IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2009 / 9TH MAGHA 1930 RP.No. 750 of 2008(T) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.2264/2004 Dated 31/03/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------- HAREESWARAN NAMBOOTHIRI.T.M, S/O.LATE HAREESWARAN NAMBOOTHIRI, THOZHUVANNUR MANA, VADAKKUMPURAM.P.O, VALANCHERY, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. DR.K.P.KYLASANATHA PILLAY SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEVASWOM DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS (ADMN.) DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HIND RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS (ADMN.) DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHRITABLE ENDOWMENRS (ADMN.) DEPARTMENT, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, THOZHUVANNUR BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM, VADAKKUMPURAM.P.O, VALANCHERRY, MALAPPURAM. R1 TO R4 BY G.P. SRI. K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. -------------------------------------------- R.P. No. 750 OF 2008 in W.P.C. NO. 2264 OF 2004 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of January, 2009 O R D E R C.N. Ramachandran Nair,J. Review Petition is filed by the petitioner on the ground that his objection against proposal for appointment of non-hereditary trustee is not considered in the judgment. On going through the judgment, we find that we have considered the propriety of appointment of three trustees already made whose tenure was found to be getting over. In fact there is a specific finding in the judgment that appointment of non- hereditary trustees should be only from genuine worshipers of the temple. The case of the petitioner in the review petition is that respondents 1 to 5 have no authority to appoint non-hereditary trustees to the temple. This issue is not seen considered by this Court in the judgment. We therefore leave open this issue for the petitioner to raise as and when there is proposal for appointment of fresh non-hereditary 2 trustees in the temple. R.P. is disposed of as above. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. kk 3