IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 14TH MAGHA 1932 OP(C).No. 476 of 2011(O) ------------------------ OS.8/1958 OF DISTTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. G.VISWANATHA BHAT, S/O.GOVINDA VADHYAR, AGED 58, RESIDING AT SARASWATHI NIVAS, A.N.PURAM, KOZHEKKENADA, ALAPPUZHA. 2. G.RAJESH, S/O.GOPINATHA PAI, AGED 57, EAST GATE, GANGAVIHAR, A.N.PURAM, KOZHEKKENADA, ALAPPUZHA. 3. VENUGOPALA PAI.M., S/O.MADHAVA PAI, AGED 54, RESIDING AT SARADA NIVAS, NORTH GATE, A.N.PURAM, KOZHEKKENADA, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SMT.JAYASREE MANOJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. NARAYANA PAI, S/O.GOAPALA PAI, VAYALAPURAM, THURAVOOR, THIRUMALA BHAGOM P.O.-688 532. 2. RAMESH BABU, S/O.G.PADMANABHA NAICK, PADMAGIRI NIVAS, A.N.PURAM, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. 3. G.VINAYACHANDRAN, S/O.N.GOINATHA PRABHU AYODHYA, A.N.PURAM, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. 4. ALAPPUZHA ANANTHA NARAYANAPURAM THURAVOOR THIRUMALA DEVASWOM REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT-688 532. 5. S.RAJKUMAR, PRESIDENT, ANANTHA NARAYANAPURAM THURAVOOR THIRUMALA DEVASWOM, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ----------------------------------- O.P.(C).No.476 of 2011 O ------------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioners challenge the order dated 25th January, 2011 in I.A.No.720 of 2008 in O.S.No.8 of 1958 on the file of the court of the District Judge, Alappuzha. In the suit, a scheme was framed for the management and administration of Alappuzha Ananthanarayanapuram Thuravoor Thirumala Devaswom. 2. Respondents 1 to 3 herein filed I.A.No.720 of 2008 against respondents 4 and 5 for taking over the administration of the Devaswom. In the affidavit accompanying the application, it was alleged that after the committee took over on 26.4.2006, Mahajanayogam was not convened. It was also stated in the affidavit that the view taken by respondents 4 and 5 was that it was not O.P.(C) No.476/2011 2 possible to convene the Mahajanayogam for the reasons stated by them. It is alleged that there were several irregularities in the matter of administration of the Devaswom. Loss to the tune of several crores would be caused to the Devaswom was another allegation in the affidavit. 3. When I.A.No.720 of 2008 came up for hearing, respondents 4 and 5 (respondents before the lower court) submitted that the Mahajanayogam is scheduled to be held on 6.2.2011. Submissions were made by either side as to the convening of the Mahajanayogam. It was also submitted by the petitioners before the court below that a Commissioner could be appointed to watch the proceedings of Mahajanayogam and to report to the court as to whether the provisions of Chapter X of the scheme were complied with in the meeting. Both parties before the court below agreed to depute Sri.C.Parameswaran as the Commissioner. It was pointed out that the members who attend the meeting will O.P.(C) No.476/2011 3 speak in Kongini language and therefore, an Advocate who knows Kongini language was also deputed to assist the Commissioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is not necessary to appoint Commissioner to watch the proceedings in the yogam and if a Commissioner is appointed, it would cast a stigma on the credibility of the members of the yogam. I am not inclined to accept the contention put forward by the petitioners. The court below has only appointed a Commissioner to watch the proceedings and to report about the matters in the meeting. The appointment of the Commissioner was as agreed by both sides. The petitioners herein are three members of the yogam. Their interests were represented by the respondents before the lower court. No order causing prejudice to any right of the members was passed by the court below. The order passed by the court below is legal and proper. There is no jurisdictional error or O.P.(C) No.476/2011 4 error of law warranting interference with the order passed by the court below. The Original Petition lacks merits and it is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl