IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 16TH BHADRA 1932 RP.No. 1236 of 2009(F) -------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.26298/2009 Dated 18/09/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 5 & 6 ------------------------------------------------ 1. THE CHAIRMAN, TRUSTEE BOARD SREE THRICHERUMANNA ALIAS KOTTIYOOR DEVASWOM, P.O.KOTTIYOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670651. 2. SREE THRICHERUMANNA ALIAS KOTTIYOOR DEVASWOM, P.O.KOTTIYOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 651, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR SMT.P.JAYALAKSHMI RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.C.VELAYUDHAN NAIR, HEREDITARY TRUSTEE SREE KOTTIYOOR DEVASWOM, P.O.MANATHANA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. 4. THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE. 5. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE. R1 BY ADV.SRI.D.ANILKUMAR R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS R3 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN,SC,MALABAR DEVASWOM THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. ------------------------------------------ R.P.No.1236 of 2009 in W.P.(C) No.26298 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of September, 2010 ORDER Ramachandra Menon, J. The review petitioners contend that the observation made by this Court while passing the judgment in the writ petition, though declining interference, that the 'minutes' have to be prepared in accordance with Rule 9 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (for short 'HR & CE Act') is not correct or proper in so far as the 'minutes' in respect of the affairs of the Devaswom have to be prepared with reference to and in the manner as prescribed under 'Clause 6(e)' of Annexure 1 Scheme which has been formulated by this Court in exercise of the powers under Section 62 of the HR & CE Act. 2. The writ petition was filed by the first respondent herein, who was a trustee, challenging Exts.P8 and P9 decisions, allegedly taken without obtaining the signature of all the trustees as R.P.No.1236 of 2009 - 2 - required under Rule 9 of the HR & CE Act. The matter was considered at length at the admission stage itself and interference was declined on merits, especially for the reason that the petitioner had not chosen to file any objection at the relevant point of time and that the matter did not require any intervention at the hands of this Court at the belated stage. However, while passing the said verdict an observation was made in the 'last paragraph' of the judgment, stating that the dismissal of the case will not absolve the requirement of Rule 9 of HR & CE Act to be strictly complied with and accordingly, the authorities were directed to look into the matter and if there was any irregularity, the same was directed to be considered and appropriate remedial measures were ordered to be taken. The learned counsel for the review petitioners submits that the said observation actually runs contrary to what is contained under clause 6(e) of Annexure 1 Scheme, which clearly stipulates that, it is for the Executive Officer to maintain all registers of the 'minutes' and the same shall be signed by the Chairman of the Board or the concerned trustee who presided over the meeting and that is R.P.No.1236 of 2009 - 3 - all. This being the position, the stipulation in the above judgment placed a hurdle in the effective administration and management of the proceedings of the Board, which is sought to be rectified. 3. Heard learned counsel for the respondents as well. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the matter can be disposed of making it clear, that the authorities shall look into the matter as to the preparation and finalization of the 'minutes' in accordance with law, also with reference to the terms of Annexure 1 Scheme. It is ordered accordingly. With the above limited modification, the review petition is disposed of. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge vns