IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2009 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30163 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- N.NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRI, NEELAMANA ILLOM, CHENGANNOOR. BY ADV. SRI.D.SOMASUNDARAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, ARANMULA. 4. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, CHENGANNOOR. ADV. SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO 4 SRI.P.GOPAL FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.30163 OF 2009 (M) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T First respondent Board appointed the petitioner as Melsanthi in Chengannoor Devaswom on Karanma basis. According to the petitioner since 28.9.2009, he is not permitting to discharge his duties as Melsanthi. 2. The instruction that the Standing Counsel for the first respondent has obtained is that, on 28.9.2009, petitioner entered the Sree Kovil and performed Poojas and other attendant duties, without wearing the holy thread. It would appear that on noticing this lapse, the devotees raised a complaint before the Advisory Committee, which in turn took up the matter with the Administrator. It is stated that it was because the Advisory Committee and the devotees had taken objection, the petitioner could not discharge his duties as Melsanthi. It is also pointed out that from 28.9.2009 evening onwards the petitioner has absented from duty and another person from the family is discharging the duties of Melsanthi. 3. While the petitioner denies the allegations which are WPC.No.30163 /09 :2 : levelled against him, it is seen that the Administrator on receipt of the complaints had issued Ext.P2 memo to the petitioner and on receipt thereof petitioner has filed his objections vide Ext.P3. 4. Having regard to the nature of the allegations raised, it is only appropriate that the Administrator takes a decision on Ext.P2 in the light of Ext.P3. Once a decision is taken in the matter, if the decision of the Administrator is to permit the petitioner to discharge the duties, he shall be permitted to discharge his duties as Melsanthi of the Temple in question 5. The Administrator is directed to take a final decision in the matter as above on the production of a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 4th respondent. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 4th respondent for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/