IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/25TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WPC.No. 30806 of 2011 (A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S) ----------------------- K. THANKAMMAL, W/O.THANKAPPA CHETTIAR, RESIDING AT PANTHAYIL PARAMBU POLICE STATION ROAD, GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR-680 101. BY ADV. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON, SRI.JIBU P THOMAS, SRI.P.S.APPU, SRI.A.R.NIMOD. RESPONDENT(S) -------------------------- 1. THE GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYOOR P.O., THRISSUR-680 101. 2. THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, GURUVAYUR P.O., THRISSUR-680 101. 3. MALATHI, D/O.PARVATHIAMMAL, RESIDING AT PANTHAYIL PARAMBU KARAKKADU, GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR-680 101. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU, SC, GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM R3 BY ADV. MR.P.C. SASIDHARAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-12-2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WPC.No. 30806 of 2011 (A) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE MANAGER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DEVASWOM DATED 15/12/1966. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE EMPLOYMENT CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DEVASWOM DATED 18/06/2008. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE EMPLOYMENT CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DEVASWOM DATED 07/10/2010. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DEVASWOM DATED 03/12/2010. EXT.P5 COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE AUTHENTIC BOOK 'HEAVEN ON EARTH' CONTAINING THE DETAILS OF THE PETITIONER DATED NIL. EXT.P6 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 37662/2010 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 14/07/2011. EXT.P7 COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DEVASWOM DATED 15/11/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.R3A COPY OF THE SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHAVAKKAD. EXT.R3B COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE TALUK OFFICER, CHAVAKKAD. EXT.R3C COPY OF THE LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE DATED 22/06/2009. EXT.R3D COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM DATED 25/06/1959. EXT.R3E COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM DATED 11/08/1959. EXT.R3F COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM DATED 30/11/1966. EXT.R3G COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM DATED 15/12/1966. EXT.R3H COPY OF THE LEGAL OPINION GIVEN BY THE STANDING COUNSEL OF THE GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM. EXT.R3I COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 15/11/2011. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.30806 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. One of the most revered offerings to Lord Guruvayurappan in Sreekrishna Temple, Guruvayur is `Enna Abhishekam'. Gingelly oil is used for that purpose. It appears that from time immemorial the required oil was being brought by the devotees. Going by the materials on record, sometime before or after 1959, Guruvayur Devaswom wanted to take control over the manner in which Gingelly oil is supplied. May be that, this came for different reasons, maintenance of quality, identity of source etc. Looking at the practice and matters affecting faith, one could see that the gingelly oil, given after Abhishekam, as prasadam, is used by the devotees not only for smearing on body, but also for consumption on the premise and belief that it has medicinal and other purifying properties. Obviously, maintaining high level of purity with identified source of supply, is the requirement of the devotees. 2. One Narayanan Chettiar and Muthu Chettiar were effecting the supplies. With passage of time, on the demise of WP(C).No.30806/2011 2 Narayanan Chettiar, the petitioner Thankammal was authorised to make the supply, in lieu of Narayanan Chettiar. When Muthu Chettiar died, his widow Chellammal continued to carry out his activity. This went on, on a 15 days rotation basis. Chellammal died in 1994. Nobody was given the right to make the supplies following her. Obviously, supply could not be stopped and the temple needed the supply. Petitioner-Thankammal continued to provide the entire oil required for `Enna Abhishekam'. This uninterruptedly continued for nearly 16 years. 3. On 12.11.2010, Guruvayur Devaswom Committee, took up an application by the third respondent Malathi, filed by her in January, 2007 and decided to permit Malathi to effect supply on 15 days by rotation along with Thankammal. 4. Being aggrieved by that, Thankammal filed W.P.(C) No.37662 of 2010. That was decided as per Ext.P6 on the sole ground that Thankammal, who was uninterruptedly carrying out the entire supply from 1994, ought to have been given an opportunity of pre- decisional hearing. It was specifically stated that all other issues are left open. Allowing that, Guruvayur Devaswom heard the parties and decided to allot 15 days by rotation to Malathi, the third respondent. WP(C).No.30806/2011 3 This is under challenge. 5. At the outset, we may say that the impugned Ext.P7 does not, on the face of it, reflect consideration of all the entire materials that were available on the files. The Bench was also inclined, to think at the stage of admission, to consider whether the matter requires a deeper look on the question whether appropriate decision making process has been undertaken. Therefore, the writ petition was admitted and an interim order was granted. 6. The third respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit placing different materials on record. All those materials are reflected as part of the appendix of Ext.P6 judgment, evidently, indicating that those materials were also placed before this Court along with the counter affidavit filed in that case. Obviously, this Court did rely on those materials, at that point of time, since Ext.P6 judgment was being rendered on an issue of absence of hearing. 7. Now, the relevant files of Guruvayur Devaswom were summoned and perused. Exts.R3(b) and R3(c) are available in that file. Ext.R3(b) is a legal heirship certificate, which shows that Chelllammal left behind, among others, Parvathy Ammal, a daughter. Ext.R3(c) WP(C).No.30806/2011 4 legal heirship certificate shows that Parvathy Ammal died leaving behind heirs, including Malathi, the third respondent. Ext.R3(a) is a succession certificate issued by the Munsiff, Chavakkad, empowering Parvathy Ammal to collect amounts on behalf of the estate of Chellammal. 8. While the learned counsel for the petitioner is justified in pointing out that the legal consequences and effect of the succession certificate and legal heirship certificate cannot determine or affect right to property, on the case in hand, what is relevant is only as to whether Guruvayur Devaswom was well advised, on the totality of the facts and materials on record, to reach at the conclusion that it had arrived at. Using the machinery of the Right to Information Act, the third respondent has obtained and produced R3(h), the legal opinion given by the standing counsel for Guruvayur Devaswom. We have read it. If only in making Ext.P7 order, the Guruvayur Devaswom Officials would have written that order appropriately, even by incorporating the relevant and enumerated views of the learned Advocate, this matter would not have reached this stage. On the basis of the attendant materials including the legal opinion on record with the Guruvayur Devaswom, we do not find any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the Devaswom having concluded on a contract matter, to recognize the WP(C).No.30806/2011 5 third respondent Malathi as entitled to supply gingelly oil on 15 days rotation basis, along with the petitioner Thankammal. We also see that the learned legal advisor for the Guruvayur Devaswom had clearly indicated that it would be appropriate that fresh agreements are taken from the parties so that any claim, as if there is an office of perpetuity, is not raised. It is directed that such agreement shall be insisted upon. 9. With the aforesaid, we do not find any ground to grant any relief to the petitioner, while we recognize the enormous dedication of her action as recognized in Ext.P5. For all those who treat Guruvayur as heaven on earth, such litigations are only trivial issues, which will ultimately not generate any animosity between Thankammal, Malathi and their brethren; for, we are sure, they would cling on in faith, belief and prayers to Lord Guruvayoorappan; Hantha Bhaghyam Jananam. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN Judge Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS/16.12