IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 30TH AUGUST 2010 / 8TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 26944 of 2010(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SREE PULINKAVU AYYAPPA KSHETRA PUNARUDHARANA COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE MEMBER, NARAYANANKUTTY M., AGED 37, S/O.KUNJUNNY, MANGATTIL HOUSE, PUNCHAPADAM P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEVASWOM DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, KOZHIKODE-673005. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE-673005. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, PALAKKAD-678001. 5. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SREE PULINKAVU AYYAPPA KSHETRAM, PUNCHAPADAM, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678001. 6. THE INSPECTOR, OTTAPALAM DIVISION, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, CHERUPULASSERY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678001. 7. GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O.RAMANKUTTY GUPTAN, ERAKATTIL, PUNCHAPADAM P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678001. R1 BY SHRI.LAKSHMI NARAYAN R2 TO R6 BY SHRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- WP(C) No.26944 of 2010-P ------------------------------------------------- Dated 30th August 2010 Judgment The petitioner is the Kshetra Punarudharana Committee of the Sree Pulinkavu Ayyappa Temple at Punchapadam in Palakkad district. It is a temple coming under the control of the Malabar Devaswom Board. During the course of its activities as the Kshetra Punarudharana Committee, it found that the 7th respondent, who was a Clerk in the temple, was allegedly involved in various misdeeds, unbecoming of the office that was held by him. The petitioner filed a complaint before the 4th respondent. Ultimately, the Committee moved this Court. 2. Though the 7th respondent was not then heard by this Court, directions were issued to look into the complaint filed against him. Thereafter, the competent Authority under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, took up the matter and issued orders. WPC 26944/10 2 Now, the Devaswom Board/Commissioner has issued the impugned Ext.P5, whereby the 7th respondent is given the benefit of re-entry into service, also by treating the earlier period during which he was out of service, as eligible leave. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner took us through the various allegations and findings against the 7th respondent, we are of the view that when statutory provisions provide adequate and efficacious remedy, the writ courts would not interfere. In the Act governing the parties, there is a specific provision for revision to the Government. 3. Under such circumstances, we close this Writ Petition, without entering on merits and refrain from expressing anything, touching the allegations and findings as against the 7th respondent, however, requiring the Government to take up any revision that the petitioner may file and dispose it of without delay, at any rate, within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment and the said revision, provided, it is filed WPC 26944/10 3 within a period of three weeks from today. The Revisional Authority will also consider any request of the petitioner for interim orders, having regard to the gravity of the allegations and the fact that the 7th respondent had been kept out of being involved in the activities of the temple for quite some time now. Public confidence is of utmost importance, not only for punarudharana, but also for the daily running of any religious institution. The Government, even if it concludes that the 7th respondent is to be given employment, it has necessarily to decide as to whether he should be permitted to work as the Vazhipadu Clerk and also whether he should be given continuity in service, as if he gets a permanent status of employment. THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta/30.08. WPC 26944/10 4 WPC 26944/10 5