IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2008 / 7TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 1180 of 2005(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ VASUDEVAN NAMBOODIRI, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O. VASUDEVAN NAMBOODIRI, THRUSTEE, PALAKURUMBA BHAGAVATHI TEMPLE, P.O. OLAVANNA, OLAVANNA AMSOM DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK, RESIDING AT THIRUMANGALATH ILLOM, OLAVANNA. BY ADV. SRI.M.G.ASHOKAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS DEPT., CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS DEPT., CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. BY G.P. SMT.SMITHA SUKUMARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF WILL EXECUTED BY UNNI MOOSAD DT.20.4.1941. P2: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN A.S. NO.88/1996 DT.31.8.99 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE, KOZHIKODE. P3: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.26.11.04 PASSED BY R2. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.1180 of 2005 .................................................................... Dated this the 29th day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P3 order whereunder the Assistant Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. appointed an Executive Officer to hold additional charge for management of the Palakurumba Bhagavathi Temple. The petitioner is a hereditary trustee and Poojari of the temple. According to him, the temple is a private temple and therefore, H.R.&C.E. department has no authority to interfere with appointment including appointment of Executive Officer. However, it is seen from the counter affidavit that the civil court in O.S. No.308/1980 held that the temple is a public temple and so much so, the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. has supervisory jurisdiction vested in him under the Act. The Executive Officer is appointed on account of persistent refusal of the petitioner to pay wages to one of the employees. We see no ground to interfere with Ext.P3 order. The W.P. is accordingly dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge V.K.MOHANAN Judge