IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 17TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 3373 of 2008(B) ------------------------------------- OS.158/1998 OF PRL.SUB COURT,IRINJALAKUDA. .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- 1. M.GIREESAN MENON, S/O.MANGATTU SAROJINI AMMA, POST PERINJANAM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. A.RAVEENDRANADHA MENON, S/O.AMBATTU NARAYANI AMMA, POST PERINJANAM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI (SR.), SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. PRESIDENT, PALLIYIL BHAGAVATHY KSHETHRA SAMITHI, POST PERINJANAM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. SECRETARY, PALLIYIL BHAGAVATHY KSHETHRA SAMITHI, POST PERINJANAM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. ADVOCATE RAMESH KOOTTALA, RECEIVER, O.S.NO. 158/98, SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA. 4. ADVOCATE PRASAD, RECEIVER, O.S.NO. 158/98, SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA. BY ADV. SRI. R.D. SHENOI (SR.), ADV. SRI. P. VISWANATHAN, ADV. SRI. P. RAMAKRISHNAN, ADV. SRI.S.VINOD BHAT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/02/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.3373/2008-B: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN I.A. 135/2004 IN R.S.A. NO. 56/2004 DTD. 28/01/2004. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COURT OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE OF IRINJALAKUDA IN E.A. NO. 291/2004 IN E.P. NO. 23/2004 IN O.S. NO. 158/1998 DTD. 17/02/2004. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 IN O.S. 158/1998, SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA DTD. 21/01/2008. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN EXT.P.3. REPORT DTD. 23/01/2008. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE OF IRINJALAKUDA IN E.P. 23/2004 IN O.S. NO. 158/1998 DTD. 24/01/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== W.P.(C) No.3373 OF 2008 ===================== Dated this the 6th day of February 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred against the order of the Sub Court, Irinjalakkuda in E.P.No.23 of 2004 in O.S.No.158 of 1998 whereby the court granted permission to the Receivers to conduct 'Dravya Kalasam' by accepting the offerings made in this regard by the public and by making use of Rs.10,000/- from the funds of the temple. Aggrieved by this decision, Ooralans of the temple have preferred this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that as per order of this Court in R.S.A.No.56 of 2004, the delivery is stayed and there is a direction for the court to consider regarding the day-to-day administration and conduct of the annual festival of the temple. This order was passed on 28.1.2004. Thereafter on 17.2.2004, the learned Sub Judge passed an order whereby he appointed Adv.Sri.Ramesh Koottala and Adv.Sri.Prasad as Receivers. They were directed to be in-charge of the temple premises, properties, records, etc. They were also directed to conduct festival on 25.2.2004 in acceptance with the tradition for which they can take advise from the WP(C)3373/2008 -:2:- Thanthri, etc. There are also various directions given with respect to the management of the temple. Learned counsel then referred to Ext.P3 whereby the Receivers have filed a report before the court below contending that Thanthri of the temple, viz., Jathavedan Namboothiri had recommended the performance of a Dravya Kalasam before the festival starts and therefore they sought permission for the same. It was strongly objected to by the petitioners herein and the court after hearing both sides permitted the Receivers to conduct Dravya Kalasam by accepting the offerings from the public. They were also permitted to utilize Rs.10,000/- from the funds of the temple. Learned counsel for the petitioners very strongly contends before me that performance of a Dravya Kalasam is not a part of day-to-day administration of the temple with which the Receivers are entrusted and therefore the court below should not have granted permission for the same. On the contra, the other side would contend that Dravya Kalasam is performed for the purpose of compensating the Chaithanya Lopam and as it is strongly recommended by the Thanthri of the temple, it has to be done. I am informed that preparations are going on and Dravya Kalasam function is to start tomorrow for a period of six days. By Dravya Kalasam what is done is water is poured into the Kalasam and after uttering manthras, abhishekam is performed whereby it is believed WP(C)3373/2008 -:3:- that the sanctity of the temple and the Deity would increase. We cannot shut out the arguments of the other side that in the guise of these matters the Receivers shall be permitted to transgress the limit of the power and with the aid and connivance of somebody from outside, attempt to interfere with the real affairs of the temple. But, now a situation has reached where Dravya Kalasam is to commence from tomorrow. By performing Dravya Kalasam to the Deity it will only increase the sanctity of a divine atmosphere prevailing in the temple and it will not be dangerous to any of the parties. Therefore I feel at the 11th hour if the said function is ordered to be cancelled, that itself will lead to an unholy atmosphere which is to be averted. Performing Dravya Kalasam is to the Deity and is for the betterment of the temple. There is a faith in the community that it will result in better prosperity to the inhabitants and the devotees in and around the temple. Therefore I do not want to stall the performance of Dravya Kalasam which is to start tomorrow. 2.So far as the fund collection is concerned, 4 receipts are produced before me to show that persons, viz., (1) Puthenveettil Janardanan, (2) Hareesh, Perumpilly,(3) Maliekkal Indiramma and family and (4) Onattu Kamalakshy Amma and family had contributed Rs.10,000/-, Rs.5,000/-, Rs.30,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively totalling Rs.50,000/-. It is WP(C)3373/2008 -:4:- submitted on behalf of them that it is a voluntary contribution made by them for the performance of Dravya Kalasam and therefore there is no bar in utilizing that fund for the purpose of the said function. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition confirming the permission granted to perform Dravya Kalasam. But, I make it clear that the amount received from the 4 persons mentioned above alone be used for the performance of the same and no fund from the temple be deviated for the performance of Dravya kalasam. I also caution that when major issues like these are coming up it is desirable whether such things should be sanctioned automatically for the reason that there is a decree in favour of some other person regarding the entitlement to the management and ownership of the temple. I hope and wish the court below shall be very cautious when entertaining applications which go beyond really the 4 corners of the directions given in the order passed by this Court as well as a pursuant order passed by the Sub Court in 2004. I also feel that there will not be any further problem or complication for the performance of Dravya Kalasam. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/- WP(C)3373/2008 -:5:-