IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1ST ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 28203 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ADV.K.T.RAVEENDRANATH, TRUSTEE, SRI.MAMANIKUNNU MAHADEVI TEMPLE, MAMANAM P.O., IRIKKUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER, HR & CE (ADMN.) DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKODE. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HR & CE, KASARAGODE. ADDL. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (DEVASWOM) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (Addl. third respondent impleaded as per order dated 23.9.2008 in I.A.No.12201 of 2008) BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.Ravindran, J. ===================== W.P(C).No.28203 of 2008 ===================== Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is the Hereditary Trustee of Sri Mamanikunnu Mahadevi Temple. The petitioner appointed Sri.P.Muraleedharan as the Executive Officer of the Temple in exercise of the power conferred on him under Section 48(1) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. That was annulled by the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments (Administration) Department by Ext.P1 order dated 29.8.2008. By Ext.P1, the petitioner was also directed to take steps to appoint another person as the Executive Officer. The petitioner has challenging Ext.P1 filed Ext.P2 revision petition before the State Government under Section 99 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for short. The petitioner has also filed Ext.P2(a) stay petition in that revision petition seeking stay of operation of Ext.P1. 2. Sri.M.Ramesh Chander, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though Ext.P2 revision petition and Ext.P2(a) stay petition are pending, the official respondents are proceeding to initiate action against the Trustee for not giving effect to Ext.P1. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Trustee has WP(C) 28203/08 -: 2 :- the right to file a revision under Section 99 of the Act challenging Ext.P1 and that sub section (2) of Section 99 empowers the State Government to stay the operation of the order impugned in the revision petition pending disposal of the revision petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the Trustee has invoked the power of the State Government under Section 99 of the Act, it is only just and proper that till the revision petition is heard and disposed of further action against the Trustee for not giving effect to Ext.P1 is kept in abeyance. Per contra, Smt.Anu Sivaraman, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents submitted that as the Trustee has invoked the remedy available to him under Section 99 of the Act, it is for him to seek interim orders before the revisional authority. 3. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has filed a revision petition before the State Government challenging Ext.P1. It is also not in dispute that Section 99(2) of the Act empowers the State Government to pass an order staying the order impugned in the revision petition. As the petitioner has invoked a remedy available to him in law it is only just and proper that till the revisional authority considers the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P2(a) stay petition and passes orders thereon, the remedy available to him is not rendered infructuous by enforcing Ext.P1. 4. In these circumstances, I dispose of the Writ Petition with the WP(C) 28203/08 -: 3 :- following directions: a) The first respondent shall consider Ext.P2(a) stay petition and pass orders thereon within 10 days from the date on which the petitioner produces a copy of this judgment. Till such time, the operation of Ext.P1 shall stand stayed. b) The first respondent shall also consider Ext.P2 revision petition on the merits after notice to and affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. This shall be done within six weeks from today. c) If the petitioner is aggrieved either by the order passed on Ext.P2(a) stay petition or on Ext.P2 revision petition, it will be open to him to challenge the same in other appropriate proceedings. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 27/9