IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2008 / 3RD MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 37632 of 2007(E) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------------- 1. O.P. SANKARAN NAMBOODIRIPAD PATTISSERI ILLOM,CHATHAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE. 2. D.A.MOHANRAJ, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF TRUSTEES ANNAYAMKUNNU SREE KRISHNA TEMPLE, KUMARANELLOOR P.O.,KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SMT.T.RESMI DAMODARAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE (DEVASWOMS) DEPARTMENT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, HR & CE, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE MANAGER, ANNAYAMKUNNU SREE KRISHNA TEMPLE KUMARANELLOOR P.O., KOZHIKODE. 4. D.RUKMINI PULPARAMBIL HOUSE, PO. KUMARANELLOOR, (VIA) MUKKAM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL SIVARAMAN R4 BY ADV. SRI.HARIKRISHNAN RAVINDRAN BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.37632/2007 E APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF M.P.5 OF 2005 BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 08/11/2006 IN M.P.NO.5/2005. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 13/07/07 IN WP(C) NO. 31791/2007. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 14/08/07 IN W.A.NO.2021/2007. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 19/11/2007 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. 4TH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R4(A): COPY OF THE SSLC BOOK OF R4. EXT.R4(B): COPY OF THE OBJECTION DTD. 21/07/06 SUBMITTED BEFORE COMMISSIONER. EXT.R4(C): COPY OF THE EMPLOYEES REGISTRAR. EXT.R4(D): COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DTD. 30/11/2006. EXT.R4(E): COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DTD. 16/08/2007. EXT.R4(F): COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 19/10/2007. EXT.R4(G): COPY OF THE REVISION DTD. 19/10/2007. EXT.R4(H): COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DTD. 26/10/2007. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.37632 of 2007 ------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT The dispute in this case relates to appointment of the 4th respondent in the writ petition in the Annayamkunnu Sreekrishna Temple. The petitioner contends that the post of Kazhakam is a hereditary one. Therefore, the 4th respondent is not entitled to carry on as Kazhakam. The petitioner herein moved the 2nd respondent vide Ext.P1, which was allowed under Ext.P2 order dated 8.11.2006. The same was challenged by the 4th respondent in W.P.(C) No.31791/07 which was disposed of relegating the petitioner to the alternate remedy under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The prayer made by the petitioner to retain the status prevailing prior to the date of Ext.P2 was considered and negatived and it was held that the finding made by the competent authority should remain in force. Ext.P3 was carried in appeal in W.A.No.2021/07 before the Division Bench. The modification effected was to the following effect: W.P.(C).NO.37632/07 :: 2 :: “Counsel for the appellant submitted that she is performing the duties of “Kazhakom”. If that be so, she may continue to do such duties till the revision is finally disposed of.” 2. In effect, therefore, if the petitioner was continuing as kazhakam as on 14.8.2007, then she (4th respondent herein) was permitted to do so, till the disposal of the revision to be filed before the Government. 3. The 4th respondent preferred a revision before the Government within the time stipulated. The same has been allowed under Ext.P5 order passed by the Government. Ext.P5 has been challenged in this writ petition by the petitioner. 4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Smt.Resmi Damodaran and learned Government Pleader and learned counsel for the 4th respondent Sri.Harikrishnan Ravindran. 5. I do not propose to go into the rival contentions of the parties, for, admittedly Ext.P5 was passed by the Government without notice to the petitioner herein. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the 4th respondent that the petitioner were not parties to the writ petition filed by her W.P.(C).NO.37632/07 :: 3 :: and therefore, the petitioner were not heard. ExtP5 is, therefore, unsustainable. The question relates to prior to the status to be maintained pending fresh hearing and disposal of the revision petition by the Government. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P2 had been implemented. The 4th respondent is only required to discharge the duties of sweeper and not that of Kazhakam, it is contended. 7. It is difficult for this court to enter a finding as to the nature of the duties carried on by the 4th respondent on the date of judgment of the Division Bench, Ext.P4. The parties have a serious dispute regarding this aspect. At any rate, such continuance can only be till the Government takes a fresh decision on the revision filed by the 4th respondent. 9. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms: (1) Ext.P5 is set aside. (2) The commissioner, 2nd respondent shall issue notice to the petitioner herein in Ext.R4(e) read with Ext.R4(g) revision within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. W.P.(C).NO.37632/07 :: 4 :: (3) 1st respondent Government shall, after hearing all the parties, take a fresh decision on the said revision in accordance with law. (4) The revision shall be disposed of within 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment . (5) In the meanwhile, the 1st respondent shall hear the parties, on the limited issue as to the nature of the duties being carried on by the 4th respondent herein as on 14.8.207, the date of the judgment of the Division Bench and render a finding in that regard within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the parties. (6) The finding to be so rendered by the Government on the aforementioned limited aspect shall not govern the disposal of the petition and shall only be treated as an interlocutory finding. (7) Status quo prevailing as regards the 4th respondent shall continue till the Government takes a decision as directed in Clause 5 and it will be subject to the orders to be passed by the Government in the manner aforementioned. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy//