IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2011 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 33029 of 2011(C) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- 1. N.PADMAN, S/O.ACHUTHA MENON, NELLANATTU HOUSE, ALAGAPPANAGAR.P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. T.R.UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN, THATTAYATHU HOUSE, ALAGAPPANAGAR.P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA SMT.RASHMI RAVINDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 680 001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 680 001. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AMBALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.682 315. R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ,SC,COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 33029/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 23.02.2008 SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE IST PETITIONER. P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23.02.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.3.2008 IN WPC.8895/2008. P4: COPY OF THE COUNSEL'S LETTER DATED 31.3.2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & C.T.Ravikumar, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.33029 OF 2011-c = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 14th day of December, 2011. Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.While the petitioners say that Cochin Devaswom Board has to act on Exts.P1 and P2, we see that they had obtained a judgment way back in 2008 (Ext.P3). We are not to issue repeated writs of mandamus to consider and dispose of representations. Experience shows that such litigations would only clog the justice delivery system resulting in docket explosion and leading to docket exclusion. 2.We also record the submission of the learned standing counsel for CDB that the temple in question is not one under the management of the CDB but a controlled institution. The question of WPC33029/11 -: 2 :- invoking the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act may, therefore, be a debatable issue. We do not think that we should generate any controversy on that aspect, as of now, since the petitioners, if so advised, would have appropriate remedies before the civil court. Without prejudice to the aforesaid, this writ petition is dismissed. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. C.T.Ravikumar, Judge. Sha/1512