IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 23RD AUGUST 2011 / 1ST BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 22880 of 2011(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.M.UNNIKRISHNAN NAMBOODIRI, SO.T.M.VASUDEVAN NAMBOODIRI, THEKKUMPARAMBATHU MANA, KARALMANNA POST, PALAKKAD - 679 503. (EMPLOYED AS MELSANTHI OF CHERPPULASSERY AYYAPPAN KAVU). BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SRI.SUMODH MADHAVAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO DEVASWOM AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE - 673001. 3. THE MANAGING TRUSTEE, CHERPPULASSERY SREE AYYAPPANKAVU KSHETHRAM, CHERPPULASSERY P.O., OTTAPALAM TALUK, PIN - 679503. ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN,SC,MALABAR DEVASWOM FOR r1, R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX (WP(C) 22880/2011) PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 30.1.2008 ISSUED BY MANAGING TRUSTEE, SRI AYYAPPANKAVU DEVASWOM, CHERPPULASSERY. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.6.2008 IN WP(C) 12505/2004 OF THIS COURT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.8.2009 IN WP(C) 21604/2009 OF THIS COURT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.2.2010 IN R.P.28OF 2008 OF THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 17.5.2010 FILED BY PETITIONER AND OTHERS BEFORE R1. lgk //TRUE COPY// C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 22880 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as a Melsanthi in Cherppulassery Ayyappan Kavu temple under the 3rd respondent. In view of the order I proposed to pass in this writ petition, I do not think it necessary to deal with the contentions in this writ petition in detail. Earlier, the petitioner has approached the second respondent by filing a revision petition in the matter of denial of 'vazhipadu vihitham'. The said request of the petitioner and other similarly situated persons were rejected by the second respondent as per Ext.P4 order. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P4 order the petitioner has preferred Ext.P5 revision petition before the first respondent under Section 99 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act(for short 'HR & CE Act'). This writ petition has been filed on being aggrieved by the delay in the matter of disposal of Ext.P5 revision petition. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent and WPC.22880/2011 : 2 : also the learned Government Pleader. Evidently, Ext.P5 is a statutory revision petition filed under Section 99 of HR & CE Act. Therefore, the first respondent is bound to consider the same and pass orders thereon in accordance with law. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5, in accordance with law, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge