Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA MONDAY, THE7H DAY OF OCTOBER201315TH ASWINA, 1935 WP(C).No. 21648 of 2011 (E) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- S.SUDHEESHKUMAR, S/O.SUKUMARAN ASARI, S.V.SADANAM, CHEMMANNIL, NARUVAMOODU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS.SRI.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER SMT.DAYA K. PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-01 2. THE COMMISSIONER,TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-01 3. THE DIETY OF MAJOR VALLAYANI DEVI TEMPLE REPRESENTED BY THE SUB GROUP OFFICER TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, VALLAYANI THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 020.
4. NARAYANA RAMARU, ATHIYARA MADOM, VANCHIYOOR SREE RANJINI, TC.NO.27/1120, AMBANAGAR VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035. (*)ADDL.R5 SHRI SATHEESAN, S/O.PONNAPPAN ACHARI MOOTHAVATHI, MAJOR VELLAYANI DEVI TEMPLE, VELLAYANI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695020. (*)ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT NO.5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED2006/2012. R,R1-3 BY ADV. SRI.G.BIJU R,R4 BY ADV. SRI.J.S.AJITHKUMAR RADDL.R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVEENDRAN PILLAI RADDL.R5 BY ADV. SMT.INDIRA RAVEENDRAN RADDL.R5 BY ADV. SMT.R.DEVI SHRI R1 & 2 BY ADV. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU, SC, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD R1-R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRI, SC, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD R BY SRI.G.BIJU,SC,TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON0710-2013, ALONG WITH WPC. 27719/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC216482011 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THANTHRA SAMACHAYAM. DATED NIL. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED143.2001 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED106.2006 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED66.2006 EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED2807/2011 EXTS.PRODUCED ALONG WITH REPLY AFFIDAVIT EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.31/3/1851 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.18/3/1853 EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DT.30/06/2011 EXT.P7(a) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.ROC.9810/11/PIO DT.13/7/2011 EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DT.12/11/2004 EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF PURASKARAM DT.1/8/2006 EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF HONOUR DT.25/8/2006 EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DT.6/7/2010 EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF ROC NO.5144/90/N.S DT.20/2/2002 EXT.P13 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT.25/1/2011 EXT.P14 COMPLAINT OF THE TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE DT.30/3/2008 EXT.P15 TRUE COPY OF ORDER
NO.53 DT.30/3/2008 OF THE SUB GROUP OFFICER EXT.P16 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.ROC663612/PR/PIO DT.21/7/2010 ALONG WITH LETTER DT.23/7/2012 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, TDB. EXT.P16(a) TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DT.28/06/2012 SUBMITTED BY THE SUDEVAN K.BEFORE THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, TDB. EXT.P17 TRUE COPY OF EXTRACT OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE ALLEGED PADITHARAM DT.10/12/2012 TRUE COPY OF FIXED DEPOSIT RECEIPT DT.19/12/2012 PRODUCED ALONG WITH MEMO DT.7/1/2013. RESPONDENTS' EXTS: EXT.R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THIRUVAI PRASNAM CONDUCTED DURING JANUARY2011 EXT.R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE DEVOTEES WPC216482011 EXT.R4(a) TRUE COPY OF EXTRACT OF STANDARD PADITHARAM OF TDB EXT.R4(b) TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DT.15/12/89 EXT.R4(c) TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DT.16/3/10 EXT.R4(d) TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT
DT.7/7/2006 IN WPC171992006 OF THIS COURT. ms \\True copy// P.A to Judge T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & B.KEMAL PASHA, JJ.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C).Nos.21648/2011 & 27719/2012 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 7th day of October, 2013
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair, J.
Both these writ petitions are filed by the respective petitioners raising various complaints in connection with certain affairs of the Vellayani Devi Temple which is a major Temple under the Travancore Devaswom Board.
2. W.P.(C).No.21648/2011 is filed seeking for a main relief to quash the appointment of the fourth respondent as Thantri. The petitioner is also seeking for a declaration that in view of the rites, rituals, customs and usage practiced from time immemorial the concept of Thantric pooja and Thantri is quite alien to the said Temple. Similar prayers have been made as reliefs (c) to (e).
3. As far as W.P.(C).No.27719/2012 is concerned, the same is filed by a sub priest, namely, Ilayavathi of the very same Temple and his main objection is with regard to the conduct of Pariharakriyas as per Ext.P5 Astamangala Devaprasna Charth and he is seeking for a direction commanding the respondents to refrain from enforcing the W.P.(C).Nos.21648/2011 & 27719/2012 -:2:- recommendations in the Devaprasna Charth without considering the objections to the same as contained in Ext.P4 representation of the petitioner.
4. We heard learned counsel on both sides.
5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C). No.21648/2011, the Temple was established by an ascetic person by name Shri Kelan Kulasekhara Vathi from the Blacksmith caste of Vellayani Taluk. The hyms, rites and rituals of the Devi Temple are distinct and different from those which are followed in other parts of the State. It is contended that the senior priest-Moothavathi and junior priest-Ilayavathi alone are entitled to conduct poojas in the Temple and therefore, the fourth respondent, Thantri has no right to conduct poojas in the Temple. The petitioner also relies upon the averments in the counter affidavit of the Travancore Devaswom Board as well as the report of the learned Ombudsman to contend that the Thantri has nothing to do with the affairs of the Temple. In the counter affidavit filed by the Thantri, these contentions have been opposed. It is submitted that as per the 'Standard Paditharam' the Thantri has got some rights which are being adhered to by them. W.P.(C).Nos.21648/2011 & 27719/2012 -:3:- 6. Learned counsel Shri K.Karthikeya Panicker appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.21648/2011 further submitted that in the light of the stand taken by the Board and the learned Ombudsman, this Court may direct the Thantri not to perform any rites in the temple. We are of the view that unless it is established that the custom and usage followed in the Temple cannot admit the poojas of the Thantri, this Court may not be justified in issuing any such direction. What is projected by the Travancore Devaswom Board is that the Thantri is not an appointee under the Board and the learned Ombudsman has only gone to that extent, going by the report. Therefore, in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court will not be justified in going into the disputed questions of facts as far as the right to conduct poojas and rites by the Thantri or exclusively by the Moothavathi and Ilayavathi. Therefore, we refrain from issuing any directions as sought for and the petitioner will have to resort to other remedies.
7. As far as W.P.(C).No.27719/2012 is concerned, we have already noticed that the petitioner's objections are with regard to the conduct of Astamangala Devaprasna-Pariharakriyas. It is submitted by the learned W.P.(C).Nos.21648/2011 & 27719/2012 -:4:- counsel for the Thantri that already Astamangala Devaprasna- Pariharakriyas have been conducted which the learned Standing Counsel for the Board also confirm. Therefore, no direction can be granted as sought for.
8. The writ petitions are disposed of as above. It is made clear that we have not expressed anything on the merits of the matter. No costs. Sd/- (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge) Sd/- (B.Kemal Pasha, Judge) ms