IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31638 of 2009(O) -------------------------- O.S NO. 1 OF 2006 OF DIST. COURT, QUILON ........................................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- G.VIJAYANATHA KURUP, THOTTATHIL HOUSE,PAYIKUZHI,OACHIRA. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. OACHIRA PARABRAHMA KHETHRA BHARANA SAMITHY,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, V.SADASIVAN,OACHIRA P.O. 2. N.SADANANDAN, RETD.DISTRICT JUDGE,RETURNING OFFICER, OACHIRA TEMPLE ELECTION COMMITTEE, KOCHUVEETTIL HOUSE,CHINGOLI P.O., ALLEPPEY DISTRICT. 3. G.MOHAN RAJ,ADVOCATE, ASSISTANT RETURNING OFFICER, OACHIRA TEMPLE ELECTION COMMITTEE, BAR ASSOCIATION,QUILON. 4. SREEDEVI AMMA,ADVOCATE, ASSISTANT RETURNING OFFICER, OACHIRA TEMPLE ELECTION COMMITTEE, BAR ASSOCIATION,QUILON. 5. R.BHASKARA KURUP, PANAMPLAVIL,THEKKEKOCHUMARI,OACHIRA P.O. 6. VIJAYANPILLAI,"AISWARYA", KADUVINGAL,VALLIKKUNNAM P.O. 7. DAMODARAN UNNITHAN, MALAYINKANDATHIL,NOORNAD,ALLEPPEY. 8. N.R.RAJENDRAN, NATESSERIL HOUSE,SOUTH KOCHUMURI,OACHIRA P.O. 9. S.JAYAPRAKASH,S/O.SREEDHARAN, KALARIKKAL,KADATHUR,K.S.PURAM P.O. 10. C.HARISANKAR,S/O.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, PADANILATH,SOUTH KOCHUMURY,OACHIRA. 11. PUSHPADAS,S/O.RAGHAVAN, CHAITHANYA,CHERUVALLY,KAYAMKULAM. 12. ASHOK KUMAR,S/O.NANU, CHATHAVANA,MADATHIL KARAZHMA P.O.,OACHIRA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.31638 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of November 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Writ petition is filed challenging the order passed in I.A No. 1932 of 2009 which was considered along with some other applications as well in O.S No. 1 of 2006, by the learned Additional District Judge, Kollam. The above suit relate to Oachira Parabhrahma Temple in respect of the administration of which the framing of a scheme was canvassed before the court. A series of writ petitions from time to time have been filed before this court by one or other parties interested in the affairs of the temple, before the institution of the present suit and also in the present suit as well, and directions/orders given in disposing of the proceedings relating thereto. In the present suit, pursuant to appointment of a W.P.(C).No.31638 OF 2009 Page numbers returning officer, an election was conducted for forming the administration committee to manage the temple. Till the framing of the scheme by the court, directions had been issued that the prevailing bylaws shall continue to be in force. It is not in dispute that after the election a committee has been formed. Present petition has been filed by one of the members of the sthani family contending that the administration committee has not nominated two members to represent the families in the committee. Challenging their nomination, I.A No.1932/2009 was filed before the court. That application considered along with other applications, all pertaining to the constitution of the administration committee in the election conducted under the auspices of the returning officer appointed by the court were considered by the court and common order dated 26/10/2009 was passed. The court below has negatived the objections raised by the petitioners in I.A No.1932/2009 holding that W.P.(C).No.31638 OF 2009 Page numbers there is no impropriety in the nomination of the two persons by the administrative committee elected for representing the sthani families in such committee. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one among the two nominated members is a member of the family but the other not so and both of them have interest animus to that of the family and so much so even the nominated member who belongs to the family cannot be considered as representing the family. The court below without going through the question whether they are competent to represent the sthani families and also whether they are members of such sthani families as well has dismissed the application moved by the petitioners in I.A No.1932/2009 is the grievance espoused in the writ petition. This court in a previous writ petition has directed the court below to dispose the suit as expeditiously as possible fixing a time limit, and also the period within which the entire election process has to be completed as well. Now the election process has W.P.(C).No.31638 OF 2009 Page numbers been completed and a new committee formed for the administration of the temple. As per the orders previously passed by this court that it can continue in office only as such extended period as ordered by the trial court. In the committee, that has to continue till a decision is taken by the trial court, two members have been nominated to represent the sthani families and they are incompetent to do so is the case presented in the writ petition by a member of that family. Whatever be the merit of the case canvassed by the petitioners, I find any enquiry on that disputed question by this court will only delay the further proceedings of the suit and that will eventually stultify the previous orders given in the writ petition and further obstruct the disposal of the case as well. Considering the grievance canvassed by the petitioner, I find the right of the petitioners to espouse the challenge raised in I.A No.1932/2009 that the two nominated members are incompetent to represent the sthani families in the W.P.(C).No.31638 OF 2009 Page numbers committee and any decision taken by them as representatives of the family will not be binding on them has to be left open for consideration in the final adjudication along with other issues arising in the suit. But I make it clear that the observations made above will not be taken as in any way preventing the discharge of such nominated members in the committee in their individual capacity or as nominated members in the committee. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv