAGER EXT.R4(G) TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DT. 5-3-2008 SU8BMITTED BY THE CONVENOR OF THE TEMPLE FESTIVAL COMMITTEE EXT.R4(H) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 19-6-2008 EXT.R4(I) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 18-9-2008 OF THANTHRI PUTHILLAM NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI EXT.R4(J) TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DT. 25-2-2011 EXT.R4 (K) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DT. 21-2-2011 ISSUED TO THEPETITIONER. EXT.R4(L) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DT. 15-3-2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER EXT.R4(M) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DT. 13-6-2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER EXT.R4(N) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DT. 21-2-2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. (TRUE COPY) PS TO JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C). No. 30153 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The petitioner who claims to have been working as the Melsanthi of Perumon Koikkamukkathu Bhagavathy Temple at Perumon in Kollam District has filed this writ petition seeking police protection directions for his life as well as for the purpose of his duties as the Melsanthi against respondent Nos. 4 and 5 who are respectively the President and Secretary of the administration of the temple. According to the petitioner, the Munsiff Court, Kollam has recognised him as the Melsanthi of the temple and has injuncted respondent Nos. 4 and 5 from overthrowing him from the post of Melsanthi of the temple. This injunction decree was passed by the Munsiff Court on evaluating the evidence which consisted mainly of Exts.A1 to A12 documents and his own oral evidence as PW1. He submits WP(C).30153/11 -2- that the second additional District Court, Kollam considered an appeal which preferred by respondents 4 and 5 against Ext.P1 and dismissed the appeal confirming the findings entered in Ext.P1 regarding his Melsanthiship in the temple. According to him, Ext.P2 judgment and decree passed by the District Court has attained finality. Nevertheless, respondents 4 and 5 are obstructing his performance of his duties as the Melsanthi of the temple. They are constantly threatening him with danger to life and limbs, as a result of which he is finding it difficult to perform his duties as Melsanthi. He states that unless suitable directions of police protection are issued as prayed for by him in the writ petition, it will be extremely difficult for him to perform his functions. 2. The party respondents 4 and 5 have filed a detailed counter affidavit producing documents Ext.R4(a) to Ext.R4 (n). It is contended on the basis of these documents that WP(C).30153/11 -3- the petitioner is not the Melsanthi of the temple and that he is not performing his duties in the temple. According to the counter affidavit, he has not been discharging his duties in the temple as Melsanthi and his idea behind filing the present writ petition for police protection is to escape from the disciplinary proceedings which have been initiated by respondents 4 and 5 against him on charges of dereliction of duties and other serious charges. It is also contended that the petitioner's claim that Exts.P1 and P2 has attained finality is not correct. It is stated that an appeal has been preferred before this Court as a second appeal against Ext.P2. 3. We have heard the submissions of Sri.Thomas Abraham, learned counsel for the petitioner. Thomas Abraham submitted that almost all the documents relied on by respondents 4 and 5 in their counter affidavit have been brought into existence after 2007. There are clear findings WP(C).30153/11 -4- in Exts.P1 and P2 that the petitioner is the Melsanthi of the temple in question. Even the second appeal which was filed by respondents 4 and 5 on 13-10-2010 has not been numbered yet. According to Mr. Thomas Abraham, so long as P1 and P2 are operative respondents 4 and 5 are not entitled to obstruct the petitioner in performing his duties in the temple as Melsanthi. Sri. B.Krishnamani, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 per contra would highlight before us the averments in the counter affidavit submitted by respondents 4 and 5. According to him, the petitioner's claim that he is the Melsanthi of the temple and is obstructed in discharge of his duties as Melsanthi by respondents 4 and 5 does not have even an iota of truth. The idea of the petitioner who has not been visiting the temple at all is to enter the temple under the cover of police protection directions which may be issued by this court in his favour. Issuing any police protection directions will WP(C).30153/11 -5- cause prejudice to the interest of the respondents in the second appeal which is already instituted before this Court against Ext.P2 judgment and decree. 4. The Senior Government Pleader submitted that practical difficulties can arise if this court issues directions to the police to render protection to the petitioner to perform his duties as Melsanthi of the temple. Melsanthi's duties are to be performed from the early hours of the day and only those police men who are Hindu devotees can be allowed entry into the temple. 5. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have considered the rival pleadings and the materials placed on record. Exts.P1 and P2 by which the respondents have been restrained from removing the petitioner from the post of Melsanthi of the temple contains clear findings regarding the petitioner's status as the Melsanthi of the temple. The case of the WP(C).30153/11 -6- petitioner is that he will not be able to perform his duties as Melsanthi unless police protection directions are issued as the respondents are illegally obstructing such performance by him. The case of the respondents that the petitioner has been deliberately abstaining from performing his duties is not at all probable but for the belated second appeal preferred by the respondents Ext.P2 has attained finality. Significantly the respondents are not moving even the application for condonation of delay in the matter of filing the above second appeal for orders. It is clear to our mind that the respondents should not be allowed to take shelter under the belated second appeal for denying the relief concurrently granted to the petitioner by two fact finding courts under Exts.P1 and P2. We direct respondents 1 to 3 to grant effective protection to the life of the petitioner and members of his family from threats if any of respondents 4 and 5 and people under them. If any complaint is received WP(C).30153/11 -7- by any one of those respondents from the petitioner of threat to the life of the petitioner or any member of his family from respondents 4 and 5 and people under them immediate enquiry will be conducted and appropriate steps will be taken for protecting the lives and limbs of the petitioner and his family members. 6. The first respondent either directly or through officers under him shall afford effective and meaningful protection to the petitioner to go over to the temple in discharge of his duties as Melsanthi in Perumon Koikkamukkathu Bhagavathy Temple in accordance with the findings in Exts. P1 and P2 judgments. The duty of giving protection will be entrusted with faithful Hindu Police Officers. We make it clear that in case this court in second appellate jurisdiction stays the operation of Ext.P2 judgment and the decree thereto, these directions issuing police protection to the petitioner for going over to the temple for WP(C).30153/11 -8- discharging his duties as Melsanthi will stand withdrawn. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (K. HARILAL, JUDGE) ksv/-