IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 26TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 22684 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: PETITIONER ------------------------- K.P.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, ANJALI HOUSE, TANNEER MUKKAM VILLAGE, CHERTHALA, THE MEGHALA ORGANIZER, KERALA KESHTRASAMRAKSHANASAMATHI. BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE ADMINISTRATOR, CHALI NARAYANASWAMI, TEMPLE, TANNEERMUKKAM. 2. TRAVANKORE DEVSWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEVASWOM BUILDING, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.K.N.VENUGOPALA PANICKER, SC, TDB FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = == == = = = W.P.(C) NO. 22684 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2009. J U D G M E N T Raman, J. Petitioner is a resident of Tanneermukkam village. He claims to be the Meghala organizer of Kerala Kshetrasamrakshana Samithi and a devotee of Chali Narayanaswamy Temple, at Tanneermukkom. He seeks for a direction to the Travancore Devaswom Board to appoint the petitioner Samithi as the Advisory Samithi of the Temple and for a further direction to the respondents to form a temple advisory committee from the devotees of the temple. 2. As regards the first relief is concerned, petitioner has described himself as a devotee of the temple. The prayer as though he is the Organizer of a Samithi and to appoint such a Samithi as the advisory Samithi does not arise. The second prayer is for constitution of a Samithi of the devotees. But it is pointed out by the Standing Counsel for the Devaswom Board that this temple is not taken over by the Travancore Devaswom Board and therefore as such it is not a temple directly coming under the administrative jurisdiction of the Travancore WP(C) 22684/2008 2 Devaswom Board. He points out that a suit is pending before the Alappuzha Court, against the steps taken by the Travancore Devaswom Board for taking over the temple. In such circumstances, the relief sought for cannot be granted at this stage. However, it is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the administrator at present is not administering the temple properly and a receiver should be appointed. This prayer cannot be granted in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner can approach the civil court where the suit is pending for such relief. Without prejudice to such right of the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed. P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE) KNC/-